Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek
Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?'
"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."
Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?" |
Like you and Ryobi, I'm unsure that this was 'dog-whistle' politics. [/QUOTE]
oh i didn't make it clear that was quoted from the linked story...i DO think this is Dog whistle politics. As soon as i heard about her statement i thought about GWB and how he'd mention the Dred Scott case to cue the religious right. I think Palin's use of the term blood libel associated with the media is meant to play on very ugly sentiments that associate the media with jews and Srah with Jesus.
it's too obscure a term to have been chosen at random, and too sloppy a fit to really be meant for the context in which it appears to appear