Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Medusa

Sarah Palin has yet again demonstrated why she would be ultra-scary as President.

From the first time she set foot into the public eye, Palin has failed to take responsibility for one. single. thing. that she has said or done that was unwise, ill thought out, or a plain mistake. It's always "someone else's" fault or an attack by the media, or someone who is "unAmerican" attacking poor widdle Palin.

I am not personally asking her to take responsibility for the shooting in Arizona but the way she is shucking off her responsibility in helping create a chaotic, hyper-aggressive political environment (one where it's ok to put crosshairs on a map? REALLY?) is pretty gross and alarming.

If she just went on the news and said "Hey, I've thought about it and I dont think Im responsible for anything that happened in Arizona but I do realize that my "target" map wasnt a good idea and Im sorry" I would be able to see her as some modicum of intelligent or empathetic or sensitive. The fact that she is making her target map out to be one of "surveryors" marks and all of the sudden manufacturing "stalkers" so she is more sympathetic tells me that this person is not only arrogant but apparently thinks that the rest of the American public are idiots as well.

I smell a sociopath.

I would say something else is going on. Ms Palin, like a lot of Americans, has learned a lesson that has been hammered home for as long as I have been an adult and, perhaps, a little bit longer. If you are *oppressed* then you are not *responsible*. So the keys-to-the-kingdom are to claim oppression of some sort or another. That way, you are let off the hook--sort of.

We do it (and by 'we', I am talking about my fellow Leftists here). You can see it in almost any discussion of global feminism. If a white Christian man gets up in a pulpit and claims that the Christian Bible teaches that women should dress modestly and if she doesn't and is raped, that man will rightly be condemned as the apologist for sexism that he clearly is. Let the same words drip from the mouth of a Muslim imam in, say, Karachi or Tehran, and suddenly we, as Western feminists, are exhorted to 'understand' the culture or are told that different people have different standards or something else to say that we are wrong in the name of anti-imperialism. After three decades (perhaps more) of watching this play out in the real world, the American Right got the message and are now using it masterfully.

That is why theocratic Christians try to portray opposition to their anti-gay agenda and rhetoric as 'persecution'. Astoundingly, a nation where fully four in every ten Americans consider themselves a 'Bible-believing, evangelical, Christian' these very same people speak of themselves as a beleaguered minority. Companies acknowledging that there are OTHER holidays in December than Christmas is now a 'war on Christmas' and a 'war against Christians'. Why? Because it makes them appear to be victims and then anything they do is, ipso facto, morally pure.

There is more going on than that, though. Despite all the talk of 'freedom', American conservatism has taken a very authoritarian turn (and it was never particularly far removed from authoritarianism in the first place). Word goes from God to the pastor to the person in the pews. Sure, someone will make the passing verbal genuflection toward "look it up yourself" but the average authority in conservative circles--be they political or religious--knows for a certainty that the overwhelming majority of their listeners aren't going to look it up. Argument by fiat is enough. The pastor has a 'calling', he's 'anointed' and therefore he is right. The politician is a 'prayer warrior' and is also 'anointed' and so she is right. The one thing that can NEVER be done is admit to a mistake. They aren't made.

So Katie Couric asking Ms Palin "what newspapers or magazines do you read to keep informed" is suddenly a 'gotcha' question even though that is such a slow ball question that turtles zoom past it. Seriously, right now, see if you can come up with the names of three newspapers and three magazines you *might* want to read if you wanted to stay informed. You have, say, 30 seconds.

Chances are you came up with:

1) Your local paper
2) The New York Times
3) The Washington Post

For magazines you might have come up with:

1) Newsweek
2) Time
3) US News and World Report

Now, you may be thinking "well, I don't read any of those" and that might be true as far as it goes. But no one here had aspirations to be one 70+ year old heartbeat away from the Presidency. If you have aspirations to high political office, I don't think it unreasonable to expect you to read widely and to be able to name some things you've read.

Yet, Ms Palin portrayed herself as the *victim* of Couric and the mythology on the right is that this question was so out of bounds. Why? So she didn't have to admit that she was caught being a lightweight.


Cheers
Aj