Blood Libel

So the comity that followed last Saturday’s tragic shooting in Tucson lasted about…15 minutes. After Pima County sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s rash comments following the shooting, and after Princeton professor and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman’s blog in the New York Times (that proved conclusively that 1) an Ivy League education isn’t work a damn; 2) the Nobel Prize has been reduced to the same value as the runner-up green ribbon in a 5th grade spelling bee; and 3) The Times has lost all authority as a news source), conservative pundits fired back. Then came Sarah Palin.

Mrs. Palin posted a video statement about the shootings on her website. This was entirely appropriate because she had been singled out by some on the left as creating a “climate” of hate that allegedly motivated the shooter. Mrs. Palin’s mistake, which has supplied a full 24-hour news cycle for MSNBC (maybe in their case, an “opinion” cycle) was saying that the rantings on the left amounted to “blood libel” because they falsely implied that she and other conservative pundits were responsible for the bloodshed.

Mrs. Palin’s point was that by screaming that talk radio and Fox News had in some way inspired alleged shooter Jared Loughner liberals had libeled her and other conservative yakkers and commentators. Furthermore, she implied that liberals were taking advantage of the loss of life in order to demonize conservatives. In general, Mrs. Palin’s statement struck a kumbaya note.

But the term “blood libel” is a specific term in history that referred to Christian false claims in medieval times that Jews had engaged in the ritual use of Christians’ blood—often as an excuse to begin a pogrom. So the backlash from the left has been nothing but furious. Had it been someone else, the reaction from the left might have been less. But Mrs. Palin has long been an anathema for the left—a bright, articulate, attractive, pro-life, gun-toting feminist. And to use a popular political metaphor, their prime target on the right.

So rather than join Mrs. Palin in a brief truce, many on the left have chosen to continue the back and forth war of words. This is unfortunate.

Should Mrs. Palin have used a term different than blood libel? Yes. Should whoever wrote her speech have researched the historical context of “blood libel” before using it? Yes. But is this about an insensitive use of a culturally charged term? No. It’s about using Tucson as a way to further discredit Mrs. Palin.

Personally, I like Mrs. Palin. I don’t know if she’s presidential timber, nor do I know if I’d vote for her for president. But I can think of at least five recent presidents that I could say that about. And it won’t be a bunch of bloggers like me, or pundits like Mr. Krugman who will decide whether she’s got the chops to sit in the Oval Office. The American electorate will.

I’m not about to get into a he said/she said debate over who behaved more badly first. If you want to read a compendium of recent Democrat inflammatory bile about Republicans I refer you to James Taranto’s recent Wall Street Journal column.

But it’s time somebody plays the role of the adult in this political war. Time somebody refuses to cross the line. The fact that the country is so polarized isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Because ultimately we respect our institutions. You need only to have seen Nancy Pelosi symbolically hand over the reins of power in the House of Representatives to a humble John Boehner last week to know that neither side has a monopoly on good citizenship or fair play. But when we tolerate one or the other side crossing the line by pimping a tragedy then we’ve all started the slow descent into hell.

Just thought you might like to know.