What Sarah Palin Is Saying
October 28, 2008
Sarah Palin has been unsurprising in her criticisms of Barack Obama's credentials and policies, fulfilling the traditional role of the vice presidential candidate being the most aggressive and pointed rhetorical attacker in a campaign. But a closer look at her deliberate use of vernacular and language reveals that she has gone far beyond any other candidate in vice presidential history in the dangerous and irresponsible implications of her attacks. She has phrased her attacks on Obama in a way that avoids accountability to the press while specifically addressing the subset of her audience who are most likely to advocate extreme actions against Obama.
The crux of the issue is simple:
- Sarah Palin has unequivocally associated Barack Obama with the idea of terrorism and specifically with "terrorists".
- Republican President George Bush has defined in our National Security Strategy, and the Republican Party's platform affirms, that we may identify and strike at terrorists before they have committed any defined acts of aggression against American citizens.
- George Bush has made clear, by stating before a joint session of Congress that "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
- Palin has used deliberate choice of language to avoid these connections being highlighted by the media, while increasing the likelihood that the target audience for her message will be incited by her statements.
Through these arguments, it becomes clear that Sarah Palin's assertions are designed not to prove that Obama is unqualified for the office of the Presidency of the United States. Rather, she appears to be attempting to convince a substantial portion of her supporters that Obama supports terrorism against the United States and thus should be, at the very least, incarcerated as an enemy combatant (which we are doing to American citizens already) or at worst, assassinated for supporting terror. She has done this knowing full well that she can retain plausible deniability thanks to the ambiguity of her statements as they'll be interpreted by the media, by her detractors, and by her more reasonable supporters.
Code Switching, Oprah, and Straight Talk
Palin has been hammering home this alleged link between Obama and terrorism for weeks. And there's a deliberate intellectual dishonesty of using the plural form of "terrorist" for describing what was meant to be an allusion to William Ayers alone.
But just as telling as her assertions is the way in which she phrases them. Obama is not consorting with terrorists, in her formulation, he's palling around with them. I'm not one of those overbearing language nerds who's chiding her for using informal speech; instead, I want to point out a deliberate and telling choice of grammar that she's employed.
Linguists use the phrase "code switching" to refer to the act of using more than one language when speaking. As someone who grew up in a multilingual household, I'm intimately familiar with code-switching, and one of the most interesting traits about the practice is not merely how easy it is for people to switch language on the fly, but rather how the choice of language actually informs the meaning and the nuance of the words being said.
This gets even more pronounced if we use an expansive definition of the idea of "code switching" and include switching between dialects of the same language. Then, we can look at some familiar examples to learn from them.
For example, Oprah Winfrey is an extremely successful businesswoman, obviously well-versed in the General American or Standard American English that's the language of business in this country. But Oprah regularly and effortlessly code switches to AAVE (also known as "Black English" or, to its detractors, ebonics) on her show or in various media appearances. Though her use of the dialect is clearly sincere and authentic, it's also obviously a savvy way to stay connected to audiences with whom she wants to maintain a particular resonance or credibility. In short, code switching is an efficient way to target a particular message to a particular group without explicitly telling the world that's who you're speaking to. The context makes it obvious.
We see George W. Bush do the same thing regularly, as well. No man who has an MBA from Harvard and grew up among the most privileged families in the United States can be unaware that "smoke 'em out" isn't Standard American English. That's not to say his use of folksy sayings is merely a put-on, but rather that it's a linguistic choice he makes in some settings, and with the same goal as Oprah: He's speaking directly to a particular audience in a way that resonates with them as credible, and signifies to others that they're not the target audience for his words.
In the case of Sarah Palin, this strategy has been taken to its logical extreme. Where John McCain used the phrase "straight talk" in his 2000 campaign to represent the idea of telling the unvarnished truth, without regard to the actual grammar of the statements themselves, Palin has changed the meaning of the phrase slightly. In her formulation, "straight talk" is not so much about the clarity of the points being made, but rather a signifier of the dialect in which she is offering up her talking points.
I'm not speaking solely of the North Central American dialect, though Palin's use of what's often referred to as "the Fargo accent" is of course one of her most distinctive verbal traits. In fact, you can see her attenuate how pronounced that accent is based on where and when she's speaking; In front of large crowds in rural areas it tends to be pretty strong, and when she's on TV with an interviewer (or on Saturday Night Live), she dials it back. Those attenuations are normal, and any of us who've ever done any public speaking in different circumstances know that we adapt our language to the audience we're addressing.
Others have criticized Palin for her language. I have no interest in taking her to task over the fact that many of her statements lack a clear structure or that she often reverts to rambling, run-on sentences. The truth is, coherent, cogent public speaking, especially trying to tailor one's speech to sound bites, is a difficult skill that must be practiced. I don't fault Palin for not being expert at it yet, and in fact even when her syntax is tortured, the general point she's trying to make is often still very clear.
Rather, the most dramatic technique in Sarah Palin's speeches is the use of vernacular to mask the seriousness of an assertion. Sarah Palin cloaks her ideas in "straight talk" to avoid them being subject to fact-checking that would happen if she were to use standard english to make the same points.
Saying It Plainly
Put simply, if Palin says "Barack Obama consorts with terrorists", she is making the assertion that he supports acts of violence against American citizens and the media will refute this obviously false assertion. If, instead, Palin says he "pals around with terrorists", she's used code-switching to mask the seriousness of the charge, obfuscating her meaning enough to get away with making an assertion that inevitably calls for the imprisonment or even assassination of a political opponent.
This clever use of language only hides Palin's meaning from members of the press. Because writers for traditional media are usually highly educated and pride themselves on their mastery of Standard American English, they can often look down on dialects like AAVE and North Central English. Instead these forms of language being seen as legitimate and interpreted in the social context where they've formed, they're dismissed as being the words of "people who don't even speak proper English!" In the cases where the ideas aren't outright dismissed, there is still rampant misinterpretation of meaning: Reporters wrongly see a term like "palling" as imprecise, when compared to a word like "consorting".
But these words are not imprecise to their intended audience. They are, in fact, clearer than using legalistic terms like "consorting". They amplify the urgency of the statements, and increase the sense for Palin's audience that they're on the same page with her, speaking a language too "plain", too full of "straight talk", for the press to understand. And they're right. Palin has consistently pitted herself against the media, depicting them as hostile and foreign to her campaign, and thus making it even less likely they'd take her less formal-sounding charges seriously.
On top of this, by deliberately omitting the word "domestic" as a descriptor of "terrorist" after its initial mention in her speeches, Palin has amplified the recurring theme of "otherness" that the McCain campaign and its surrogates have pinned on Obama. There is an unequivocal attempt to assign a commonality of purpose and intent between Obama, his supporters and campaigners, and terrorists who would attack Americans.
This is especially telling because "domestic terrorism" hasn't been raised, by Sarah Palin or anyone else, as an issue that the McCain campaign is genuinely concerned about. There has been no mention of Joel Henry Hinrichs, or Jim David Adkisson, or even Timothy McVeigh. There is not a single mention of domestic terror on the McCain campaign website except in reference to William Ayers. So it's impossible to assert that Palin is introducing this term to raise the issue of security for Americans; It exists only in the context of attacking Obama and inciting a specifically targeted subset of her audience to see him as deserving of imprisonment or violence.
I firmly believe that Sarah Palin is a smart, talented public speaker who makes deliberate choices about her use of language to elicit particular responses from different segments of her audience. She's college-educated and has been a professional broadcaster, understanding the nuances of addressing a large audience. She is certainly experienced enough to understand that signifiers like "hockey mom" and "Joe Six Pack" are explicitly communicating to an audience that is white, overwhelmingly not college educated, and lives in rural or suburban areas.
I know because I've been part of that audience. I grew up in an overwhelmingly white part of rural and suburban Pennsylvania, the very same place that many of these attacks are being leveled. I was coincidentally in Greensboro, North Carolina on the same day that Palin first talked about "Real America". I don't have a college education, and I've spent a lot of time around highly-educated professional writers working for the biggest media organizations in the world, and seen their attitudes about language, dialect and vernacular within our country. I've done enough public speaking myself to understand how important word choice, and use of slang, and choice of accent is when speaking to different groups. And it's obvious to anyone who knows American culture why Palin wouldn't identify as a "basketball mom" or talk about "Joe Forty Ounce". These things are not accidents.
So we see a simple pattern emerge:
- George W. Bush uses informal language like "smoke 'em out" when referring to targeting terrorists, setting the precedent of such terms being not only appropriate for the conversation, but in fact binding as policy.
- Bush, Palin and the Republican Party keep most media outlets on the defensive by consistently distancing the media with both fair assertions of bias and unfair attacks on the journalistic imperative to act as a check to political power.
- Palin sets a tone from her very first national speech where her deliberate use of vernacular explicitly connects her to rural white Americans.
- Palin defines Obama as linked to terrorism, ignoring the actual issue of domestic terrorism in favor of a context which is most likely to inspire radical elements of her audience to pursue the Bush policy of striking at friends of terrorists before they have attacked.
- Palin presses the argument using language that the mainstream press cannot grasp firmly enough to refute or highlight as incendiary.
I believe the vast majority of supporters of the campaign of John McCain are honorable, honest, well-intentioned and sincere Americans who want what's best for this country. And I believe that all of us, regardless of party affiliation or political support, deserve better than someone who cynically twists language to inflame and incite the very worst elements of our culture. That's why it's important to point out the danger of these actions.
Sarah Palin's conduct has gone far past the bounds of decency, and far past even the most dangerous efforts of any previous candidate for such high office. This is an inexcusable, unforgivable, and unacceptable transgression and my belief is that she should be removed from consideration for the office of Vice President for her dangerous, unethical and unamerican display of irresponsibility.
1:00 PM
|
121 Comments
Leave a comment
- Earlier: Yo Mama's So Fat...
- Next: In Defense of Marriage
Well said! Thank you for this...
I think this is about the place where your argument flew off the rails. I have no doubt that Palin is trying to connect to rural white voters, and why shouldn't she? They are the demographic most likely to support her and the republican party. However, you leap to the second point without any real logic. Why does "palling around" mean "shoot this guy" or why would "domestic" radically change the meaning of "terrorist" in the minds of her audience? You never really establish that at all, IMO.
Just to frame the importance of what Anil is saying, realize that the term "rhetoric" is most often used as a pejorative misappropriation of the word's true meaning.
All communication is rhetorical. We make choices on what words to use, what words to not use, what sort of arguments to make and what sort of metaphors to conjure. By doing so, we create a verbal reflection of our reality. In the case of those who are heard by millions this image is very powerful. So powerful, that many great thinkers consider words/speech/writing a form of action. (If you think the pen is mightier than the sword, hold onto your seats with television and the internet.)
Palin's words are not to be dismissed as just "campaign rhetoric." There is motive behind her rhetorical actions as there is motive behind all of our rhetorical actions. I�m not saying she�s implicitly evil, but the form of her speeches is unsettling to me. For those who are interested in the dynamics of our rhetorical nature look up Kenneth Burke. One particular work in 1939 (well before the D-day landing)might illuminate the best.
An excellent rhetorical analysis of the fear-mongering and hate-mongering in the Republican campaign.
I created a video that shows specific examples of Republicans misleading the public, but I did not analyze code switching or other similar rhetorical devices.
Are you serious?
Have you been listening to what's being said, not just in the media but on the streets?
Have you talked with even one Iraq vet? We are teaching people to fear and hate 'terrorists'.
To paraphrase: They come here to kill us, with their non-Christian religion and their message of hate. Kill them first or they will kill you.
That's what these people have been told time and time again for the last eight years.
Do you really not see the connection? Truly?
Whatever she's doing whether deliberate or not does seem to work. I feel that she has been rather transparent. I guess
that SAE isn't that important and may actually scare some folks away.
I think the connection is made pretty clearly by his stating his belief that Palin's language deliberately intends to "incite the very worst elements of our culture."
One can't deny that there are extremists in all groups, and they would be the ones who might take Palin's insinuations, combine them with Bush's National Security Strategy, and decide to act.
There's no saying they will; in fact, I'd like to think the majority of Americans are with me in hoping that violent action & reaction are NOT taken.
It's a thought exercise and a warning about Palin's dangerous use of words.
You're telling me that it's willful ignorance of the media instead of what I had always thought? That the media lacks a spine.
This is just dumbfounding to me. Her code switching is so obvious. Maybe it is because I grew up in suburban USA where the Fargo accent is strong. Also helping me to see through her facade is that I have a degree in journalism and worked at a newspaper for one year.
Still, it floors me that my former colleagues raise their snooty noses rather than address the obvious and call her on it. At the least, the columnists and TV opinionators should be taking her to task for it.
Here's hoping your reach starts this conversation and that it wakes up somebody in the media with a larger reach.
Whatever she's doing works at a certain level. It's very sad that so many are so sure that she is ready. And McCain
doesn't defend her, he praises her. Are people laughing at us ???
Anil, I am consistently impressed with your linguistic analyses and essays. Thank you for this one -- I think you hit the nail on the head.
Why does "palling around" mean "shoot this guy" or why would "domestic" radically change the meaning of "terrorist" in the minds of her audience? You never really establish that at all, IMO.
I think this could have been made more explicit in this post, but I think I may understand where Dash was heading with this.
The word "consort" refers to some type of partnership, but not necessarily a friendly relationship. It's also a word that most average people don't use in their everyday speech. "Palling around" directly speaks to a "pal" or close friend. It's actually implying a much closer connection than "consorting," which can be tangential.
Omitting the descriptor "domestic" and using the plural "terrorists" is implying a connection to Islamic terrorists, as opposed to a specific domestic terrorist. In this case Palin is implying that because Obama associated with a domestic terrorist, that he must also be "palling around" with non-domestic terrorists. Coupling this tactic with the erroneous branding of Obama's middle name reinforces this message.
You need to fix your line and paragraph breaks.*
This line should be a new paragraph, it shouldn't be bumping uglies with the above paragraph.
Instead, to create a new paragraph, like this line, there must be two preceding full lines. That is counterintuitive. Preview is not for line breaks!
Hopefully in a week this will no longer be an issue, but thank you for this fantastic analysis of the situation. It's been bothering me that the media hasn't taken a more serious stance on her comments, and you've offered a plausible explanation.
But anon42, you still havent made the connection between all that and shooting the guy, or whatever.
"They come here to kill us, with their non-Christian religion and their message of hate."
Right, sure. It really seems like there are more than enough messages of hate to go around, but to be honest, I'm more scared of people like Timothy McVeigh, who came here to kill us with his Christian religion and his message of hate. Are you proposing we round up people who look like him and associate with him?
Anil, this is a terrific piece of writing, very thoughtful and well reasoned. I hope it makes a difference to someone, but I fear that the environment has been sufficiently poisoned (by design) that this kind of argument won't get through to the people who need to understand it.
The whole Palin line of reasoning could be shut down in two seconds by a reporter asking her whether she thinks that Obama should be personally subjected to the Bush doctrine or incarcerated in Guantanamo. (If her answer is no, then clearly she's soft on terrorists.)
"... or, to its detractors, ebonics"
Wha? The 'ebonics' label was coined by its advocates.
Thank you. Language, dialect and linguistic choices are not "just" semantic issues. Language is the most powerful tool any one person does posses, most especially in inciting fear.
The GOP continues to wield language expertly, only now I believe are Americans becoming privy to the effects of it, yes, what is being said.
As a lover of language, it's exciting to me to see you explain the phenomenology so clearly.
Great analysis. I think another term for this is "Dog Whistle politics", in which the intended audience gets the inside meaning and it is lost on others.
Excellent analysis Anil. Your post makes me think a great deal about the importance of rhetoric and code switching in George Bush's presidency, and while Bush is not the focus of this article, his rhetoric is a perfect example of how language can be employed to communicate to everyone while speaking directly to a more specific audience. Take for example this quote from his State of the Union speech in 2003:
The term "wonder-working power" is a specific reference to hymn sung commonly in conservative, evangelical churches. To most, this subtle reference would go unnoticed, but to evangelicals it is equivalent to using the blink tag in HTML.
Bringing it back home, it is interesting to see how Palin is also using code switching and rhetoric to court the evangelical vote in the same way Bush did. Take for example the following quote from a speech Palin gave at a McCain rally:
Like the phrase "wonder-working powers" Palin's use of the phrase "servant's heart" is an evangelical reference as well. What is interesting about this word choice is that I think the vast majority of Americans can follow what she is saying, but only a small percentage truly "grok" the meaning. And it is those that grok "servant's heart" and "wonder-working powers" that each candidate is really speaking to.
References:
But anon42, you still havent made the connection between all that and shooting the guy, or whatever.
Factor in two more memes --
(1) that Palin has been trying to narrowly define what it means to be American and to be a patriot (in her defense, she's just been building on existing Republican rhetoric and Obama's rebuttal has been that we are all Americans)
(2) with Bush spending the years since 9/11 saying things like "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" and we're fighting a "war on terror."
So, to draw this all out for you: Palin is saying that real Americans don't "pal around" with terrorist(s) so Obama is not a real American. He's a terrorist. And what do we do to terrorists? We hunt them down.
Sadly, Palin's tactic is already working.
Even if Senator Obama wins, this is hardly over; next week or a year from now. The real question remains: how will the radical right (the people shouting the N-word, the Florida TV anchor "seriously" asking Biden about Obama's "Marxism", the people looking so hard for trumped-up "reasons" not to vote Obama, just so they won't have to admit their racism, not even to themselves...), HOW will they -- or even WILL they allow Obama to govern? Will we band together--united we stand--or will they simply sit back, heckle, continue to lie about anything they can't control to their liking and generally act like spoiled children? The "fight" is putting this all back together after this train-wreck called a campaign (not even counting: Iraq/Afghanistan, global economy and global warming...)
And Obama and his supporters are not using carefully chosen language to frame their own arguments? Riiiight.
Obama didn't get named marketer of the year for nothing.
Sure, he is. That's politics.
But he's not inciting violence.
Excellent article. As someone who also grew up in a multi-cultural environment, I am shocked that only some in the mainstream media truly get it. Although, I think some do get it, but for whatever reasons, don't want to go there.
Honestly, I think coding is why Palin's interviews were so bad. I think many of the questions she was attempting to answer, but also trying to simultaneously apply a filter so that the message is received the right way. Easy to do in a prepared speech. Not so much in an interview.
"Palling around," IMO, applies plotting. That "domestic" is omitted, is clearly meant to reinforce Obama as a friend of Muslim extremists. I do believe they are guilty of reckless endangerment, if not attempts to incite violence.
I don't know American law, but given the arrest of people conspiring to violence towards Obama, would she be implicated? This type of connection has been made in other jurisdictions.
Well, here is the problem, as of yet, all we have is some people saying "shes inciting violence with all this talk, i just know it" but how do you know all this? Where does this connection come from? I still havent heard anything beyond "im really really sure of it"
Thank you for affirming my opinion that Sarah Palin is unChristian, unclean, and unfit to serve the people of the United States based on her unrelenting attacks of Obama and her seeming incompetence. It is as though she is unnaturally obsessed with his every word and action. She unrelentlessly telestalks the man. She speaks so little of her vision in the role of Vice-President. This diminishes her credibility to serve as Vice-President of this great nation of ours. She talks of Obama palling around with terrorist (he was eight years old when Bill Ayers was committing acts). I keep reading that she and her husband have been associated with the Alaskan Liberation Party that sought to secede from the United States. If that is so, then she is "Palin" around with a secessionist with whom she sleeps. That is unAmerican, unpatriotic and the thought that these people could end up in the White House frightens me to death. Do you get the connection? Why hasn't this been an issue?
my latest sarah palin cartoon:
http://www.feedtacoma.com/tacomic/?tid=9466
BIOHAZARD!
Right, it's not that code switching is bad, but precisely how it's being used by a particular figure, and what it's being used to say. In fact, many times Obama himself has discussed the presence of dialectal differentiation and even code switching in his own speeches, although he doesn't use the linguistic term and I haven't seen it come up since his campaign really got off the ground. Code switching is a natural aspect of communication for anyone living (as we all do) amid different registers of discourse, and naturally one of many rhetorical tools to use in public discourse.
If you really want to know what Sarah Palin believes, here is a chance to TALK TO SARAH PALIN. I just tried it and it's so funny. You can ask her about the economy, national security, anything really.
Check it out!!! www.palintalk.net
I'm sure that the media very well understands what Palin is doing. Even if reporters take pride in their fine educations, they (like everyone) still come from places where people use casual language, and they know what it means when an educated person chooses to use colloquial language with some audiences and not others.
Unfortunately, trying to explain the significance of this tactic to Palin's fans is pointless. It would be like explaining chromatic scales to a whistling teakettle. She is telling them thrilling stories that they're eager to hear and believe.
We see George W. Bush do the same thing regularly, as well. No man who has an MBA from Harvard and grew up among the most privileged families in the United States can be unaware that "smoke 'em out" isn't Standard American English. That's not to say his use of folksy sayings is merely a put-on
What really gets me about the Republican media strategy the past eight years is that it IS a put-on. W knows how to pronounce nuclear, but he mispronounces it on purpose in order to relate to the less educated. It's a bizarro world where the ACTUAL elitist, materialist money-grubbers are appealing to those whom they are disenfranchising in order to remain in power and further the disenfranchisement. It makes me nauseous.
Jeffrey McManus said:
"The whole Palin line of reasoning could be shut down in two seconds by a reporter asking her whether she thinks that Obama should be personally subjected to the Bush doctrine or incarcerated in Guantanamo."
If you hadn't noticed, they aren't letting reporters anywhere near Palin.
How do you know? How do you know when someone is flirting with you? It's learned behavior. It's a recognition of consistent reactions that the behavior provokes. When Palin says something that is supposedly innocent, and the crowd responds with "Kill him!", I'd say that is pretty good supporting evidence.
When it's banks, it's a bailout or rescue. When it's poor whites, it's aid or subsidies. When it's poor minorities, it's welfare.
Well, here is the problem, as of yet, all we have is some people saying "shes inciting violence with all this talk, i just know it" but how do you know all this? Where does this connection come from? I still havent heard anything beyond "im really really sure of it"
How about the person at that one Palin rally who yelled out "Kill him!"
Is that plain enough a connection for you? Bush has said that anyone who harbors and is friends with terrorists are enemies of the United States. Palin has said that Obama is friends with terrorists, even lied that he started his campaign in the living room of one.
I don't see how you can not see how her words can be taken as inciting violence.
You make me laugh. Sarah Palin says he's palling around with terrorists because he associates with Ayers who is an admitted domestic terrorist. She is not implying that Obama had anything to do with what Ayers did, she is implying that it is innapropriate for a Presidential candidate to associate with someone with such a history.
Because of one word, to say "it becomes clear that Sarah Palin's assertions are designed not to prove that Obama is unqualified for the office of the Presidency of the United States. Rather, she appears to be attempting to convince a substantial portion of her supporters that Obama supports terrorism against the United States and thus should be, at the very least, incarcerated as an enemy combatant ... or at worst, assassinated for supporting terror.", is absolutely ridiculous.
If anyone is trying to twist language and incite the worst of people, it's you!
You have seriously overestimated your abilities to perform linguistic analysis much like you have seriously over estimated the "pre-meditated" intentions behind Palins choice of a few words.
Palin kills animals, who cares what she thinks.
Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFDGfX5gCbY
That's actually less true now than it was a month ago. News reporters have no one to blame but themselves for their uncritical questioning of her.
This is great analysis, but I'm unconvinced by two things:
1- That she is inciting violence. It's already mentioned above, but this logical conclusion is missing some basis in the premises. There is no indication that her rhetoric is in any context other than who to vote for next week. It is reasonable to think some violence may ensue as a result of the Palin insinuations, but the connection is not firm. There's no reason to think any violence against Obama or his supporters will be a result of the words "palling around." Rather, they will be a result of the overall portrayal of Obama as an outsider, Muslim, anti-American, etc. from right-wingers in and out of the McCain-Palin campaign.
2. Which brings me to the next point. I'm unconvinced this is unprecedented. This is the best analysis of code switching in political rhetoric I've ever read, which begs the question: what tactics, and how extreme, have others used? If we pick apart Bill Clinton, a master orator, what will we find? Ronald Reagan? Kennedy? Even Obama? You really didn't put her use of language in historical context. Your claim that it's unprecedented is unsubstantiated.
I think it's broader than calling Obama a terrorist... they also insinuate he is a Muslim and then go on to send coded (and not so coded) messages about Muslims as if all Muslims are terrorists. This doesn't just come from Palin, it comes from McCain (Clinton's people (and Clinton herself) also did this)...
When that woman asked McCain if Obama was an Arab, he answered "No, ma'am. He's a decent family man and citizen..." implying that Arabs can not be decent, are not family men, and are not not citizens. The crowds jeered in response btw as if they did not believe him.
There was that Clinton comment during the campaign was asked if she thought Obama was a Muslim, she said, "not to my knowledge" and wouldn't acknowledge either the truth or take responsibility for the "whispering campaign" that was taking place in the form of anonymous emails, flyers, and robocalls.
McCains operatives and other republican party mouthpieces like Fox news are dirtier than the ones used by Clinton and seem to have no boundaries.
Ironically all this seems to me to be fueled in part by blogs. People on both right and left increasingly read more opinion than news and they tend to read opinion they agree with. The loudest most hysterical voices are the ones which often attract the most attention and acceptable opinions fall into narrower and narrower bands.
I think we are becoming more and more like europe where there has long been a tradition of leftist and rightist papers at the extremes.
The other ironic thing about blogging culture is that it is the blogs that also call out all this behavior in a way that the networks and even major newspapers cannot.
It's a scary world out there. Although I think when Obama wins the world will be a slightly less scary place.
You're my new hero. :) I've been thinking the same thing and have been unable to articulate it for weeks.
I'd also like to chime in on this from a psychological perspective, which I have a good amount of education and training in. By associating "Obama" with "terrorist", she is able to bypass the illogical use of the literal association and instead speak directly to people's unconscious fears in regards to terrorism.
Americans will forever be 'anchored' ( as in Pavlov ) to associate deep fear with the suggestion of terrorism thanks to 9/11. If you think of the word 'Terrorist' right now, I guarantee you that you feel some sort of apprehension, fear, and desire to protect yourself. By linking Obama with these feelings in the same sentence repeatedly, she is essentially conditioning her audiences to feel about Obama as they would feel about a terrorist.
If you doubt this is actually what is happening, one only needs to look at the plethora of videos on YouTube of the hysteria and fear seen in the audiences at the McCain/Palin rallies.
A point was made on another blog a week or so ago - what would you do if you truly believed a muslim terrorist with an agenda to harm our nation was about to be elected president? The thought sends shivers down my spine and I fear for Obama's safety ever day.
(Sorry for the long comment. I'd normally do a post/trackback instead but I try to keep politics off of my blog! :) )
This was very well written and thought out, kudos to you! Just a few comments.
Like other readers, I'm not sure the connection between "saying terrorist" and "calls to kill him" or "smoke him out" are aptly linked. I see the inference you're trying to make with the connection, but I'm not sure you can easy prove this connection.
Thing is, I agree with your main premise - that Palin has and is using "code speak" to the lowest common denominator of the voting public, in order to instill a less logical, and more emotional voting plea. The fact that it is WORKING is quite scary in my view, but over the past two months I am VERY grateful that the majority of voters have come to see Palin for what she is - a fraud, and a spiteful extremist that needs to go back home to Alaska for good.
Truly, if this is where the Republican party is going in the future, it is digging it's own grave, and thank God for that!
for someone who did not have a college education ya do right fine.
I don't know about reincarnation: is Joe McCarthy back?
for someone who did not have a college education ya do right fine.
I don't know about reincarnation: is Joe McCarthy back?
I just went to www.palintalk.net (tel # 888 372 7908): Ms. Palin says that she is McCain's running mate for "vice-president of THE FREE WORLD."!!!!
So well put! I have been seething too much to articulate this as well as you have. Thanks for your insight and this post.
I assume that Palin and her advisors know that her rhetoric will not convince anyone who does not already agree with her.
However, by painting Obama in as bad a picture as possible, the people who would support Palin already are more motivated to get out the vote and convince their friends to vote, too.
The outcome of elections in the US is often determined more by who can be convinced to go voting, rather than by convincing undecided voters to vote for a particular candidate. Fiery rhetoric can create a sense of urgency.
Wow -- this is some seriously smart, original analysis. Thanks so much, this is a really important piece of thinking. Thank you!!
Thank you for pointing out that just because someone uses English that isn't "proper" doesn't mean that they aren't able to get their points across. In fact, sometimes they can get it across more easily. I've long held the belief that as long as the words you use are able to convey your meaning and have it be understood, you are using your language "properly." That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with you about Palin and thank you for clearly articulating what is so insidiously dangerous about her.
With all due respect, your comment illustrates Mr. Dash's argument perfectly--the language Palin has used isn't your colloquial dialect and therefore, doesn't have the same meaning to you that it would her target audience.
The loss of her meaning on you is what Mr. Dash is arguing is happening with the media who disregard her statements as "folksy" and "improper." This disregard is what makes her use of language so dangerous.
I agree with your analysis thoroughly and applaud its clarity - except for one aspect. I do have to wonder how much of what she says is from the "Brain"-of-Sarah, and how much from her handlers, speech writers and consultants.
Not that it matters a whole hell of a lot. It's just that when deciding that someone of her background and education would be aware of their codified triggers and such, I'm not fully convinced that it's that relevant, unless she's for sure generating this stuff herself.
This, of course, wouldn't change her culpability one bit - a puppet (or tool) is responsible for how they let themselves be used. I just have to wonder if she's individually of the rails with this crap, or if it's got the backing of the G.O.P. It would be good to know.