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.
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.
Anil, you're way off base here. I'm the "target audience" you're speaking of, and it never even occurred to me that Sarah Palin was suggesting any sort of violence against Obama. I (and my friends) always simply took it to mean that Obama is unsuitable for holding the office of the Presidency (which I agree with). IMO, Palin is not cynically twisting anything here.
I think this is an outstanding analysis Anil.
I think one thing that's important to consider in addition to her word choices is her body language and tone of voice as she speaks. She's in fight mode--aggressive, angry, sarcastic. Phrases like "palling around with terrorists" seem like fighting words, not like a spirited jab.
We can't separate context and content - the two are inseparable.
Eloquent, but you miss the point. The point isn't the language used by Gov. Palin. It's the fact that did "pal around" a terrorist. Or if you prefer, he "consorted with a terrorist". Bill Ayers is a terrorist. Jump through as many hoops as you want. Drink as much of the Obama kool-aid as you want, but that fact remains. If you don't think Ayers isn't a terrorist, ask the FBI agent who infiltrated the Weather Underground. Ask the families of the people whose deaths the Weather Underground is responsible for if Bill Ayers is a terrorist. Everyone knows exactly who Gov. Palin is referring to when she says Sen. Obama "palled abound with terrorists". It's Bill Ayers. Would Sen. Obama have worked with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber? Of course he wouldn't. So why is it not an issue that he works with a man who says his only regret is not having bombed enough? That's the issue. Not the fact that he's been called out for it.
I could really care less who you support in the upcoming election, but it's disingenuous to try to blame the messenger when you don't like the message.
I bet you could get that college degree with this essay. Well done.
Palling around = consorting = treason = death. Not a far leap.
_______________________________________
Why does "palling around" mean "shoot this guy" or why would "domestic" radically change the meaning of "terrorist" in the minds of her audience?
_______________________________________
It actually is obvious why leaving out 'domestic' changes the meaning of terrorist -- when you say domestic, it implies the person is or could be white. Leave it out, and suddenly it means the person is a scary muslim middle eastern murderer. Especially with the way the Republicans constantly mention Obama's middle name Hussein in their rallys.
Excellent analysis, thank you, Anil.
I'll add to this what you left out: the employment of this strategy to essentially resurrect the nefarious tactics of McCarthyism. There are pretty obvious correlations in the strategy of polarization, the vilification (and, simultaneously, the manipulation) of the media, the use of innuendo, the cult of personality, and character assassination by association.
The truly scary part is that Palin has opened Pandora's box, creating fertile ground for more insidious purveyors of these tactics, such as Rep. Michelle Bachmann and her baseless accusations about and calls for investigations of "un-American members of Congress". Sound familiar?
For this and other reasons, I agree that this behavior is irresponsible and dangerous, and shouldn't be tolerated (or let slide) in civil discussion or campaigning, because we've seen from history where it leads us, and it's nowhere good.
Sarah is doing just what she's supposed to do, like the pit bull, Joe Biden.
The difference is that Obama really is an empty man, with absolutely nothing to back him up in his quest for the presidency.
What bothers me more than anything is the almost messianic appeal to what were at one time, intelligent Americans. And this, for a Marxist.
I'm so sad that this generation has no history of what those like Obama can bring on this country.
I can only guess it's the offspring of the Quisling hippies of the seventies; a wasted generation.
Thank you for your insightful article. I don't know if it's something she does intentionally or not, but it does help explain why I get this feeling of dread whenever I hear her, and feel an immediate urge to turn her off.
For a terrorist, Bill Ayers was about the least effective and most responsible terrorist ever. The kool-aid you speak of is dribbled all over your shirt.
"Ask the families of the people whose deaths the Weather Underground is responsible for if Bill Ayers is a terrorist."
Sorry but nobody died from WUO bomb but 3 WUO members who didn't know how to build a proper bomb.
"Everyone knows exactly who Gov. Palin is referring to when she says Sen. Obama "palled abound with terrorists". It's Bill Ayers."
Again YOU miss the point of the article. It's now who, its the language and use of code-switching to make implications that Obama is the terrorist, and thus justify to the ignorant and fearful that it is justified to whack him.
"it's disingenuous to try to blame the messenger when you don't like the message."
And you 'my fellow prisoner' have completely missed the message.
I really appreciate your taking the time to write about this. I was just pointing this very same thing to a white male Republican friend (who still couldn't see the connection to her linguistic racism and hate mongering). It's all about "underlying meanings." Subversive language is powerful, and I really believe Palin is irresponsible - or just plain evil - in her use of it. She really loves that low road.
I'm Claude Miller. I don't get laid often enough and it's all the Hippies fault.
Speaking of hippies, Martin Luther King Jr. was an empty shallow man too. Look how he brought Civil Rights to America!
My God, what's the world coming to? It's a shame the new generation doesn't know how nice it was to own a slave.
You should really do a little research before spouting off. The WUO killed Walter Schroeder, Edward O'Brady, Waverly Brown and Peter Paige. Three of them were police officers. I wasn't counting the couple of idiots who blew themselves up planning the bombing of a GI dance at Ft. Dix.
Who has said Sen. Obama is a terrorist? Again, attack those who point out the people Sen. Obama chooses to associate himself with instead of actually looking at his associates: Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers. Shall I go on.
Take that next swig of kool-aid and put your head back in the sand. Facts matter little to you.
Preaching Overthrow of our democratic government = planting bombs = murder = terrorist, right?
If not "palling around" then what? Working together? Collaborating? Associating? Friends? Book Reviewer? Just what term is acceptable to the thought police here in regards to the documented and factual relationship between BHO and this TERRORIST?
The lack of abhorrence on the left for Ayers despicable acts (regardless of their vintage) and his subsequent comments from 2001 is mind boggling.
Here is one plain truth, I don't want my President, regardless of party, any where near someone who feels he didn't do enough with his bombing of fellow Americans. How you folks can defend that is beyond absurd.
So Palin uses code-switching to connect with and inflame her target audience, while you use wild exaggerations -- eg you accuse Palin of making 'an assertion that inevitably calls for the imprisonment or even assassination of a political opponent' -- to connect with and inflame yours. Doesn't that make you both equally 'dangerous, unethical and [guilty of an] unamerican display of irresponsibility'?
Incidentally, code-switching is something that we all do all the time. It's not a good indicator of how 'smart' someone is.
I think you make a valid and important point about the language being used by this scary demagogue, but it's a shame that you present your case with so much sloppy verbiage and shaky argument.
Wow. Astounding how people have to dig and create codes and "secret speech" that they assume Palin is using, but Obama can give a toast to Rashid Khalidi and nobody bats an eye.
This is getting disgusting.
Your assertions that Sarah Palin is advocating for Barack Obama's assination is almost as bad as her implications that he's a terrorist.
Your shaky daisy-chain of logic that leads from A to B to C is quite specious, and several of your point about language are pretty silly.
Does anybody seriously believe that Sarah Palin could be encoding her message so efficiently that it's transmitting one message to some group of people you fail to identify, while being completely missed by "journalists" - because they're educated? A more cogent reason why the media doesn't accuse Palin of inciting assisination is a lot simpler - because it's specious.
I think you should rethink the plausibility of your arguments; you're just making yourself sound silly.
uh, uh, and, uh Obama doesn't do the EXACT same thing?
20 years w/ Wright as his "spiritual leader", then all of a sudden he is just a guy who happens to preach at his church?
"I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors"
~Barack Obama from "Dreams of My Father"
Now none of that means what he said...spin...spin...spin.
I disagree. Your opening argument is that Palin "has gone far beyond any other candidate in vice presidential history in the dangerous and irresponsible implications of her attacks." First of all, you never once compare to any other VP's. Your argument is completely spun from a subjective point of view based on Bush, not a VP, as well as personal interpretation of linguistics and coding, and common vernacular. You have set out to try and make Palin the worst in history and "dangerous" but have failed to support your argument with specific comparisons between her and other VP's historically, nor have you compared the Obama-Biden campaign by the same standards. I fail to see how this argument holds water as well as how her comments are dangerous.
Excellent linguistic analysis of obvious propaganda. Thanks for posting this.
I agree with what you've written and in my lifetime it is a new low for politicians.
It is not difficult to draw the connection between her usage and code switching to a subtle inciting of violent acts when the audience reaction is taken into consideration. "Traitor" and "treason" have been shouted along with "terrorist" by supposed fringe elements. Watching a video of one such speech shows Palin nodding up and down after. Unlike the "amens" shouted in a church, these types of shout outs should be addressed sternly as McCain did in one instance when a fan likened Obama to a terrorist in front of him. But instead, her nodding and lack of concern send the message that she is in agreement and condones the opinion.
McCain when questioned directly about this in the debate did the childish "you've attacked me too" and cited attacks on his policies as being of the same severity as the life threatening ones made by his running mate. Then he called his running mate a role model solidifying the fringe elements beliefs even more.
And in approved ads after speeches in my area where people did shout hateful threatening things, the same kind of language was used that incited the fringe. Only after much public scrutiny did the ads become more tame and about actual issues a week later.
I don't understand how it is hard for people to make the connection. We are in a war called a War on Terror and painting someone as a terrorist invites citizens to take up arms. Not hard to figure.
I agree with you that most McCain supporters want the best for the country and they are not about hate crimes. Perhaps their input is why the ads became softer and more reasonable.
Here's hoping that after the election there is some reflection about what has happened as there was in the 80s after the Willie Horton ads. Sure, nothing was admitted then, but the public heard and made its own decisions and thereafter came the: "I'm a politician and I approve of this message" tagline. It used to mean something important about not stooping to the lowest of the low in ads.
In any event, I do hope that the republican party finds a way to mend and becomes more openly diverse and less divisive than Palin has made it seem.
If you are looking for a path of logic in the article you missed the entire point.
I am not American, bit I do speak it. All people use cadence, accent, and regional dialect to converse to different people at different levels. We do it at work when we talk differently at a board meeting than we do in the cafeteria. The more specific the target, the more we code switch. We use euphemisms more often the further we are from our friends and codes the closer we are.
Ask any American what they think of when they think of a terrorist and they will undoubtedly invision an Islamic extremist. Now add 'palling around' to this and you get a strong statement. There's just no way this is not intentional.
The GOP used the fear of terrorism to justify its entire existance over the last 8 years and to nearly completely undermine what was once the freest country on earth. It is their trump card.
Palin now repeats 'socialist' to a point of pure insanity. I wonder if there is a single American who knows what socialism really is??
Sarah Palin prepares the ground. The more explicit message comes from warm-up speakers, talk radio, and forwarded email messages. I've heard or read this one many times: "What do Obama and Osama have in common? They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon." There is no longer any difference between 60's anti-war militant and Al Queda, no difference between "served on a board of an anti-poverty group" and "conspired to crash airplanes into buildings".
When I heard the quote, I thought of Ayers, not a Middle Eastern terrorist. But that's also because Palin said something to the effect of: "he's palling around with terrorists who attack their own country." Kind of undermines part of your essay. I will read more posts though.
I enjoyed the article, but would have liked some context, either with the current or past campaigns. i.e. Will you analyze Obama's referring to McCain as "erratic" and "uncertain"? Making ads implying McCain can't figure out computers, although it's on record that he can't type because of his POW beatings?
To anonymous 10/28/08,
United we stand? Your comments sound like what the Dems. have been doing for the past 8 yrs.. Your description of spoiled children sounds exactly like the Democratic Party because we lost the presidency and couldn't have our way. I'm disgusted with the party and am now an independent voter as of this election! The new Democratic philosophy seems to be divide and conquer. The Democrats have gone to extremeties. It seems like the Dem. Party has been infiltrated by socialists over the years and they may be about to accompolish their dream! Either noone is smart enough to see it or they are socialists themselves. The train wreck that was created by the Democratic party is bigger than you can imagine. The healing process if there can be one will take a long long time. Thank you Democratic party! Oh in case anyone is concerned about coding in speeches, Hillary did the same thing in a southern state while campaigning useing a heavy southern drawl-Remember? Palins wardrobe? What about obamas' $1500.00 suits?? All I can say is God save the U.S.A.!!!
What is more violent hanging some one if effigy or a shout in a crowd? By the way the security at the event did not hear any violent shout. Could we have over zealous reporters?
You must be fairly young you believe them.
"plural form of 'terrorist' for describing what was meant to be an allusion to William Ayers alone"
Anil, your claim here is not accurate. William Ayers' wife is Bernadine Dohrn, also an unapologetic member of the Weather Underground domestic terror group. Obama held an early career campaign rally at *their* house.
There's a lot of validity to what you're saying, but Palin's rhetoric did not occur in a vacuum. She first used it after citing a New York Times article which established that Obama had not been fully candid about his relationship with Ayers, who he merely described as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood". He further distorted the issue by not directly addressing the most valid concern over Ayers. The real issue is not that Ayers once committed domestic terrorism, it's that he is even now publicly unrepentant about it. If Obama had unambiguously condemned Ayers early on, as he did Rev. Wright, Palin would not have any rationale to take this tack.
All that said, the Alaska governor is indeed playing a very very dangerous game for the reasons you cite.
I think you credit Sarah Palin with too much intelligence and cunning if you believe that she is very carefully walking a fine line of plausible deniability whilst stirring up her supporters. I do not believe, seeing her interact live with the media, that she's bright enough to do that.
Thanks for the analysis. More of this should be done, as it's the only way we can get under the cover of these people, who decide things for us.
Added to discourse analysis, however, might be a Freudian account of Palin's use of the phrasal verb, "palling around". As you mention, she does drop the back-of-the-palate sound when she changes code, and she does so here, too, with the interesting result that she actually says "pallin'" around.
As you know about the non-rules of English pronunciation, this could be, in its phonetic form, quite similar to the pronunciation of her name in certain dialect areas.
In a real psychological sense, this is a person who represses a lot, including most of the history of the US. Her reference to "terrorists", and, as you say, her insinuation that some terrorist should assassinate Obama, reveals her (and I think other conservative Americans') unconscious admiration for the terrorists, who, after all, are religious believers who really believe what Palin and other Christian fundamentalists cannot really believe in, i.e. there is surely an afterlife and that the best way to be with god is to die defending your version of him. The taboo that comes out of "pallin" around with terrorists, is admitting their secret admiration of such commitment and their own cowardice in emulation those terrorists.
Have heard that my way of talkin’ is good means of stirrin’ up support among rural voters, obscurin’ issues, and, in general, winnin’ election. Have compiled list of most effective Palin-isms and their English translations so as to increase use of most useful expressions in future speeches.
Love yah!
The Secret Diary of Sarah Palin
First point: In Sarah Palin's case, the subtext is rapidly becoming text. (With apologies to Rupert Giles.)
Second point: "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."
Rubbish. I'm in the media in the UK and have been an editor for 20 years. That's part of the reason Palin's switching was crystal clear to me - I am attuned to language and phrasing, it's part of the job. The press didn't miss the folksy turn of phrase; they thought it was so obviously pointed at a specific audience that there's wasn't any need to highlight the term. The accusation - and everything it implied - was well covered by the media.
Third point: Palin has speechwriters, as do McCain, Obama and every single other politician out there. Their job is to write convincing arguments and part of that job is to find the most appropriate language for the task at hand. That's fundamental to debating. The skill is knowing when it will work and when it will fall flat. In this case, I heard the thud clear across the Atlantic, y'all. (see what I did there?)
For BigBob:
"A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Also, it's very interesting to me, how quite a few of Palin's defenders here seem to be completely missing one point: Dash isn't accusing Palin of inciting her audience/supporters to acts of violence. What she is doing, is coaxing a negative atmosphere, filled with anger, among her supporters. An atmosphere fueled with half-truths and downright lies, either by repeating those herself, or by not correcting them. This atmosphere is quickly condensing into rage, threats for human life, and downright violence.
True, this probably isn't quite the goal Palin is striving for (if there ever is a serious assassination attempt on Obama, it will make him a martyr, and consequently probably destroy the GOP). For her, it is quite probably just a rhetoric meant to increase bonding and fervor among her supporters. But this doesn't erase her responsibility. She's gaming for short-term gain, risking both a short-term catastrophe (someone deciding to take a shot at Obama), and a long-term one (racist backlash and overall long-term resentment that may well take generations to fix). If (and it's getting increasingly probable that at least the latter is going to happen) this comes true, then she is certainly partially responsible as having incited the flames with her rhetoric.
For BigBob:
"A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Also, it's very interesting to me, how quite a few of Palin's defenders here seem to be completely missing one point: Dash isn't accusing Palin of inciting her audience/supporters to acts of violence. What she is doing, is coaxing a negative atmosphere, filled with anger, among her supporters. An atmosphere fueled with half-truths and downright lies, either by repeating those herself, or by not correcting them. This atmosphere is quickly condensing into rage, threats for human life, and downright violence.
True, this probably isn't quite the goal Palin is striving for (if there ever is a serious assassination attempt on Obama, it will make him a martyr, and consequently probably destroy the GOP). For her, it is quite probably just a rhetoric meant to increase bonding and fervor among her supporters. But this doesn't erase her responsibility. She's gaming for short-term gain, risking both a short-term catastrophe (someone deciding to take a shot at Obama), and a long-term one (racist backlash and overall long-term resentment that may well take generations to fix). If (and it's getting increasingly probable that at least the latter is going to happen) this comes true, then she is certainly partially responsible as having incited the flames with her rhetoric.
Your linguistic analysis is spot on and ought to be broadcast immediately. But I'm not sure about her intellectual acuity. Like most cynics, she's more self-aggrandizing than sinister. This is not to say that the possible consequences of her divisive and literally targeting language do not represent clear and present dangers. My point is that she is probably at least unconcerned and probably unconscious of that. Her language is all about self-identification vis-a-vis her audience.
Her motives have become clear recently as she distances herself from the campaign and slips into "our camps" as she rushes through her harangues. I think your characterization of the press corps is especially appropriate, because they now see this cynicism but refer to it as preparation for a 2012 run, rather than what it is, simply self-promotion.
Palin serves only one master—herself. The only sure thing she's running for is fame. What it is doesn't matter. My guess is that political office is low on the preference list. Thanks again for a very insightful analysis.
Why should obama have to justify or condemn or give a shit about some guy hes only met a few times ten years ago.
Guilt by association really is a logical fallacy.
I mean, Sarah palin has established links to groups involved in abortion clinic harrasment and violence and McCain was up to his nuts in Guts in the Keating 5 scandal.
Go look up the Alaskan Independance Party. Thats not even an old tenuous link. The woman was right involved.
So throwing stones in glass houses. pffft.
I cant stress how silly and irrational this campaign against Obama looks to the outside world. Its actually very embarassing for americans that this sort of "booo! a negro!" jim-crow scare campaigns still happen.
Interesting framework you put forth. Based on this framework, you've just confirmed that when leftists talk about 'affirmative action' they really just mean racial quotas, for example. I hope you remain true to your framework, or maybe the undertone of hate in your post is revealing another side of you Anil.
What surprises me is that so many people seem surprised that the McCain/Palin semantic tactics work.
If you spend anytime traveling outside big cities you will readily see the shocking bias against, and suspicion of "book learning" and the frightening lack of education of the American public. This has led to a great diminishment of critical thinking skills in the general public.
Were it not for the economic meltdown, McCain/Palin would be doing much better in this election, possibly winning. There is a reason Republicans do this -- it works. It has worked in the past (starting with Nixon) and I have little doubt that once this economic crisis has passed, these tactics will be revived again in 2010, and most certainly if Palin runs in 2012.
Michael Moore et al. have literally made careers out of such use of language and insinuation. Fahrenheit 9/11 is rampant with it.
Oh yes, you are right.
It was that wily Moore's "insinuation" that fooled us into seeing the commander-in-chief do nothing for seven full minutes after being told "the country is under attack."
Of course people on the left also use misleading language and code words. They're not likely to inspire an assassination attempt against McCain because they imply he's a senile old poop.
Palin and the talkers are promoting the idea that Obama is an enemy who means harm to the US. They can't be ignorant of the implication that somebody should do something about it.
Specious logic.
The canvas to which Palin's comment contributes is one of establishing 'otherness'.
There are no incitements to violence, covert or otherwise. The point is to generate mistrust by association with a strong negative cultural trigger ('terrorist'). The folksy presentation using the plural is a nod-wink meant to suggest habitual behaviour, potential danger, hidden agenda/background, but there is no code or nexus or intimation or subtextual message whatsoever relating to violence. You are just wrong. If the comment had a definite demographic target, it's beside the point. Of course she/they are trying to rile people up.
For sure Palin's comment is about as low as it's possible to stoop (seemingly) and is framed in such a way - although I wouldn't give Palin credit of intent - that it can be defended, at least partially, but it's doubt-stirring rhetoric that is best read in conjunction with all the other intimations from the McCain campaign suggesting 'otherness' and GWBush has no place in the analysis.
McPalin engage in more than sufficient abominable tactics, so pulling back that far with such a weak bow merely serves to antagonise the right (remember, it's not red or blue, it's UNITED states...) and dilutes the real and sustainable criticisms about dishonorable conduct that can be made on facts and not on some out-of-the-ass lingusitic-political babble.
I think Jon Carroll at The San Francisco Chronicle nailed it, when he said that her "folksiness" is being seen as a proxy for authenticity, and that the "authenticity" is being used as a proxy for competence.
Good insight.
My Brother Chris in Alaska (who's seen way too much of this woman than the rest of us) pointed out some time ago that Palin makes statements that are not quite truthful. The context was the Bridge to Nowhere & her famous quote is "...I said thanks, but no thanks." The implication being she is willing to stand-up the Pooh-bahs in Washington. Not so fast my bro tells me.
She actually did accept money for the project & did thank Washington for the first couple of cheques, & built a multi million dollar road to nowhere, but when the optics looked bad she stopped the project. Thanks, but not thanks is true, misleading, but true.
SHE'S NOT THAT SMART ANIL, AND NEITHER ARE YOU.
She's not that smart Anil, and neither are you.
Your assertion that Sarah Palin is an intelligent woman speaking is belied by her clear lack of ability to articulate thoughts beyond the teleprompter. Many of the "journalists" on the television news look that credible too. They can read a teleprompter as well, but do not equate that skill to Mrs. Palin having a brain in her head. The woman could not name a Supreme Court decision beyond Roe v. Wade, and has proven in many interviews that she tends to regurgitate talking points without having any clue to their use or nuance.
Beyond that, the "code" as you call it is also part of a pattern of distortion which the Nazis were famous for:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. " -- Joseph Goebbels.
The rest of the quote is:
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
(1) Assassination of terrorists is fine because they are going to kill us first.
(2) Work with established jingoistic "Muslim == terrorist" association.
(3) Imply that Obama is Muslim
(4) Imply that Obama supports terrorism
(5) Whip up frenzy about ACORN voter registration and claim that election is going to be stolen (despite the evidence that errorneous registrations don't have an effect, e.g. see DOJ investigations).
(6) Don't squelch rumors that Obama is the Antichrist
The ACORN accusations are designed to set off a firestorm if (when) the religious right loses this election. The message being whispered to the partly sane fringe on the right is that the Muslim Terrorist Antichrist is going to steal the election. Even if McCain loses by 10% the wing nuts have been primed to attempt assassination.
Enormo,
What's the title of that work by Burke (I'm rhymin all the timin...)?
Anil,
This is a fascinating analysis. The place where I'm a bit lost, and where I think you make a bit of a leap, is in your approprition of what "code-switching" means.
With the Oprah example, you make it clear that when she code switches, Oprah changes dielects and, in effect, what she is denoting by a certain phrase only makes sense if you understand the code she is using. We think she means X, because we think Oprah is speaking with code M, but really she is using code N, and so she is conveying Y. In code N, Y has a specific meaning.
With the Sarah Palin example, you seem to be saying that Palin is using code N, and we don't know what code N is, really, so Y doesn't have a _specific_ meaning, as in the Oprah example, but can have _any_ meaning. Since Y can mean anything, you assert anything to explain what Y means.
What are the grounds for falsifying your claim? Is there a way to test whether "palling-around" really means "shoot him" in code N, rather than something else?
Any code has to follow some agreed upon convention. What you seem to reveal instead, however, is not an established convention but rather a string of associations that people may or may not make, and which Palin may or may not intend.
Couldn't Sarah Palin's code equally mean that Obama is friendly with someone whose leftist leanings led him to hate his country as much as foreign terrorists do, someone Obama shouldn't be friendly with, but should have despised from day one, and that this reveals that Obama is secretly sympathetic to the America-hating wing of sixties radicalism, and therefore unfit for office?
After all, the right's suspicions of secret radicalism among progressives is probably as strong as the left's suspicions of crypto-racism on the part of conservatives.
How does one decide what the code Palin is using actually means? My version or yours?
Which is why your conclusion seems question begging. Instead of saying that Palin is clearly stating Y in code, and therefore what she is doing is dispicable, you might be interpreted as saying that whatever Palin intended is dispicable, and therefore she must be saying "shoot Obama".
Besides this small quibble, however, I find your analysis extremely interesting and fervently hope that more people will take political language as seriously as you have done.
It looks like Aristotle does not agree with your definition of rhetoric. From Wikipedia: For Aristotle, rhetoric is the art of practical wisdom and decision making, a counterpart to logic and a branch of politics.
Obviously, this post was some sort of joke that misfired and went over all of our heads... I can't believe that anyone would write this nonsense in any seriousness.
That was a fascinating article. I am blown away by one of your final statements - that you are not college educated. You are so studied in this very complex topic and have organized and communicated your thoughts very effectively, skills that are usually indicative of a high level of education. Thank you for elucidating a very important and dangerous form of manipulation to which we've all fallen prey.
I'd take out the code-switching because it's not really related and maybe just analyze the discourse as you meant to.
Wha? The 'ebonics' label was coined by its advocates.
Perhaps, but today it is frequently used as a pejorative term for AAVE. (typically followed by eye rolling)
I disagree that Oprah is good at AAVE code-switching. It always sounds contrived (like a white person speaking AAVE). However, she does have some elements of AAVE still in her SAE. (e.g. /bury/ sounds like /burry/)
Thank you!
Spot on.
Language doesn't simply describe the world; it creates it.
Language doesn't simply describe the world; it creates it.
Confiscate Sarah's campaign wardrobe, auction it off on ebay, and use the proceeds to give a Christmas bonus to the Secret Service agents who are assigned to Obama. Only fair, since she is making their job more difficult.
Confiscate Sarah's campaign wardrobe, auction it off on ebay, and use the proceeds to give a Christmas bonus to the Secret Service agents who are assigned to Obama. Only fair, since she is making their job more difficult.
It's good, old fashioned innuendo, isn't it?
Politics will never be truly rid of this imho.
I agree though, the VP nominee for GOP has been unprecedentedly pushing this line. Just have to hope it has turned more off than turned more on. I think the polarising tactics have not served Mccain camp well when he has been trailing. You gotta be consensus in some ways to get in. (I hope! We shall see)
I still fear that USA is headed in deeper fascist/theocratic waters.
I just hope people adhere to the notion that in democracy it is better to vote in the least-worst option, whoever that may mean to you as a choice.
Great post---sent chills down my spine b/c it articulates what I've been thinking for a while---this ticket is whipping a certain faction of the population into a frenzy against Obama that is not rational or logical. I recently suggested that Obama should be in the Popemobile at all times from now on. I'm not kidding. I really am frightened for him and his family.
ah, say something controversial..and throw it on digg..and wah lah..here comes the herd. well, your website got a little boost..way to go! the linkbait worked!
Palin is the biggest populist since Nixon and JFK. This is how populism works. On the heel of W's success, I don't see how this is surprising to anyone. W fed your country for 8 years and if he could run again, then I betcha he'd win. U.S. is the new Germany. Even Obama is a populist.
this week she finished the painting, by asserting a link to a former PLO spokesman she has validated the plural
terrorists
I think I might be a joe six pack myself. and I knew from the begining that she was trying to get him killed
thats obviously thier intention.
the party as a whole has worked to spread the belief that he is a muslim.
And the campaign specifically has tried to lable him a terrorist. I think anyone can see that the goal of the party is either to have him assassinated or to scare people into not voting for him, or both
the worst part of it is that if he is elected there will still be nutjobs who believe the lies they are schilling now so they have definitly increased the odds of there being at least one attack on his life.
That was alot of words just to say you think Palin is calling Obama a terrorist.
Lame.
Great article. I am south african and therefore have no real interest in this issue, but the subtle manipulation of this behaviour has been very well described.
Puh-lease! While much of the technical detail of your article may be correct, you certainly haven't shown any intent to incite violence. In fact, its irresponsible to suggest that intent on Palin's part. I don't believe you really think she wants someone to assasinate Obama. You appear to want someone out there to believe that, perhaps so they might take preemptive action of their own.
The techniques you describe are common in the professional politician's skillset. So, the selective criticism of Palin indicates a specific bias that effectively invalidates your argument for anyone that doesn't share that same bias.
Very insightful look at the use of language, especially the focus on how Palin is employing language in subtle ways. Code switching is one name for it. Dog Whistle politics is another.
Quite the expert. A mindreader and a total prophet. Why don't you just read everyone's mail for us and decide who should lead us. This is total and complete arrogance and another example of liberal insanity at its best. The Bush haters have lost their bearing and compass. Examining ones friends and allies is certainly a view into someones thoughts and values. Is it not? Let me try to make it simple from an ignorant clinging midwesterner to the ultra left wing loonies: If it looks like a duck....
The media doesn't "lack a spine" ... the media wants to sell papers, and pandering to the lower instincts is no longer relegated to the tabloids. The interwebs are the tabloids, and the media are happy to follow suit.
Follow the money — the answer is usually there.
What a great article! I found it very insightful.
I recently read an interview with 'Joe the Plumber' where he voices his disappointment with McCain and his utter respect for Sarah Palin (and her unfair treatment by the media). For me as a European it had much more depth and meaning thanks to your article on the use of code switching and linguistics.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/19055/