On Never Learning

You'd think Sarah Palin, or her speech writers, or various and sundry advisors would learn eventually. You'd think, by now, they'd be the most careful people on the planet, reading and re-reading every statement bearing her name. You'd think that, at the very least, they wouldn't let her use a phrase that refers almost exclusively to anti-Semitic fears about Jews murdering children and using their blood in secret rituals.

You'd be wrong. Here's a quote from Palin's reaction, via Facebook, to the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords:

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

 Let's also see what Wikipedia has to say about the concept of blood libel.

Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.

In general, the libel alleged something like this: a child, normally a boy who had not yet reached puberty, was kidnapped or sometimes bought and taken to a hidden place (the house of a prominent member of the Jewish community, a synagogue, a cellar, etc.) where he would be kept hidden until the time of his death. Preparations for the sacrifice included the gathering of attendees from near and far and constructing or readying the instruments of torture and execution. 

So according to Palin, journalists and pundits shouldn't kidnap prepubescent boys, hide them in a prominent Jewish leader's cellar, then later torture and execute them. I can't speak for everyone in the media, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're probably safe.

Of course I realize that Palin was speaking idiomatically, and my point isn't that she's a crazy woman who actually believes that the media are child murderers. What I do mean to say is that she is clearly incapable of opening her mouth without cramming her foot deep into it. Did I mention that Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish?

Yep.

I don't want to belabor the point of Palin's culpability for the increasingly violent tone of American political debate. But her use of a phrase that is associated almost exclusively with anti-Jewish bigotry is alarming for someone who, as nearly as we can tell, wants to be the leader of our country. It's not that I think Palin is anti-Semitic. As far as I know, there's no reason to believe that. What I do believe is that she's careless and intellectually disinterested to the point that she ostensibly puts no thought into the words she uses to express herself.

If I still haven't made my point, imagine if in Obama's first speech after the shooting, he had called for a jihad against the virulent tone of political discussion that has arisen in the U.S. This wouldn't necessarily be evidence that he's an Islamic extremist, but it would seriously call his judgment into question. Palin's judgment should be similarly questioned, as should the desirability of such a careless person as president.