n the horrific aftermath of the Tucson killings, much of the national debate has been focused on political rhetoric, and whether the pronouncements of certain former governors of Alaska — and graphics on her website — somehow caused this tragedy.
The Palin apologists have seized on this as a red herring. This deceptive argument is being executed brilliantly across the airwaves and Internet by the right.
Now, the classic red herring is not a lie. It is, in fact, true. But not relevant. A way to re-frame the argument. And hope no one notices. The right is exceedingly good at doing this.
Thus we now have a national conversation, and a media feeding frenzy, about whether man charged with the murders was “motivated” by the language of “relock and reload,” by crosshairs over congressional districts.
But this does not matter. What matters is the fact we are having this conversation.
Because what really matters is that the goal posts have moved. Sarah Palin’s disgraceful language and symbols and website graphics are being waved off as irrelevant to the political discourse. When, in fact, they are the political discourse.
Not all rhetoric is verbal. Those cross-hairs sent a message as clearly as any State of the Union Address. So too, the deafening silence from Twitter and Facebook and the other social media outlets, where the former governor allows herself to be heard by the nation. As my former boss, Frank Luntz, taught me: If you want to keep the topic off the table, just keep it out of the conversation.
Mission accomplished.
I am hopeful that my many conservative friends, who are in the profession of rhetoric and in politics, understand I am not just adding one more voice to the Keith Olbermann editorial rant about this horrible situation.
What we are witnessing is not just the partisan, political man-handling of a tragedy — but an outright propagandistic tactic to avoid answering questions, which are of direct relevance to the national political discourse and our broader culture.
What the right is now doing is clearly manipulative. Its continuing rhetorical strategy is the essence of the telltale red herring.
We should not be discussing the motivations of a deranged murderer in Tucson. We should be discussing why we are now having the discussion that we are.
Why we are in the place we are, rhetorically, as a nation.
After all, how do we know when things have gone too far? When there is real political danger manifested in what people say — not just what they do?
Or, more important, have our goalposts have moved so far that we all feel it is wrong to “connect the dots” in a culture that allows tea party talk of gun-toting insurrection, as though it is just part of the multicultural melee, without impact.
It does have an impact. As that lefty President George W. Bush was fond of saying, it “sets the tone.”
Conservatives should be first in line to say this. Leading figures on the right, including Bill Bennett and Robert Bork gained mass followings by proclaiming that the liberal left was “coarsening our culture” and “degrading the discourse” in our society.
No, Palin did not pull the trigger in Tucson. But has the conversation been coarsened? You betcha.
She has won — in a perverse rhetorical way. The red herring worked.
Jonathan Riehl is a communications consultant, who has worked for congressional campaigns and nonprofit advocacy organizations.
No comments:
Post a Comment