Did Sarah Palin Jump the Shark?
The term Jump the Shark is defined by Wikipedia as "an idiom used to denote the point in a television program's history where the plot spins off into absurd storylines or unlikely characterizations. These changes were often the result of efforts to revive interest in a show whose audience had begun to decline."1 It refers to a September, 1977 episode of Happy Days when Fonzie, absurdly wearing a leather jacket and swim trunks, jumps over a shark to prove his bravery. There is a point in time when people realize the emperor has no clothes. When people realize they've been caught up in the moment and lost perspective. A prime example is the absurdity of bell bottoms or The Macarena Dance. That moment, when people realize the absurdity of it all, could be called "jumping the shark".
In regards to the terrible assassination attempt on Sen. Gifford, Sarah Palin stated that "...journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel...", and in that she may have over-reached. We have seen the backlash, unexpected by her camp and in contrast to the much more dignified (dare we say, Presidential) sounding speech, given by President Obama.
So why the backlash? First we must understand what she is saying. A blood libel was false rumors that there were those in the Jewish community that would kidnap Christian children and use their blood to create matzo bread. Historically, this has led either directly (through incidents of Christian child murders blamed on the Jewish community) and indirectly as one of many bigoted accusations that have led to violence against the Jewish community. It should be noted that Sen. Gifford is Jewish and Jared Lee Loughner, the man who attempted to assassinate her, is (presumably) Christian. Sarah Palin was being accused in the media for using violent imagery and divisive rhetoric helping foster an environment of violence and hatred, enflaming passions to the point that someone, perhaps someone unbalanced, could thing that the solution to "make things right" could include assassinating a politician. As any good politician knows, being on the defensive makes one look weak. The best defense is a good offense, a strategy so basic even kids intuitively understand it. When called a name, they often retort: "Am not, you are." Turning the tables and accusing the accuser has been standard fare for any politician including Sarah Palin. So she is trying to say, "It was the media who sharpened these differences, highlighted the violent rhetoric and built this volatile atmosphere, not me." Attacking the "lamestream" media and pundits has been standard fare for her and thus is not unexpected. However, her argument fails on multiple levels.
First, whenever Sarah Palin or her proxies issue a press release, send a tweet, publish an article on her website, or makes a speech, they are trying to communicate with the world. It was Sarah Palin that said, "don't retreat - reload!" It’s doesn't ring true to blame the media for picking up and reporting on something that she wants to make public. She is trying to accuse the messenger for the message.
Secondly, there is a lot of noise in the public square - all screaming for attention . There must have been a thousand statements, quotes, press releases, and blogs about the assassination attempt. Most were pretty standard fare expressing remorse and condolences to those involved - however it is Sarah Palin's response that has garnered the most response, why? Because of two words, "blood libel". Being over the top and controversial is one way to get attention. The congressman who states "Obama's administration is the most corrupt ever", or the TV pundit that likens Obama to Hitler are likely to get the sound bites and make the news, but one would be hard pressed to make a factual case for either. Hitler started World War that killed 50 million people, and he slaughtered over 5 million of his own people including Jews, the handicapped, homosexuals, political enemies, among others. How is Obama just like Hitler? This is exaggeration and hyperbole. Did the media spread false rumors about the killing of Christian children to be used in Jewish religious rituals? Hardly. This brings us to third, and most regettable part of her use of "blood libel".
In attempting to deflect attacks on her use of violent imagery and divisive language, she chose an over-the-top statement that was simultaneously both divisive and violent. It splits Jews and Christian and involves the killing of children. This would be akin to someone trying to deflect charges of racism by call the accuser the N-word. This is yet another example of how her use of language ratchets up the conversation, while the rest of the political community is calling for toning down this rhetoric. If there was ever a time for restraint, this would have been it.
As a final insult to injury, the majority of her speech was about this perceived injustice. In the speech she says:
"Like many, I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event."
So while the rest of the world is sad for the death and injury of innocents, including the death of a nine year old girl, Sarah Palin is sad for that anyone would question what role the rest of us might have played and what we might have done. She continues:
"Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God's guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate."
Here we see a healthy dose of religious language to appease her base, but we also see her taking a total lack of responsibility. Her statement builds, asking for prayer for the dead and wounded and for a better world, and then...she inserts one last defense of her right to use violent imagery. This comes off as being petty and out of touch. While the rest of the political universe, both politicians and pundits alike are introspectively questioning what role they might have played in the tragedy and, as they are professing to try to go about politics in a more civil manner, Sarah Palin is defensive and demonstrative of this volatile and over-the-top rhetoric. Clearly she is tone deaf to the political climate and misread the public's reaction to this event. Rather than leave it in God's hands, people are asking everyone to do their share in creating a more civilized and respectful world by toning down our heated political rhetoric. Compare and contrast this to President Obama's thoughts on subject from his eulogy in Tucson:
"But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together."
As President Obama clearly showed in his speech, this is no time to try to make this about him or to apportion blame, rather it is about those injured and suffering, and any attempt otherwise falls flat.
From her perspective she was simply using a proven standard formula for success and must be puzzled why it isn't working now. Already there are serious and thoughtful Republicans that are quietly (and increasingly vocally) questioning Sarah Palin as a serious contender in 2012. Certainly, she has the media strategy down, but does she have actual substance? Her resume is light and so one must question does she have the skills to truly govern? Or is her shtick just throwing grenades from the sidelines? (There is nothing wrong with this, both Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh have made themselves into highly popular mult-millionaires through this line of work.) She is undeniably telegenic, well spoken, and a darling of the Right wing base, but can she win 2012? This is the soul searching that the Republican Party is currently undertaking. Certainly there are those on the right (those that agree with her and like her ability to upset the left) and those on the left (those Democrats that see an Obama vs. Palin Presidential contest an easy victory in 2012) that would love to see her make a run at the Presidency in 2012, but we'll have to see.
The tragic events of 9-11 did cause both sides to pull together. A surprise attack on US soil by an sworn enemy of America that killed several thousand US citizens made the heated arguments between Republicans and Democrats seem mighty petty and inconsequential. However, this comity ended all too quickly and dissolved into the usual state of affairs. The Republicans are already stating they are planning to move ahead with the (this is the actual official title of the bill) "H.R. 2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act". There is a very good chance that the mood and state of politics in the nation will quickly return to its usual high pitched animosity, and along with this return to the norm Mrs. Palin's gaff will be quickly forgotten. However, there is also a chance that it will be transformational moment. It is possible this is when she’ll be unveiled as being a pop star and not a politician, and treated accordingly. It is possible that Sarah Palin just "jumped the shark".
Sources
