Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Economist takes lefties like paul krugman to task for their hysterical accusations after the tragic shootings in Tucson. Blaming Sarah Plain for the actions of a lunatic are dumb, but calculated by the left for political gain. I am not even sure Sarah Palin would be the best choice to be president of the United States, but I have no doubt that she loves her country and is working for political change within the lectoral system.
At this point, there is simply no sound reason to believe this deranged young man was fired up by "toxic" or "eliminationist" conservative rhetoric from Michele Bachmann or whomever. Why are we even having this conversation? It's nuts. It's offensive. Is there any, you know, evidence that political rhetoric is now more vitriolic or incendiary than usual? Maybe there is, but I know of none. A feeling in Mr Krugman's gut doesn't cut it. Doesn't it seem at least as likely that a 22-year-old would be inspired to an act of high-profile atrocity by violent video games or films? As far as I know there's no evidence of that, either.
Mr Loughner's obsession with language as a form of control seems rather less like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin than Max Stirner, Michel Foucault, or even left-leaning linguists such as George Lakoff and Geoffrey Nunberg. Our own Johnson discusses speculation about the possible influence of one David Wynn Miller. But nobody's going to try to smear Max Stirner, George Lakoff, or David Wynn Miller in the pages of the New York Times by recklessly associating their teachings with the tragedy in Tucson because, well, that would be completely bonkers and, more importantly, Max Stirner, George Lakoff, and David Wynn Miller didn't just recapture the House.
Anyway, let Ross Douthat's intelligently measured column be an example to Mr Krugman of the responsible, reasonable, non-toxic analysis he demands, but utterly failed to deliver.
Sarah Palin also replies.
Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.