Much ado about Sarah's rhetoric ... and why it matters.

From the Twitterati this week, there have been primarily three types of tweets about Sarah Palin: those that mock her mercilessly, those that criticize and call for intelligent people to stop paying attention to her, and those who wax sentimental (and selectively) about the glory days of Tea Partying pre-Palin.

I, too, have cautioned about giving her more power than she actually has. I, too, have certainly indulged my moments of snark and outrage with her behavior. And, I can even partially acknowledge and affirm the frustrated observations of Tea Partiers who complain that corporate GOP influences vis-vis Palin have increased.

However . . as distasteful and tedious and wearisome I find the task of studying Sarah Palin's rhetoric at this moment in history, I think it would be foolish and reckless not to do so. Particularly now that she has become the face and the de facto leader of the Tea Party movement.

What I love about my field of rhetorical theory and criticism are the training and perspective and tools it provides to study and understand the strategies and historical lessons of persuasive discourse in public life. When it comes to rhetorical strategies, there is very little that is extraordinarily new . . . although contexts and purposes and media vary greatly in our culture, there are still only so many ways to start and motivate and sustain a popular movement. And one of the most simple and powerful ways to do this is to create a common enemy - what Kenneth Burke explained as "identification by anti-thesis" and what Eric Hoffer identified as "the devil" of a mass movement. Using such rhetorical tactics in turn creates a firm basis for demagoguery and exciting the emotion and fanaticism of psychologically pre-disposed followers - the same type of rhetorical demagoguery and fanaticism that eventually became Nazi Germany.

Now hear me clearly on this: I AM NOT SAYING THAT PALIN IS HITLER, and I think fear-mongering from the left about fascism on the right is premature, academically unethical, and potentially just as reckless as what is happening on the right.

It is wise to keep in mind that fanaticism and true believers can develop on either side of the political aisle, and further, that mis-diagnosing a problem makes it impossible to provide a solution that is timely and effective. In academic research, the admonition to consider the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is good advice. And I firmly believe, from the rhetorical evidence that we have so far, that we are dealing with fanaticism, not fascism. I agree that this is serious enough to be taken seriously - but going off half-cocked and fighting another rhetorical devil that hasn't actually happened yet is a waste of time that may prevent a more sensible solution and strategy to the problem from being heard.

With that said, however, I will acknowledge that based on the evidence from our ongoing research, I do think Palin and the Tea Parties are rhetorically dangerous because of the fanaticism they breed toward the US Government, and in particular, the irrational hatred and fear they exploit and nurture toward out current President, Barack Obama. She clearly stated in Nashville that her motives are to start a revolution . . . and she seems wholly unaware that some revolutions end badly and with long lasting negative consequences for liberty and freedom. (e.g. the Russian Revolution, the Iranian revolution)

And THAT is why we need to watch her - that is why she gets more press than a peaceful gathering of intelligent and (far more interesting) women bloggers for the Blissdom convention at the Opryland Hotel. That is why we must - and will - continue to talk about her. This is not some mis-guided voyeruristic excursion - this is an informed academic conclusion about the consequences of ignoring history.

Because you see, in some ways, she is far more dangerous than Hitler, because Hitler was deliberate in his rhetorical strategy. He KNEW what he was doing when he gave his speeches and stirred up fanaticism. He was wholly and completely conscious that he was playing with fire.
The problem with Sarah Palin is that she herself is a True Believer . . . I honestly think she has no clue what she is doing, and I honestly think she believes she is doing a really great thing for America. (You betcha!) But much as I saw happening in the Bush administration, I see someone with very little solid education about human history recklessly running strategy and calling rhetorical plays without full consideration or even awareness of the potential consequences. And wish as we might, she is not going away - indeed, her voice is getting bigger, thanks to Fox News.

This is not to say that I also think the neocon influences that some of the Tea Partiers are now complaining about are likewise so ignorant. I think they may in fact be well aware of what they are doing, and that is also a concern that must be taken seriously. However, to also wax sentimental as if the Tea Party movement that started in April of 2009 had and has nothing to do with this fanatical build-up is a wishful, delusional re-writing of history that fails to take proper responsibility and provide a proper accounting of the rhetoric of this True Believer movement all along. The Tea Partiers are, and always have been, a movement threatening revolution against the U.S. Government, and in particular, President Barack (Hussein) Obama.

I mean, come on, the very metaphor of the Tea Party is one that invests in the imagery of rebellion against (at the time) the lawful government of the land. To selectively recognize that this particular rebellion against the tyranny of the British monarchy resulted in the freedom and liberty of many people in the 18th century and beyond fails to fully question and understand that such rebellion was NOT a revolution against a democratically elected government by a free electorate that also holds and cherishes the American Constitution as its own. President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress and the people that ELECTED them are NOT the English Monarchy of the 18th century - not even close - and it is ludicrous to suggest that they are, or to think you can somehow limit the outrageous symbolic connotations and subsequent actions that some unhinged tea partiers will take this metaphor as license to uphold.

But I digress . . .another post for another day.

My point here is that we are foolish (even stupid) to ignore Sarah Palin and the Tea Parties - or to take comfort in smugly mocking her, as if this is somehow solving the rhetorical problem she poses and that we collectively face in this country right now. Likewise, I think it foolish to go overboard in rabid, fanatical opposition to what is so far only a fairly vigorous fanaticism. We must responsibly confront and thoughtfully engage this challenge without falling prey to the very forces of darkness we fear in opposing them.

I think Media Matters got it spot on yesterday when Jamison Foser claimed that is wasn't the QUANTITY of coverage that Palin gets that is the problem, but rather the QUALITY of coverage she gets. I wholeheartedly agree.

And rather than supporting liberal bloggers calling on Academics to join a reckless crusade, I recommend a different course of action: get out there and document the Tea Parties with your own participation and video and commentary. Use that rightful concern and wonderful passion for our country to get out there and DO citizen journalism and citizen RESEARCH about what is happening - document it - and keep the pressure on the media to report it accurately and completely.

Because if I have any gripe with anyone right now, it is that the media - neither right nor left - totally got it right about last weekend's Tea Party with Sarah. Instead, we have chronic asshats like David Gregory enthusiastically proclaiming, "she sounds like a Presidential candidate." Why didn't a single MSM journalist question the overwhelmingly all-white composition of the audience? Why didn't they point out how crucial stimulus funds were for our public universities (Among other things...)

Had they spoken to @coviner or @bugsact or myself about what we saw and heard during our participation at the outrageously expensive for-profit Tea Party in Nashville, or even if they had just simply done some factchecking and called Palin out on the obvious fallacies and lies in her speech, they might already be promoting better, quality coverage of this growing mass movement and providing real and useful information to those who need and want to know what is happening in OUR United States of America.

And that, my friends, is why I think (groan) we are and should be still talking about Sarah Palin and the Tea Parties.