Blog Post 2

Think of an example of partisan rhetoric that has been criticized for its content or tone. Do you believe it is dangerous or incendiary? Why or why not?

For the past month, Sarah Palin has been a target for her misuse of partisan rhetoric: in a public, Facebook video, she claimed that she was the victim of "blood libel" - which is the original term for blaming Jews for the death of Jesus and for an anti-Semitic rally that led to numerous deaths of Jews. People, especially rabbis, found this remark insensitive and offensive to Holocaust survivors and other victims of anti-Semitism (Grossman). Ironically, her "fiery" rhetoric has also caused people to link her to the deadly Tucson shooting in January 2011. Partisan rhetoric is definitely dangerous and incendiary; it makes the speaker sound insensitive and can easily offend the people of either side of an issue.

Civility and Bipartisanship

Many people believe that civility and bipartisanship are widely considered positive methods in relation to the political atmosphere of the United States. Congress even considers bipartisanship the most reliable approach to legislative government. Although this system of speech is often encouraged, what people do not know is that "playing it safe" in regards to an issue often masks the direness and deeper insights of a severe issue. Vague approaches to an issue will only lead to confusion and possibly, not even a definite solution. These "feel good" responses brought upon by politicians indicate the artificial and misleading political world we live in.