Political Speech: Meaning & Intent
It’s been long known that when politicians speak, they use what are essentially coded phrases to convey meaning to their target audience. “States Rights”, for example, from the mouths of Republicans and their right-wing brethren is well known for being a code phrase to connote opposition to civil rights, especially for minorities, or even anti-abortion, depending on the context. It rarely refers to educational curricula, but busing instead. So when a avowedly conservative politician uses the phrase “blood libel” the first thing that comes to my mind is that she thinks all Democrats, and even most or all liberals, are Jews, and therefore not real Americans, who are, of course, Christian, and that by using this phrase she will accomplish two things: the jingoistic and racist elements of the so-called Tea Partiers will see all opposition to her and by extension themselves as alien and “anti-American”, and no one will be able to decry her usage as anything other than a smear against her without generating something like a feedback loop to increase that perception of alienation.

She doesn’t write this stuff herself. She’s got people to do that for her, and they’re not as stupid as we wish we could believe she is. Did she really mean her critics are falsely claiming she has “blood on her hands” or did she mean that her critics are blood-drinking, “protocols of the elders of Zion” Jewish liberals bent on destroying America? This is a hate-filled, angry woman, a failure as a working politician, now enjoying a means of spreading her hate without any effective opposition or recrimination. We must not let her get away with this poisoning of the discourse.