Reverse Outline:
Part 1:
1. Before the Tucson tragedy, GG made it clear she wanted to work against violent
rhetoric.
2. The Tucson police chief blamed the tragedy on politicians’ violent rhetoric.
3. Sarah Palin is one politician who engages in such violent rhetoric, and in fact, had
metaphorically labeled GG as a target prior to the Tucson tragedy.
4. Palin spoke out against people who blamed her by claiming the tragedy was the fault
of one lone man and using further violent rhetoric when she described those who found
blame with her as searching for ‘blood libel.’
5. Palin’s post tragedy speech is not just a bid for attention; it is an example of the
rhetoric regularly used by neoliberal politicians today.
6. Neoliberalism creates “civic violence” by definition and neoliberal politicians work to
turn attention away from this fact in their rhetoric.
7. By examining how Palin’s rhetoric works to label violence as private and how Palin
makes “civic rage” “politically productive” the author will challenge the validity of
labeling Palin’s speech as democratic (as she does).
Part 2:
8. Most observers blamed lax mental healthcare or gun laws for the Tucson shooting, but
some drew a connection between the shooting and the violent speech coming from
Republicans.
9. The people who noticed this connection noted that the violent rhetoric of the right
caused many citizens to view the US government as a literal enemy.
10. Sarah Palin worked to “privatize” the violence in Tucson, blaming the event on one
crazy man; in privatizing all violence, neoliberals make it impossible for their opposition
to place the blame on them and their violent speech.
11. Violent language is a hallmark of neoliberalism; it is part of their structure and
definition.
12. Engels cites several violence theorists including Benjamin, Derrida and Arendt; these
theorists disagree, some saying violence and power can never be separated and some
saying violence is the sign of a power “crisis.”
13. Benjamin argues that violence is a natural part of the social order-it is not something
“exceptional” and can be found within all social structures.
14. Benjamin’s ideas are helpful in explaining the Tucson tragedy; this violence was not
exceptional, it was a part of our established social order (neoliberalism).
15. Palin quotes Reagan often and this is not surprising-his speeches and rhetoric were
the start of the neoliberal movement in the late 60’s.
16. Reagan’s speech during the late 60’s worked to demonize sociological influences on
crime and violence as soft, painting psychological (individual) factors as the only real
reason for violence.
17. Reagan ran and was elected on the idea that society (racism, poverty, etc.) was not to
blame for crime; the psychotic individual who committed the crime was to blame.
18. Though Reagan is known for his financial politics (a hallmark of neoliberalism), he
should also be remembered for his violent rhetoric that privatized violence in the eyes of
society.
19. Palin’s speech seems to contradict itself in that she uses violent rhetoric while
warning her supporters against using actual violence; this can be explained by accepting
the fact that Palin views violent speech as having no effect on action, in other words, she
does not recognize a connection between violent speech and violent action.
20. Palin uses this belief, or the clear demarcation between speech and cause for action
to defend her violent rhetoric as metaphorical and non-violent in nature.
21. Violent rhetoric is a part of our political history, but the huge moral divide that slows
communication and compromise in America today changes the tenor and impact of the
violent rhetoric.
22. The current tenor of violent rhetoric paints the opposing side (in this case Obama) as
a literal enemy who is out to destroy America, a move that puts us one step closer to
inciting actual violence.
Part 3
23. Neoliberals have adopted a violent rhetoric originally aimed at social issues like gay
marriage to address financial issues like deregulation.
24. In the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy, Palin named herself as a victim of the media
who was looking for someone to blame.
25. Engels sees this moves as part of Palin’s tendency to practice “the politics of
resentment.”
26. This resentment occurs when politics becomes so big that there are multiple
opportunities to be wronged and minimal opportunities to right those wrongs, usually a
bi-product of a huge bureaurocratic government.
27. Engels cites literary characters who are prime examples of citizens who resent
America because they feel wronged and have no chance for redemption and he notes that
people who are resentful want to “find peace” in some way.
28. The politics of resentment capitalizes on resentful citizens and names a perceived
enemy as responsible, when in fact, because of the nature of the bureaucracy, there is no
one person to be blamed; naming one person does not cause peace though, it just furthers
the resentment.
29. Palin’s violent rhetoric capitalizes on resentful citizens because she names an enemy
and does not offer a solution for justice; she just names the enemy.
30. Nietzsche theorizes that the politics of resentment frame the enemy as not simply
bad, but as evil and uncompromising and threatening; it makes politics into a fight
between good and evil instead of a compromise between opposing viewpoints.
31. Palin’s speech engenders a feeling of weakness in Americans and this feeling is good
for her neoliberal cause because it encourages blind faith.
Part 4
32. The Gabby Giffords tragedy led people to think about how talk and violence are
related, and this gives hope to the idea that how we talk will change.
33. Engels does not have a problem with Palin herself, he has a problem with the way
her speech simultaneously utilizes violent rhetorical tropes and calls for compromise.
34. Engels is not singling out Palin because, like Foucault says, we can’t blame the
speaker because the speech lives on; Engels is criticizing the larger structural issue that
Palin’s post Tucson speech represents.
35. Palin’s speech needs to be considered not as representative of her, but representative
of a specific form of democracy that works to shut down communication and
compromise.
36. Engels would have a problem with Palin’s speech no matter who spoke it because of
its message.
37. The politics Palin’s speech promotes make Americans feel like victims and as such,
encourages outbursts, not necessarily of violence, but outburtsts that are disruptive and
detract from democracy.
38. Palin’s speech encourages a kind of politics that is “antagonistic” instead of
“agonistic.”
39. Palin’s politics can’t be agonistic because she paints her opposition not as simply
different minded, but as evil and not to be compromised with.
40. It is hard to take a step back and view this neoliberal political language for what it
truly is, a tool that promotes violence, because it has become so ingrained in our
everyday lives.
41. In our current political atmosphere, “rhetorical violence” is the “new normal.”