Incoherent and Undeveloped thoughts about Arendt and Palin

Something eerily similar to Weimar Germany political dissent is rearing its head in light of the Arizona senator Giffords' murder attempt. After reading Frank Rich's op-ed article in the Times, No One Listened to Gabrielle Giffords, I realized how subversively powerful the Tea Party can be. Without a dobut, I do not think Palin (or Beck) is capable of winning the Republican Presidential bid in the future; however, in the less-than-likelihood that she does, the way she's converted troubled but previously unmotivated Republicans to figuratively (and literally) take up their arms against the current administration is utterly frightening.

That last statement is a little misleading. There is no proof or logical way to connect the war rhetoric of Palin and the Tea Party to Loughner's motives-he was mentally ill and a random comment overheard in passing someone on the street could also have motivated his killing spree in Arizona. But Rich's article, along with Giffords' own remarks in the aftermath of Palin's Targeted Poster, does well to make the following point. Though there is no causal connection between Palin's violent, war rhetoric, there are consequences.

Exciting and encouraging people to get involved in politics is entirely admirable. However, the way in which Palin and the Tea Party have gone about it thus far is dangerous and consequential. Though I think it's somewhat of a stretch to compare the Tea Party's rhetoric with Hitler's pre-war agenda, there is something disturbing about the violent undertones of Palin's political targeting. Encouraging people to "take up arms" against politicians has it's consequences and unfortunately, a madman proved it.

As I've said, the comparison between Palin/the Tea Party and totalitarianism is a stretch; however, it's not too hard to imagine a growing support in difficult and dissenting times (add another financial crisis that could further cripple and dismay the masses and it could be very possible that hope could be found in her radical perspective).

Hannah Arendt's ideal political sphere consists of a plurality of different and unique individuals. Her experience during Nazi occupation motivated her to make sense of how totalitarianism took control of Europe in The Origins of Totalitarianism. One thing she makes expressively clear in her analysis of war-devastated Europe is that the threat of totalitarianism is not behind us. Our political sphere is just as susceptible to totalitarian threat and I can't shake the idea that Palin has this capability-not because of her "genius," but because of her ability to engage and disquiet those who do not think seriously about politics or the consequences of their action and speech. Her ability to stoke the fires of dissent without logic or reason, but with emotion and reactionary appeals has so far proved capable of dangerous consequences.

Though Hannah Arendt found refuge in the States, her conception of the political state here was in many respects idealized and naive. Compared to the ravaged political sphere of Europe, the States were in much better shape; however, our political system has yet to implement or even take seriously some of the claims she makes in The Human Condition to found a new political sphere-one less likely to fall prey to totalitarian rule. I fear we are only a few disasters away from mass support of someone like Palin who deceptively tries to represent a new political era which has the possibility to undermine our democracy.

Just as a reminder, if anyone is reading this seriously-these thoughts are obviously undeveloped and barely properly connected. After reading Rich's article I needed to start to think through the eerie connections between the Tea Party phenomenon (and it's accusations of the current administration as Nazi-ist) and Arendt's observation that totalitarianism is not behind us.