Palin-hatred, and what it shows

"If you want to know what someone's like, put him in charge." That old saying has a lesser-known complement: if you want to know what someone is like, watch him when he gets angry. What H.L. Mencken called the "purple moment" not only strips aside conscious self-control, but also whisks away built-up habits of politeness and consideration: civility, if you will. The hatred directed at Sarah Palin is as revealing as any other outburst. It gives a glimpse into the liberal mind.

When Mrs. Palin first stepped onto the national stage, there was actually little hatred. The treatment she got was snooting, which well-adjusted people from faraway places and small towns often face from the urban elite. Tina Fey's act, which some people to this day confuse with the real thing, relied on the stereotype of the "Hick from Wasilla."

Unfortunately for the stereotypers, Mrs. Palin proved to be a rather shrewd Governor of an entire state. Shrewd enough to match wits with the supposedly all-powerful oil companies and emerge the better. This shrewdness came through even in interviews where she had supposedly made a fool of herself (or was made a fool of.) Moreover, she proved to be a quick study on the campaign trail.

At the time, some real hatred showed up courtesy of a certain Mr. Flynt. Hustler released a movie that tapped into an old boys-room stereotype about well-adjusted self-confident women, layered upon the standard "right wing hypocrite" stereotype. Unfortunately for those who delighted in it, that mud didn't stick. Regarding her pro-life principles, she has been very far from hypocritical. Both her grandson and her youngest son were treated as blessings, not inconveniences. It was over this issue that real hatred came wafting out of places that were not obvious sewers. Remember the false claims that Trig was really Bristol's child? Of relevance to that falsehood is the fact that Down's Syndrome is a genetic abnormality.

Later, there actually was some grist for the urban-liberal stereotype about Alaskans being hicks. The trouble was, the hicks were the ones assailing Mrs. Palin. The nuisance lawsuits she faced were reminiscent of the treatment that a backwoods boy would get after making valedictorian and scoring acceptance to MIT. The only reasonable option she had was to quit the Governorship and square off as a private citizen. Doing so would stop the drain on the Alaska treasury for the defence compensation she had a right to as Governor. Hence, the next stage in the attempt to declare her dead: "Sarah the Quitter."

As a private citizen, she revealed a previously hidden talent for coming up with zingers that resonated all over the country. There have been liberal carpers who claim she didn't write America By Heart, but no-one had claimed that she didn't coin the revealing phrase "death panels." Her ability to connect with the country became obvious with her Facebook postings. It wasn't until last year's campaign that we saw another previously hidden talent: the knack of making a supposedly unelectable candidate electable. Her track record in this arena is much better than President Obama's.

Again, the liberals found that they had woefully underestimated her. Hence, the outpouring of raw hatred under the cover of "restoring civility" after the Arizona shooting. Note the latest criticism: her speech defending herself against what she identified as a blood libel being called unPresidential. Mrs. Palin, although very influential, is a private citizen. It was as if an unaffiliated major stockholder, not even on the Board of Directors, was criticized for being less than a Chairperson of the Board. Everyone in management knows what that kind of criticism implies about that private stockholder.

What's amazing about Mrs. Palin's ascent is that, to a greater degree than even most conservatives, she's being "kicked up." In this regard, she's like Rush Limbaugh. Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, though, she's an experienced and quite savvy politician. She may well be carped up to the Presidency.

Yes, their heat brings light. Below are some traits that show when the Chautauqua of Hate is on tour:

1. Liberals get very angry when their cherished stereotypes are confuted. Mrs. Palin is far from being an also-ran in life, and it shows. Given liberal stereotypes, that's all she should be. She graduated from a regular state college, the purported home of office workers and grunts. The fact that's she's not an also-ran, and continually proves at in the high political level, is a major source of the anger against her. So is the fact that her heart belongs in high school, not university. Ditto on the obvious lack of hypocrisy regarding her principles; liberals need conservatives to be hypocrites. As an aside, I note that she seems to be picking up on Sun-Tzu's advice: when an enemy is easily angered, irritate him.

2. Their anger tends to show up as envy. By "envy," I don't mean jealousy. I mean the passion to strip someone else of their advantages, however well earned. Think of the insults she's had to endure in this light.

3. When laughed off, their envy grows worse. Mrs. Palin has the gift of assuming that she's above the target when she takes flak. So do other conservative women, but Mrs. Palin has it most visibly. This gift, no male conservative seems to have. That differential in flicking off envy is the most likely reason why female conservatives seem to be the ones with the cojones (so to speak.)

4. When inflamed, liberals' envy takes the form of self-righteousness. That's precisely what she's made them look like. Her line about Michelle Obama not wanting her children to eat S'mores wasn't a vicious attack. It wasn't a scurrilous slur. It wasn't iron-clad proof of frivolity. It was irreverent. That's all. The fact that liberals magnified it all out of proportion shows that Sarah Palin has the knack of making even the coolios in liberal ranks look and act self-righteous.

5. When their self-righteousness surfaces, liberals go on the warpath regardless of tactical considerations. After the Arizona tragedy, Mrs. Palin got close to the full treatment that Barry Goldwater got in 1964. Only, she got it eighteen months too early. Conservatives not only have time to regroup and undo the damage, but they also have enough time to figure out how to neutralize such outbursts. In the immediate term, her unfavourables went up. In the longer term, liberals will have to explain why they turned a paranoid schizophrenic with no discernable ideology into a political figure. Should Sarah again rise above, her supporters will be able to deflect any future attack by pointing to that one.

6. When liberals ignore tactical considerations, they overdo it. Remember the fear/hope that Mrs. Palin would wind up overexposed? Given the attacks she keeps facing, it's her enemies that now have to worry. If they keep up their pace, it's only a matter of time before the ordinary American reacts with "So she's the devil. Yawn, yawn." Her attackers overexposing themselves is the best thing Sarah Palin's got going for her in the longer term.

7. When they overdo it, they reveal other, perhaps embarrassing, stereotypes. Most noticeable, now that Mrs. Palin is a celebrity, is their conceit that celebrities are vain, unthinking, and egotistical. Some may add the codicil "unless those celebrities are liberal," but I myself wouldn't do so without checking further.

Believe it or not, it was Stanley Fish who revealed something very perceptive about Mrs. Palin. He picked up on her unegotisticality in his favourable review of America By Heart. He noted that she, as a writer, had the habit of standing aside and letting other writers say their piece through extensive quotations. This habit is that of a teacher, the kind that lets a student say his or her piece without "guidance." Should she achieve the Presidency, it's likely that she'll run her cabinet that way: the very opposite of an egotistical moralizer.

That's how President Reagan ran his cabinet, and he was indeed criticized for it. There were allegations that Don Regan and James Baker III were running personal fiefdoms. His leadership style displeased some, particularly control freaks, but did work well; humility often does. This precedent should answer some questions about her qualifications – to wit, "she's qualified when it comes to delegating."

Her teacher's style answers to another kind of animosity. There are people, not exactly qualified in the humility department, who would be rankled at serving in a cabinet under "Teacher Sarah." I offer the personal opinion that such rankling says more about them than her.

America is in danger if Palin is elected because Palin espouses all out war with “the enemies of Israel” due to her twisted biblical beliefs. America should not be used as a biblical tool to do “God's work” as Palin puts it. Im sick of people ignoring this.

Palin doesn't represent Christianity like people think she does.

Interviews - How is that her Fault???

She’s the one interviewed. She came in unready for nastiness, but she should have been. Either she wasn’t prepared, or didn’t know she needed to prepare. Either way, it was her face on the screen, and her words, and her fault.

And “she did not quit the field of combat, she redeployed in a more advantageous position”?

She resigned when opposed. Couldn’t take the heat, got the hell outa the kitchen.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as governor to the best of my ability.” Or until I’m repeatedly, litigiously attacked.

When the left/rinos decided to chase her after the election they brought their battle to her personally, not to Alaska. Unfortunately attacking her made it virtually impossible to continue to give her full attention to her job. She did the HONORABLE thing. She had no control over the attacks leveled at her.

By the way, this is all history. She will go forward and I guarantee she will influence american politics for as long as she wishes. All the other crap is history. It would be as if we evaluated you today by what you did when you were 15 years old.

“virtually impossible”

And was it “virtually impossible” for Churchill’s Brits to continue to oppose in 1940? “Virtually impossible” for McAuliffe and the 101st to continue to resist after they were surrounded in Ardenne in the winter of ‘44? Yesterday afternoon, could Bears’ quarterback Cutler have played on, or was it “virtually impossible” for him to lead his team?

How’d Colorado Congresscritter, hyperliberal Patricia Schroeder put it, in her tearful press conference on September 28th, 1987, announcing the end of her run for president? “It’s virtually impossible to guarantee I’d win...”? Ain’t that what she said?

Bad choices for military analogy!
The brits had to be bailed out by the commonwealth and the USA. Sarah doesn't have such allies.

The battle of the bulge failed because the Germans had no more fuel for their tanks and other transport. They had lost air superiority as well. Believe me, McAuliffe had no easy escape and would have fought to the finish if he had had to. The Germans were unable to finish them off.

Cutler AND the coach made the decision, and who is to know if it was right?

I really don't see any similarity with Schroeder. Sarah Palin is a privet citizen. She is not running for any public office. As a private citizen, she can and should do whatever is best for her family and herself.

If I were a lawyer, I’d file a class action lawsuit on behalf of cockroaches everywhere for this scurilous libel on them in comparing cockroaches to liberals.

Compared to liberals, cockroaches are fine, noble, upstanding citizens

No, great choices for military anology. I compliment myself for my choices of military analogies. McAuliffe had no easy escape and would have fought to the death if he had had to. Given the opportunity, he didn’t resign and give a rambling speech explaining the virtual impossibilities, he stayed in the fight and replied with a censored expletive that was tamed down by our embedded press idiots to “Nuts!”. Likewise the Brits did not quit at great, even ruinous financial cost to themselves and their families.

Sarah, on the other hand...

Oh, and the Schroeder similarity?

Female politician-quitter who gave emotional speech “explaining” the quittage.

Sarah’s major crimes against liberals:

On her own she has already attained a level of success most of them cannot dream of.

She doesn’t owe liberals or the government a thing - she made it without moving onto the plantation.

She makes their heroines look like the whiney, socialist, group-think, baby killing, man haters they really are.

she is still on the UP escaltor No matter how much the shrews squeal they cannot drag her down.

They said it couldn’t be done but she does it all with apparent ease.

She makes them feel inferior - She is everything feminists claim to be but secretly know they are not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.