Sarah Palin: Just another whiny liberal claiming victimization

On her blog, Elizabeth Wright offers an excellent analysis of the mass hysteria that is the Sarah Palin phenomenon.

Wright is a black conservative who specializes in debunking the sense of victimhood that so many black leaders love to employ to their advantage. She argues that the many wannabe conservatives who are Palin fans are employing the same tactic. They invoke the liberal sense of victimhood in her defense.

That of course is the essence of the Palin cult. It consists of people who feel that they're being put upon by their betters. It never occurs to these characters to ask why Palin could be bested in an interview by her fellow airhead - and now fellow talking head - Katie Couric.

Imagine for just a second that the late William F. Buckley had been interviewed by Couric. Is there the slightest chance that Buckley would have come out second best? Is there the slightest chance that the intellectual and elitist Buckley would have done anything other than patronize the plebian Couric?

Wright does a good job of pointing out how Palin invokes the same sense of victimhood as those self-appointed spokesmen for black Americans:

In fact, many of these so-called independent thinkers on the right appear to equate a person who harbors sentiments that "exclude" others as un-American. "Inclusion" is the order of the day – because liberals taught them so. Now that Sarah Palin is on the scene, conservatives are warming to the task of smearing opponents as "sexist." Yet another victory for their liberal mentors.

Best of all, she even quotes the sole genuinely conservative columnist on any major American newspaper:

From Elizabeth Wright: We all know how the "racist" tag has been done to death. Conservatives used to denounce libs for making a fetish of this term. Not any longer. Conservatives now can hardly wait to punish an opponent with the "racist" smear, just as heartily as a die-hard Democrat. The word is now as much a part of the conservative lexicon as are the smears "un-American" and "unpatriotic." In fact, many of these so-called independent thinkers on the right appear to equate a person who harbors sentiments that "exclude" others as un-American. "Inclusion" is the order of the day – because liberals taught them so.

Isn't that the truth. See Boxer and Henry Alford as one prime example but there are many others. Harry Reid anyone? Many so called conservatives have become eat up with the Marxist dialog

-----------------------------------------------------------

Palin, the exemplary role model

It's been repeated so many times and it appears to be true. That is, conservatives take longer to internalize and promote the politically correct dictates that liberals concoct. In other words, liberals invent some platitude or piece of dogma that becomes standardized in the public mind. Conservatives initially fight the new mandate, but then, before you know it, they have joined the liberal bandwagon. They then set about denouncing others for a lack of enlightenment, as they help to disseminate the very terminology or social trend they once sensibly scorned and ridiculed.

Think of just about any exaggerated and over-abused expression. We all know how the "racist" tag has been done to death. Conservatives used to denounce libs for making a fetish of this term. Not any longer. Conservatives now can hardly wait to punish an opponent with the "racist" smear, just as heartily as a die-hard Democrat. The word is now as much a part of the conservative lexicon as are the smears "un-American" and "unpatriotic." In fact, many of these so-called independent thinkers on the right appear to equate a person who harbors sentiments that "exclude" others as un-American. "Inclusion" is the order of the day – because liberals taught them so. Now that Sarah Palin is on the scene, conservatives are warming to the task of smearing opponents as "sexist." Yet another victory for their liberal mentors.

If a "racist" is someone who prefers the company of members of his own ethnic group as opposed to others, why isn't this an individual choice that a true conservative would endorse? Apparently it is not, for such a person, no matter how benignly he expresses his preference, is generally attacked by conservatives just as belligerently as liberals. After all, doesn't he understand that rejection of others might result in "hurt" feelings? And isn't it "feelings" that count over individual rights?

Is a "sexist" someone who rejects the notion that Nature made the two sexes equal? The rejection of this notion was, until very recently, a foundation stone of conservatism. [See The emasculation is done.] But now that today's conservative worries, along with Sarah Palin, about breaking "glass ceilings," they must conform to the more "progressive" view on full equality of the sexes, as defined by liberal philosophy.

Palin now brings further enlightenment to old-fashioned conservatives, by endorsing still more politically correct language, that originally sprang straight from the liberal mindset. How conservatives used to laugh, as liberals made pests of themselves by scolding everyone in sight for using "insensitive" language, which might be offensive to some anonymous thin-skinned population. But they laugh no more. Mother Palin is teaching them to have the "correct" regard for language according to liberal ethics.

She has not only decreed the words "retard" and "retarded" politically incorrect to use, but would set the standard for the firing by one's employer for the use of these terms. And the good lady justifies her stance by linking these terms to the word "Nigger," implying, obviously, that anyone who makes use of this "N" word is also automatically deserving of job loss. Really?

When conservatives would read about some kid getting suspended from school for drawing a silly picture or teasing a schoolmate, they would be outraged at the over-the-top, zero tolerance policies practiced by some school administrators, and the expectation that everyone must agree to alter his/her sense of humor and manner of expression, to accommodate the leftist Thought Police. Palin would, no doubt, be right at home with the "sensitivity" training and "re-education" sessions that now inundate college campuses and the workplace, in order to bring all thought and expression into line with multicultural politics.

The former vice presidential candidate is, indeed, a piece of work. We watched in amazement as she publicly celebrated teenage sex and illegitimacy at a national political convention, we were astounded as she, apparently, condoned promiscuity among the young ("life happens"), we are stupefied, or is it bemused, as she promotes anti-conservative feminist doctrines, and our jaws drop even further as she now strives to ban particular words from our language.

Palin is so thoroughly a liberal in her instincts that she is tone-deaf to genuine conservative principles. Indeed, she possesses no conservative instincts. Whatever notion or policy she supports automatically becomes "conservative" in nature, simply because she deems it so. She repeatedly declares herself for small government and keeping that government at bay as much as possible, yet expresses admiration for Title IX, for years, a major nemesis of Phyllis Schlafly.

This federal statute, contrived at the behest of powerful feminist lobbyists, imposes gender quotas on sports in educational institutions that receive government funding. Although only a fraction of women in college seek to engage in competitive sports, the law rules that if a college has fewer than 56% of women on athletic teams, this would be judged as "sex discrimination," and a "gender quota discrepancy."

This quota equality mandate has compelled easily intimidated college administrators, fearful of losing government funds, to disband men's teams, even though these have a high degree of participation and membership. The loss of men's sports, such as track and field, swimming and gymnastics, is of no benefit to women, yet colleges still penalize male students, in order to reflect the same proportion of men to women in sports.

Although conservatives have fought this atrocious federal mandate for years, with Schlafly in the lead, this is the law with which Ms. Palin finds no fault. After all, it's "progressive," isn't it?

After she declared support of teachers' unions and spoke against school vouchers, and sided with ambulance-chasing lawyers who seek no financial caps on outrageous punitive damage awards, conservative newspaper columnist Paul Mulshine concluded about Palin: "Palin is motivated not by a coherent political philosophy so much as by a set of inchoate urges." He quotes the remarks of one of his readers, about Palin's fans: "They project whatever image they want onto her, and they keep repeating the mantra that she brings conservatism to the ticket, despite what she does and says."

Mulshine charges, "She has never given any indication that she has an identifiable political philosophy, conservative or liberal. She is not so much a political figure as a sort of national fertility symbol."

M.J. Rosenberg claims that Palin has been "kidnapped by the neocons." If she's been kidnapped by anything, it's by the prospect of accumulating a tidy bundle of wealth before the bloom is off the rose. Palin proves she is a thinking woman and understands some facts about Nature. She is smart enough to understand that if she is ever to get rich, it is now or never. It's called milking those final magic moments in a woman's physical development, before the beauty fades. Once she hits the wall, like all other women, people won't be quite so tolerant of her empty rhetoric, and all those smitten rightwing men won't be so eager to hand over $395 to hear her recitation of clichés and banalities, while ogling her lovely legs and stiletto heels.

Is there nothing that the cynical, popular media offers in which Palin will not partake? She quits her post as Governor of Alaska, because the media offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get rich quick, while becoming a TV star. She further sullies what's left of her family's reputation by encouraging her teenage daughter to pose with her illegitimate baby on the cover of a national gossip magazine, while Mother Sarah shares the stage with daughter on the cover of yet another magazine. She uses her infant son as a stage prop at her speaking events.

Writer Bonnie Fuller calls the People magazine cover "a total promotion for teen pregnancy." Daughter Bristol is learning from Mom how best to exploit what conservatives once looked upon as an unfortunate circumstance, about which the less said the better. What a glamorous life has opened up for Bristol, writes Fuller, as she becomes the "poster girl for teen momhood." Did both Mom and Daughter receive a million dollars from People?

The magazine In Touch apparently did not consider the Palin duo worth any more than $100,000 for a cover spread. Their caution proved wise, as the alluring Mom/Daughter team did not get much pick-up from newstands, in spite of the engaging photos of them holding Trig and Tripp, or is it Track?

Palin, as has been observed by many, is a walking cliché factory, where never an original thought falls from her lips. Substance? Not a chance. When recently asked about her policy for handling America's foreign enemies, her response was, "They lose, we win." Now there's a policy! Repeated clichés and platitudes form her mindset, which is fixed in her own special style of demagoguery.

Traditionalist minister Chuck Baldwin warns true conservatives among the Tea Party movement not to be fooled by Sarah Palin. He writes, "Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand."

She and her minions constantly crow about their support of the Constitution, yet their actions show that they know little and care even less about the actual contents of this document. It is only when they believe that the Constitution can be used for their own pet causes, such as the abolition of abortion laws, that they climb out of the woodwork to tout the Constitution.

Palin's acolytes don't seem to know where liberal indoctrination leaves off, and where their supposed highly-touted "conservative values" begin. They rant about the desire for "small government," yet George W. Bush taught us what a lie that is. Big government is desirable whenever it can enhance Republican policies. One wonders why these people insist on labeling themselves "conservative." They are nothing more than Republican lackeys and, as such, they need take no ideological label at all.

The head of their political party is not the party's National Chairman, the dimwitted Michael Steele. It is not even the whip John Boehner or John McCain. Their party is led by a radio talk show host, the irrepressible Rush Limbaugh, that standard bearer for "family values." Actually, Limbaugh is the perfect representative for today's "conservative" who conforms to modern social trends, having been married and divorced three times. He wisely chooses women who also come out of multiple marriages, such as the last one for whom he was her fourth husband. (How many broken marriage vows between them does that make?) But, hey, "life happens," right? Lead on!

When criticism is made of Palin's obvious indifference to her teenage daughter's carefree lifestyle (as demonstrated by Levi, the not-quite-son-in-law, having access to her daughter's bedroom), her faithful camp followers chant, almost in unison, that ultimately children make their own choices, and parents cannot control the behavior of their offspring. But, of course, this is not the point. After all, liberals have been in the vanguard of teaching us such hackneyed facts of life. We all know one of their favorite mantras about sex and the young: "They're going to do it anyway." To claim that no one is responsible for their children's choices is the cop-out used by all parents, most especially the more derelict and irresponsible ones.

Here's the point. If there has been a clear demonstration that you not only have failed at your minimum duties to protect the weak and impressionable who depend upon you, and you don't even have the sense to handle the negative aftermath in an honorable manner, then you should get to the back of the leadership line. At the front of that line should be those people who have successfully navigated life's challenges, and are role models for others to do the same. Not everyone can be such a model. Who needs more bad role models and mentors in positions of leadership?

After pseudo-conservatives have spent a decade bringing some of the worst types to leadership – the fool George W. Bush, the abhorrent warmonger Dick Cheney, and various assortments of their avaricious cronies – it's time to conserve the last remnants of the Founders' original visions, which did not include subservience to a political party or to foreign lobbies. Nor did those visions include the killing of our young soldiers for the protection of a foreign country, or allowing minority special interests, whether race or gender, to gain power in order to undermine the constitutional rights of the majority. We need no charlatan like Sarah Palin to continue enabling this country's social and political decline.

http://issuesviews.blogspot.com/2010/02/palin-exemplary-role-model.html

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.