Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide

The New York Times ^ | Sept. 9, 2011 | Anand Giridharadas

[tarotsailor]

” Terrible article! “

” Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear...”

or read

” ...it. “

[nathanbedford]

Hold on folks, the author is praising Sarah Palin not for what she said but for what she did not say and I am confident would never say.

A few examples:

The author would have us believe that Sarah Palin is breaking free of conservatism and moving into Midwestern populism. He summarizes her speech in part as follows:

"Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private)." But Sarah said nothing of the kind. Her criticism is strictly limited to crony capitalism as she defines it which is the farming of the government by private enterprise in concert with corrupt public officials who broker these deals. There is nothing anywhere that I read in her speech which decries bigness for its own sake. A transcript of her speech can be found here:

Sarah's speech

Palin's criticism of crony capitalism is not a criticism of capitalism but of cronyism.

Freepers on this thread have quoted with approval the article (repeat article not Sarah Palin) as follows:

"The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market. "

I find that paragraph to be almost incomprehensible. But no matter, because in the very next paragraph the author tells us what he (not Sarah) means:

"What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn’t choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time. "

Sarah said no such thing. The author is subtly attempting to pass off his own ideas as Sarah's. Palin explicitly limited her criticism to government, corporations, and politicians who corruptly act in concert, who engage in cronyism. There is nothing in her remarks to justify the conclusion that she believes that corporations acting alone, that is without a corrupt and crony connection to government, "jeopardizes... human flourishing."

The author compounds his sins in the next paragraph:

"Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism. "

Ms. Palin is hinting at no such thing. It is a pure fiction on the part of the author.

The travesty continues:

"On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; "

Now the author, not content with distorting Sarah Palin into a populist, now tries transmogrifying Sarah Palin from what she is, a good government conservative, into some sort of radical anti-globalist.

I invite any Freeper who has applauded this article or who thinks it marks some sort of awakening to righteousness on the part of the New York Times to read Sarah Palin's speech and point to anything that substantiates this author's contentions.

I invite readers to consult the portion of Palin's speech in which she outlines remedies and find a recommendation that deals with private enterprise not for its corrupt connection to government but for its inherent bigness. It is not there. If she is railing against bigness in private capitalism as the author contends it is surprising that she offers no solution for it.

Sarah Palin is not populist and she is not strictly an anti-globalist; she is as I have described her, a good government conservative. That is plenty good enough for me. I am content with the real thing.

Why is it important not to be deceived by the author?

Because a populist is not a "popular" figure. A populist is a precursor of progressivism and socialism. A populist believes essentially what Barak Obama believes. If out of ignorance we permit the New York Times to so distort Sarah Palin and what she says, we are complicit in the libels which traducers like this newspaper have already heaped upon her, which confuse too many conservatives, vitiate her message and the message of conservatism, and defeat conservative candidates.

Have a look at this article:

Sarah Palin a populist?

[Hoodat]

Sarah comes closer than most men to my political ideals and she sticks to her word and promises. She will have my vote and probably some of my hard earned loot when she decides to run.

Ditto. I have been praying for a leader who will not rely on his/her own sinful nature, but will instead seek out God's will for him/her in matters of governing. After the revelation of Palin's 23,000 Alaska emails, I am convinced now that she is that type of leader. It is so refreshing to see a politician acknowledge that she does not have the answer, but instead of relying on political power brokers, she will rely on God's instruction for her instead.

And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

-Isaiah 9:6-

[tarotsailor]

Apparently, you found what you were looking for. None of those statements do I find quite as alarming as you. We do need to balance our interests against globalist issues. we have had our policy ruled by liberal extremes in New York and SoCal while the values of the heartland have been more than ignored, they have been spat upon.

I see you’re on a roll and I won’t impede you further. Good day.

[nathanbedford]

You have not impeded me 1 mm. Good day to you.

[reasonisfaith]

“So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin’s ideas.”

Ann Coulter, are you listening!

[VideoDoctor]

To be truthful.. this NYT story tells it as CLEARLY as I've seen it put.

Sarah says it.. they accurately report it. What a concept.

[reasonisfaith]

“There is nothing anywhere that I read in her speech which decries bigness for its own sake.”

It’s not the bigness, its the unaccountability.

[upsdriver]

Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.

Therein lies our biggest challenge, getting uninformed voters to actually examine Palin's record and her words. It doesn't worry me none though because once Sarah announces, she'll have the finest grassroots support imaginable. IMO, we are an unbeatable combination.

[brityank]

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

At this point in time I don't care if Congress is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Both parties spew their effluent across the fruited plain based on what largess they can create for themselves, not those they govern.

It appears to me, and anyone else who has bothered to look, that Gov. Palin has held these views since she first got into politics up in Alaska. One can either support the exceptionalism of America in standing by its Constitution, or you can support the UN mandates leading to socialist misery. Those are the only two choices, and both Democrats and Republicans are both supporting the latter.

God help America.

[reasonisfaith]

I would say it’s a mistake to worry about which label Palin should be given. The author is correct that Palin has targeted the corrupt (unaccountable) in both government and in the private sector.

I would go futher to say that the assumption that the private sector is immune to corruption is incorrect.

Governor Palin takes the Christian worldview, a worldview which underlies the greatness of our country and trumps all opposing worldviews on any given level. She understands that no political ideology should be given the status of religion because none is infallible.

[meadsjn]

Sarah Palin is not populist and she is not strictly an anti-globalist; she is as I have described her, a good government conservative. That is plenty good enough for me. I am content with the real thing.

I agree. This may be the closest that any of the MSM gets to accurately reporting what she has been saying, or will say. If some of their readers and audience follow the breadcrumbs to her writings and speeches, it could turn the tide.

[Sea Parrot]

Not to worry about flying pigs over this sinhgle article, the next 50 negative (AKA lies) Palin articles by the NYT will more than compensate up for their one liberal faux pas.

[reasonisfaith]

Maybe not.

[Evil Slayer]

[Rennes Templar]

Wouldn’t this be the irony of ironies, some libs actually begin to support her as a result of her ideas on crony capitalism.

[CondoleezzaProtege]

This is going to be trend with regard to Palin...It was the same way in Alaska.

sane, common sense liberals and conservative traitors.

[CondoleezzaProtege]

In Alaska, Palin was dubbed the “darling of the Democrats” because of her bipartisan appeal and how invested she was in cleaning up corruption in her OWN party.

[CondoleezzaProtege]

In Alaska, Palin was dubbed the “darling of the Democrats” because of her bipartisan appeal and how invested she was in cleaning up corruption in her OWN party.

[CondoleezzaProtege]

Amen. :)