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:
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:
