Posted on 07/10/2009 12:37:29 PM PDT by dr_who
Sarah Palin's announcement of her resignation as governor of Alaska may be the end of her political career or, as some speculate, the real beginning. What seems clear is that Palin is not conservatism's new hope but its dead end. In recent days, this has been amply confirmed by the arguments of Palin defenders, focused less on her presumed merits than on her presumed injuries at her enemies' hands.
Thus, Ross Douthat, the new conservative voice at the New York Times, hails Palin as Everywoman—living proof you can aspire to the White House without an Ivy League degree—and deplores her abuse by the political and media elites based on her "gender and social class." The message to other non-elite women with political ambitions, Douthat sums up, is: "Your children will go through the tabloid wringer. Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented. Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith."
Yet Douthat admits that Palin's "missteps, scandals, dreadful interviews and self-pitying monologues" tarnished her role as a spunky common woman challenging the elites. But in that case, how much of the harsh treatment was due to prejudice and how much to Palin's own failings?
Yes, Palin has been the target of extremely vicious attacks (though the notion that no other politician has endured comparable nastiness would amuse Bill and Hillary Clinton). Her left-wing feminist foes have been especially rabid, mocking her in startlingly misogynistic language—"Republican blow-up doll" was one of the milder epithets—and denouncing "her pretense that she is a woman." The bizarre theory that Palin's youngest child, Trig, is really her grandson is still afloat in the gutters of the Internet.
And yes, this hostility has an element of snobbery. Former New Republic editor in chief Andrew Sullivan, currently a blogger with a bad case of Palin Derangement Syndrome, recently posted a catalogue of Palin's sins that included "white trash concupiscence."
Yet, such revolting extremes aside, some of the unpleasantness has been self-inflicted. Palin agreed to be John McCain's running mate knowing her teenage daughter was pregnant and single. (Of course, if Chelsea Clinton had been the expecting unwed mom, not one unkind word would have crossed the lips of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.) Nor was she particularly eager to shield Bristol Palin from the spotlight.
And then there's the matter of Palin's fitness for the second-highest office in the land. I say this as someone who initially hoped she would be an inspiring standard-bearer for conservative/libertarian feminism, a model of a woman who had it all and was a winner, not a victim.
It's not just the "liberal elites" that found Palin clueless; so did many in her own camp. Indeed, Douthat concedes she has to "bone up on the issues" if she is to have a political future. Those who believe Palin held her own debating Joe Biden forget that the McCain camp had requested a less-challenging format for that debate, with follow-up questions limited.
Palin critics on the right—George Will, Peggy Noonan, David Frum—have been slammed by the Palinistas as "haters," elitists threatened by a political star without proper intellectual credentials. Yet these same conservatives have been devout admirers of Ronald Reagan, hardly a product of the Ivy League.
Some of Palin's followers see her as the second coming of Reagan. But Reagan, despised as a "dunce" by his liberal detractors, had extensively read, written, and talked about the key issues of his day. While not an intellectual, he was a man of ideas. Palin is not known to harbor those. Her appeal is described in terms of "speaking from the heart" and exemplifying the virtues of faith and family—which is ironic, given the usual conservative derision of emotion-based liberal politics. Shortly after Palin's nomination, former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson suggested that her choice to bear a child with Down's Syndrome rather than have an abortion was an adequate substitute for a political philosophy.
If Palin does have a philosophy, it is the flip side of the class-and-culture warfare of which she has been a target. In fact, it was Palin who fired many of the volleys in this war—extolling the moral superiority of small towns and rural areas and calling them "pro-American parts of the country," mocking people who had traveled abroad as spoiled kids with rich parents.
While eschewing "victim feminism," Palin has enthusiastically embraced "victim conservatism": the grievances of cultural traditionalists who feel trampled and disdained by the more educated and influential (and often, more affluent) segments of American society. Like the "oppressed groups" of the left, these traditionalists have some valid complaints but channel them into a destructive ideology of polarization and resentment.
Such a zeal can energize the base—but also fatally split it and alienate the unconverted.
Most likely, Palin will be back. But if conservatives expect her to be their warrior princess in shining armor, they are courting defeat.
Cathy Young is a Reason contributing editor and a columnist at RealClearPolitics. She blogs at cathyyoung.wordpress.com. This article originally appeared at RealClearPolitics.
“The author is placing too much emphasis on Noonan and Frum, yes. Noonan has gone from being a poser to a political whore.”
I believe they both endorsed the Obamination for president.
Palin.
Right now, they are few and far between.
But a few obvious conservative leaders would be Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Pence, Rick Perry.
They all weighed in this week, Noonan has a hit piece, also.
I don't know how Palin affected the voting on a national level, or how she appealed or drove away swing voters. I can tell you that a John McCain- Lindsey Graham ticket wouldn't have drawn crickets to campaign rallies. Palin drew thousands.
McCain lost because he showed no leadership or conservative principles. His mealy-mouthed mantra about Wall Street greed and giving Washington a pass on the economic meltdown made him look weak, indecisive, angry or all three. Obama beat him the same way he beat Clinton. He blurred the lines between their positions enough that uniformed voters couldn't tell the difference. Then it was just a beauty contest against an old white guy.
Palin didn't win McCain the White House. But it's a little unfair to blame the horse because she couldn't drag a wagon with square wheels all the way to D.C.
What?
Can you think of anyone who celebrated individual achievement and responsibility more, while at the same time, proudly proclaiming himself an "elitist" than William F. Buckley? Buckley's intellect was soaring, and he wasn't afraid of showing it off, frequently making liberal pretenders look like the ultra-morons that they were.
The depth and breadth of his vocabulary coupled with his signature prose that made frequent reference to obscure historical events and literary call-backs, reeked of intellectual elitism and snobbery. And I, as a young college student, loved it. It was Buckley's dynamism as a thinker and his incubation of conservative ideals that gave rise to so many young professionals that would be the backbone of the Republican conservative movement in the following years. That fact is almost impossible to overstate.
Measure that against what masquerades itself today to be a conservative movement; Endearing itself to sophomoric slogans, bumper stickers and idols that do almost anything but think critically about issues, philosophies and ideas. It portends disaster in the years to come.
Wouldn't you feel more comfortable spreading that disingenuous crap over at D.U., Daily KOS or HuffPo?
Well, I hope that our future President Palin feels the same way!
Ah, it’s not the belief that the abilities of some far outstrip the achievements of the many that makes one an elitist.
No, the elitist takes it a step further, thinking that it is their right and duty to supplant the goals and judgements of the individual in his or her life with their own superior goals and judgements.
That’s what elitISM is.
Micheal Reagan. Follow the posts back to the article.
I think that's true for some women. There may also be a "class" thing going on. Sarah did not rise up in a profession through the traditional route of education. She is a bit too "roughly" self-made for some conservative women.
I find myself in the awkward position of strongly defending Sarah to those who rose from the ranks of the lower class through education, but also accepting some of the criticism of Sarah that seems fair. The latter earns the scorn of people who worship at her feet.
It also implies something magical about intellectuals, which as a group think things into paralysis rather than act.
In fact, Reagan was precisely the man that upended an entire academic industry - Cold War and Russo-American Politics - with one specific directive:
“My take on the Cold War is ‘We Win’.”
I’ll take two sets of two people of action in exchange for 200 intellectuals every day.
Your well-educated and relatively conservative wife is envious of Sarah Palin for other reasons. It is utter nonsense to infer that Palin didn't work hard to get where she is.
who is this asshole?
Rising from the grave? Lipstick?
Disingenuous crap.
You betcha!
Resigning allows the state to have a governor who isn't spending all his/her time defending herself against frivolous ethics complaints.
Not to mention the $500,000 it cost her from her own pocket to defend herself.
I am fed up with politicians who don't think $500,000 is a lot of money.
Mitt Romney is, despite his success as a capitalist, in favor of socialism for the "little people" he would supposedly represent.
Give me a representative who actually represents me.
There are a lot of people who feel this way. This will become more and more evident as 2012 approaches.
I wouldn’t go that far. I haven’t heard anything about Palin that would make me dislike her more than McCain, at the very worst. If she has a limited following but has good sense (which is very likely the case) and a commitment to reducing the size of government, she can get behind a better candidate if we’re lucky enough to get one between now and 2012.Ah, but I doubt she has good sense. Just look at how she's behaved since she got a taste of the national spotlight.
A Russian feminist who writes for the Boston Globe under an alias.
to post 143 - So, what’s your point? I stated that Reagan never referred to himself as a libertarian and I am correct.
Yes or no - do you believe that marriage should be only between a male and a female?
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.