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.
I mean in terms of getting the base motivated, yes, laughable. You gotta think outside the box on Palin, it’s a new game.
Among other factors in her favor is the fact that she is completely underestimated to say the least. As far as not serving out her full term I think we are so fed up with career politicians that it won’t hurt her especially if one is already a supporter. Recent polls back this up. I read a couple days ago (Gallup I think) a poll that had 19% of repsondents strongly supported her for president in 2012. The poll was taken a few days after her resignation.
About a month ago there was a poll (can’t remember but maybe ras or IBD?) that had her at 40% and Obama at 54% head to head in 2012. I may be off a number here or there, I apologoze for that, but wow for a failed Vp candidate that’s pretty solid polling at this point. And with growth and improvement of her articulation those numbers will grow.
In addition to that the slow witted American public may start to wonder why so much venom is spewed her way...could it be fear of an effective candidate?
Do you own a flower shop?
...although it really didn’t make him a better candidate. When you get right down to it, the GOP nominees since Reagan have been a rather mediocre bunch. Dubya must have done a few things right, but Gore and Kerry were weak opponents.
Shows a just a tiny little bit of myopia on her part. But maybe she’ll come round one day. No guarantees of course.
Newt wasn’t just taken out by enemies in his own party. He helped do himself in with some past extracurricular activities. For those who are interested in fighting a “culture war” in Washington (I for one am beginning to think it’s like fighting an insurgency in a foreign country), the rules for Republicans are going to be different for than the ones for Democrats, and that’s just the way it is.
I don't see any 'hate' here.
Just a well reasoned argument.
But of course Palin's defenders can't be reasoned with.
I certainly don't hate her, but: the immediate problem seems to be that if you don't support her uncritically, you're a terrible person.
Her supporter's long term problem is that no politician is above criticism or even ridicule, and those who seem too fragile will be viewed as being unable to hack it.
Sarah Palin lashes out at people like David Letterman, validating him and giving him publicity while at the same time making her look like she cannot control herself.
Some people have asked, seemingly rhetorically, if Sarah Palin should "just stay quiet" when comedians and pundits make jokes. The answer is "yes". This isn't the 8th grade, and every insult doesn't have to have a response.
The President of the United States has to ignore comedians and idiotic pundits. How many times did you see Reagan, Clinton, Bush 1 or Bush 2 complain repeatedly about what the comedians on Saturday Night Live or late night television said the night before? How many challenged comedians for their tasteless jokes?
The presidency requires incredibly thick skin, and an ability to focus on things other than what some guy on late night TV says.
The fact is, the Russians, Venezuelans, North Korean and Chinese of the world aren't know for their kindness.
The Democrats in Congress and in office as Governors aren't known for their sweet dispositions.
Even our allies aren't in it for us - they're in it for themselves, and an inability to bring our "A game" to the table can mean that we don't get what we need.
So, if Palin feels the need to rise to every bit of bait thrown her way, and if her supporters feel the need to come charging to her defense, talking about the Hell she's been put through, what does it say to voters?
It says that she's weak, that she needs defending, that she can't make it on her own. A person like that doesn't have a chance in the world.
Based on what I know of her policy views, I'll absolutely vote for Sarah Palin if she gets the nomination, but I'm not holding my breath that that will ever happen.
Flame away.
I think you both make very valid points. Palin has to get thicker skin, and savvier press people. Having said that, the daughter/A-Rod comment was so low, so beneath even the lowest standard of decency, she had to comment. I would have shortened, and simplified her statement, but it is what it is.
I think Letterman, or the CBS suits, realized what a mistake he/they had made, especially Letterman with his first (worst) non-apology apology. His second statement was clearly more contrite and even heart-felt, probably wouldn't have happened unless Palin had commented personally.
I'm not clairvoyant, but these attacks aren't going to disappear should she decide to seek higher office. In fact, they'll worsen and increase, exponentially. I'm not entirely confident she, nor her family are ready for it.
Want to bet? Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin, just to mention a couple of examples, certainly did. The millions of people who died as a result of their "power flows from the barrel of a gun" political strategies could attest to that, if they weren't already dead.
The tactics being employed by our so-called political, media, academic, etc. classes, especially the Obama administration/regime, against the American people are beginning to precisely fit the "Stalinist" revolutionary template, which leads inexorably to oppression and tyranny.
Whether Palin, or any other person, is able to step up and meet the challenge will be revealed in the fullness of time, by dint of their own performance. We need to focus on the socialist totalitarian enemies in front of us. As far as I'm concerned, those who refuse to do this and insist on continuing the internecine warfare against their professed "own side" are actually with the enemy...
Not yet. But in the same sentence where you try to evade the issue you still acknowledge those "worrying trends". That at least shows you have a remnant of intellectual honesty. What you lack, however, is historical knowledge and understanding, and the ability (or more probably, simply the willingness) to connect the dots of the data right before your eyes.
I clearly stated we were seeing actions "beginning" to mirror the Stalinist template. There are a lot of stages to those strategies which come well before the gulags and shooting people, and some of those ARE being implemented right now, such as legislation being introduced giving the Attorney General discretion to classify "dissenters", such as gun-rights advocates, Tea Party attendees, abortion or tax protesters, "radical" right-wing bloggers, etc. as "terrorists". Our mainstream media has already been co-opted and subdued (most of them willingly, I grant you) and is essentially functioning as a State-Run Media.
Those are just a few examples. There are many others, across a wide spectrum of issues, and these things are being documented and discussed on FR right now. The situation facing this nation and its people right now is well beyond the "worrying trends" stage you so blithely try to dismiss.
The point I made is not "bull". It is fact. It is reality. And, it is happening right now. You can ignore this developing reality if you choose, but there will come a time when that reality will not ignore you...
Obama quit his job halfway through his term as Senator. Why do you ignore that?
About Sarah, she needs to start preparing for her run now and not in January of 2011 when Mitt has a big lead and Obama has gone another year and one half without being verbally challenged.
Who’s the logical Dem candidate then? Hillary, who will have served in the Senate and as Secretary of State. A quitter who couldn’t even last out her job in Alaska and who’s spent the interim selling a book and doing the talk show circuit is going to beat that? Dream on, little children.
Hillary's performance as SOS, from Iran to Russia, Honduras and Israel has been pathetic. Your above nauseating little Hillary-is-more-qualified wet kiss is nauseating.
No, Sarah has a thick skin.
Nobody has taken more abuse from the press than her(except maybe Newt) yet she seems to be planning for a presidential run.
How on earth do you judge her not to have thick skin?
And you think it's a good thing when a politician runs for a presidential nomination which is a full time job AND at the same time, serves in office as a Senator or Governor which is also a full time job.
Tell me how that is more ethical than what Sarah is doing?
I'll look for your answer.
Phil Graham resigned his House seat to run for the Senate. He won.
You can’t fault Palin for resigning after her own party conspired against her. She knew her job in Alaska was over once it came to hurting Alaskans. You can’t climb to the top and then just settle back in among the rank and file after they pull you down. Resigning was the honorable thing to do.
WTF? This is every bit a huge crock of Leftist horsesh*t with a little lipstick slapped on.
She (Sarah Palin) has initiated a brilliant flanking manuever against the left, the DNC, and the MSM (and throw the RINOs in there for good measure) that has them all in a frenzy wondering what her next move will be and how it will be perceived...and has them frothing at the mouth in their efforts to discredit her.
Sarah will now get her book out, go on tour, give speeches and promote conservatie principles all over this country in the midst of the Obama administration disaster and gain great political capital in the process. Then she will support conservative candidates in 2010 and help them win, amassing much more political capital. She will then take all of that and make an awesome, stunning run for the Presidency in 2012.
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.