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.
If I’m not mistaken, Reason magazine is libertarian but left wing libertarian.
Liberty magazine, by contrast, is also libertarian, but devotes its energies mostly to economic issues, and a bit on war (it is against it).
The writers at Reason are not fans of God and moral virtuousness, if I’m remembering correctly. As a conservative Christian, I like Liberty magazine’s ideas but do not care for Reason’s.
Actually, it’s not “just” the left wing. The “country club” Republican elite is just as (if not more) scared of Palin. The continuing crescendo of abuse has reached the of “methinks they protesteth too much” level.
That’s a fair argument, but don’t forget the viagra crowd on the right led by Rush Limbaugh. What a mess!
Well, yes, on second reading, the sarcasm is now evident.
Your mistake was in making fun of that particular faction on FR, you sounded JUST LIKE ONE OF THEM. That could have just as easily been a serious comment from a Hunterite.
Palin impressed me by pointing out in her first debate with that jerk Biden that what this was about is liberty. But she didn’t follow through with any specifics. I suppose she had to carry water for McCain instead of striking out on her own more. Nevertheless, aside from getting “cult” status in the Republican party, what was her message? G.W. Bush started out as being more “likeable” than the beltway idiot Gore, but we all know how he turned out: a posturing moderate, followed by a big government “conservative”, followed by a collaborator with the Democrat majority.
If it was easy, more people would be doing it. But perhaps she will benefit from avoiding the Alaska state gov political maneuverings (which, yes, could be partially orchestrated from some other part of the country).
Your continual use of redemptive and messianic Biblical references in discussing Palin is getting a bit disturbing and in my opinion verges on the blasphemous.
He has not decided if another run is in the cards or not. But he has not ruled it out. He is campaigning for young conservatives in their primaries and writing right now. No one knows who will be running for sure. But I’m going to guess that Huck, Mitt, and Sarah will be in the mix. Other likelies will be Pawlenty & Perry & Paul. Rudy and Newt - maybe. DeMint and Daniels, maybe.
Out of those, there are only a couple I would support in any substantial way. Many who give me indigestion.
They ought to be, but the Sarahbots have reached the point where satire becomes impossible.
Haven’t read much from George Will lately, but like him. The author is placing too much emphasis on Noonan and Frum, yes. Noonan has gone from being a poser to a political whore.
You clearly don’t even understand what that verse is/means then. Good day, until you get some discernment.
You might be right!
You are lying through omission there, Mojave.
You quote the section right after Reagan declared himself on a libertarian path, and after the author noted that Reagan often referred to himself as a ‘libertarian-conservative’.
And the quote you’re trying to use there is where Reagan simply distinguishes his own libertarian philosophy from the complete platform of a political party that calls themselves the Libertarian Party.
Next time give the full quote, in context.
I understand that Paul had a lot more in view when he wrote it than some politician.
“Sorry, but until somebody clearly better comes along, I’m sticking with Sarah.”
That’s my thinking as well. Her detractors on FR threads as well as those in the media never seem to offer anything up as an alternative, or if they do, they are the same old retread, RINO republican losers from last election who I will not vote for. I would rather lose election after election and keep my principles than compromise them yet again. We’re not falling for the party lies anymore. The idiot liberal republicans better get it through their heads that we’re done with being tricked.
He was writing about all Christians.
This is part of the hatred of the left - that the “aroma of the knowledge of Christ” is clear to those who are saved and those who are perishing.
I agree to some extent. Although I am a Palin defender, some Freepers really seem intransigent. However, it is more interesting that her critics (and I am not referring to the PDS crowd) seem equally intransigent.
Well-educated and relatively conservative women (such as my wife) seem to have a grudge against Sarah, as if she did not work as hard as they did to gain acclaim. The State Run Media did a good job of playing up this trope. Sarah needs to win back this demographic if she wants to be POTUS.
I had better put on my asbestos suit. The flames will be coming fast and furious for expressing any doubts about Saint Sarah.
The "libertarian path" of 35 years ago has little in common with the Libertarian Party or the libertines at Reason Magazine.
But you know that.
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.