I’m a big Sarah Palin fan. One of the things I most like about her is that she puts fear in many liberals. They mask their fear with hatred, loathing, scorn, invented scandals … a whole bunch of angry gestures. Some people call it Palin Derangement Syndrome, but Palinphobia works pretty well too. They can’t understand her and they most likely never will.
I admire Palin for the depth of her conservative beliefs. She hasn’t buckled from a vicious spate of class bigotry hurled at her by some in the media and the political elite. That class bigotry extends, in my opinion, to some conservatives, notably columnists David Frum, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, McCain campaign leader Steve Schmidt, and columnist Peggy Noonan. Sticking to your beliefs in the face of unrelenting personal attacks takes resolve and courage. Palin has those traits.
However, I’m not pleased with Palin’s resignation as governor of Alaska. When you make a commitment to voters, you should stick to it. It doesn’t matter if you’re the governor of Utah or the governor of Alaska. However she may have couched it in her choppy press conference, it seems a rushed, imprudent move. The news conference had a very hurried air to it. The last third was particularly cringe-inducing, with basketball analogies that would be “bricks” were she actually shooting the ball.
Still, unless Palin tries an ill-advised (in my opinion) run in 2012 or there’s finally a real scandal out there, I can’t see any political negative to her resignation. She’s still young, 45, and will still be young enough to run for president in 2024. She retains three advantages: her charisma, which is equal to President Obama’s; a connection with the Republican base similar to what President Reagan had; and solid, traditional conservative beliefs, which will always be a political asset, particularly as Obama and the Democrats are trying to move the nation into a European-like entitlement system. Palin also has a plurality of support among Americans. Besides Republican strength, she’s gaining among independents.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1263/gop-favorability-romney-palin-gingrich-steele
Palin will always have a base of political support, but she needs to follow the example of Reagan, who didn’t climb to the presidency only on the basis of his charisma and conservative platitudes. Reagan spent more than a decade engaging liberals and the left in civil, intelligent debates. Reagan studied the issues and was able to discuss and debate, on even terms, the important issues of his era. Palin can do that, but it will require for her, just like it would anyone else, a commitment of work and study. I hope she takes the time to do that.
laytonian
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 1:52 pm:
You don’t seriously believe your second sentence, do you?
I find her entertaining, and hope she stays around. Friday’s “word salad” speech, incomprehensible in its phrasing and intent, is an example of what we’d miss without Sarah Palin in the world.
In fact, Doug Gibson, we “liberals” (moderates anywhere but Utah) are praying that she runs for the Presidency in 2012.
But fearful of her? Not at all.
I was intrigued by her at first, really wanting to see a woman in high office. I gave her lots of chances to convince me she could think on her feet. She did not.
There’s one state redder than Utah: Oklahoma. My conservative friends there weren’t impressed either.
Nicole
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 1:55 pm:
Good points, Doug, but I don’t think Palin had much of a choice but to resign. The unprecedented volume of frivolous complaints against her made it nearly impossible to do her job the way she wanted to. Who cares about her not finishing her term! Seriously. She accomplished more in two years than most governors do in four or eight years.
We’re so used to politicians clinging to their offices, we’re now shocked and disappointed when one quits so she her state isn’t saddled with her personal baggage, courtesy of her rabid detractors?
Now she can fight without one hand tied behind her back. She can hit the speaker’s circuit, buy as many outfits from Neiman Marcus as she damn pleases, and make the liberals squirm every time she shows up to campaign against one of their candidates.
She’s a free woman now.
laytonian
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 2:55 pm:
“I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton…but when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or you know maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think you know that doesn’t do us any good – women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country.”
“felt kind of bad she couldn’t support a woman, but she didn’t like Clinton’s ‘whining.’”
(Both of the above statements are from Sarah Palin, in early 2008 before she was named as the VP candidate.)
I’m confused.
Palin’s gubernatorial campaign was based on driving out corruption and improving the ethics in Alaska’s government.
But when she has to face the same ethical scrutiny and complaints, it’s unfair and labeled frivolous?
It’s whining if another woman mentions “scrutiny”, but it’s not if that same woman undergoes scrutiny.
As a woman, I expect so much more from the woman who will represent me.
Nicole
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 3:12 pm:
It’s a double standard … All you have to do is look at Joe Biden, for gosh sakes. His daughter’s snorting coke, his son has been caught up in a lobbyist/corruption scandal (yes, he does have one son serving in Iraq), and every time he opens his mouth something stupid comes out, but Joe Biden doesn’t get any scrutiny or jokes made about his family.
It’s true that women have to work twice as hard, for twice as long, to be taken half as seriously as men.
Our current V.P. is living proof … men, especially, Democrat men, can do whatever they want to. They’re never labeled dumb bimbos.
sageseeker1
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 3:19 pm:
It’s simply a case of “If you can’t take the heat, get outta the kitchen.” Let’s face it, she didn’t really understand the concept of heat causing burns. There is simply too, too much this woman didn’t get. I’ll wait for her next move and hope to be impressed.
Amy
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 3:20 pm:
Nicole says: “It’s a double standard … All you have to do is look at Joe Biden, for gosh sakes. His daughter’s snorting coke, his son has been caught up in a lobbyist/corruption scandal (yes, he does have one son serving in Iraq), and every time he opens his mouth something stupid comes out, but Joe Biden doesn’t get any scrutiny or jokes made about his family.”
Quite the contrary. There are plenty of jokes/complaints, etc., being made about him. Those who are well-rounded readers know this. And so what that they are making jokes. He does make a lot of gaffes and deserves some ribbings that he gets.
But to blame other people and their criticism of Palin as the reason she couldn’t do her job or do it well, is such an ignorant statement that I don’t know where to begin. How do complaints and jokes hinder her daily office duties?
We liberals don’t “squirm” or any other number of things mentioned when Palin does politics. We simply do not hear anything of substance from her or see any legacy she has to leave behind. We expect more from our party leaders.
Steve
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 3:21 pm:
No matter how long she waits to run for office, Palin will forever be labeled a quitter and she’ll have to overcome what she’s saddled herself with. What it looks like to one not enamored of Palin is that her ambition has overtaken her sense. She clearly loves the national spotlight and was clearly chafing at being stuck way up there in Alaska. Her solution, however, certainly calls in to question her character and judgment. Her ambition, well, that we know about now.
As for Sarah the Liberal Boogie Man…er…Woman: we’re not afraid of Palin, we’re amused by her. She’s hilarious. Face it, the only thing her turkey press conference was missing was Les Nessman’s play-by-play.
And Nicole, this is the definition of “bimbo” from dictionary.com: “Slang A woman regarded as vacuous or as having an exaggerated interest in her sexual appeal.” Which pretty much explains why no Democratic man has been labeled such. But if you think “men, especially, Democrat [sic] men, can do whatever they want to” then you have a very short and/or very selective memory.
flatlander100
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 3:44 pm:
Two points:
1. If Mr. Gibson wrote an editorial for the SE as muddled, unclear, contradictory and befuddled as Gov. . Palin’s resignation speech, he would be updating his resume the next morning.
2. Gov. Palin announced that not quitting and finishing the job she was elected to do would be “taking the quitter’s way.” So she was going to not take “the quitter’s way” by…. wait for it….. quitting as governor.
Parody is dead.. You betcha!.
willbike
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 4:00 pm:
She puts fear in many liberals? No, not at all. Shes great for democrats. Hopefully she stays in politics.
Cathy
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 4:15 pm:
I made it to 4:05 before my brain started melting down from the babble. I think she said it all at the very start… “I’m stepping down for the good of Alaska.” True on so many levels.
I had always fount it ironic that such a conservative woman would be putting a career before her young family anyway – maybe she’s just ready to be a mom. I can respect that.
Mark Shenefelt
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 4:21 pm:
Palin’s at best a sideshow, and now she’ll be labeled a mid-term quitter, justifiably so.
Her persecution complex follows a predictable woe-is-me formula: The evil liberals and media scum drove her from office! Actually, it’s just as lame as Hillary’s old “vast right-wing conspiracy” theme.
I also can’t figure out what’s so appealing, still, about a half-term rookie small state governor who dumps her elected state job to “spend more time with family” or whatever she’s planning.
laytonian
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 7:03 pm:
Nicole, your “double standard” does not exist. Apparently, you’re getting your news from only one source (talk radio or Fox News).
Joe Biden gets PLENTY of heat from the media you do not read or watch or listen to — and deservedly so. He’s even a staple on Saturday Night Live (you know, the show that’s too nasty for KSL to show, but they’ll show everything else).
BUT….Joe Biden is the ONLY executive office holder (since when??) who has a son in the military.
Nicole, your snarky aside about Biden’s son in Iraq is exactly what we expect of the chicken-hawk GOP. Did Bush send any children to war? No. Did Dick Cheney? No. He didn’t even serve himself, having “better things to do” than go to VietNam.
Do NOT denigrate the family of a military man. EVER. They are more than mere asides.
Al
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 7:28 pm:
I know it’s vogue to talk about how much liberals fear Sarah Palin, but there simply isn’t any actual evidence for it, especially after she contributed so significantly to the torpedoing of the McCain campaign. You know what she does to me? She, along with the party that recklessly and cynically bet it all not on her as a person, but on what a *woman* like her would do to the political campaign, make me angry. Among all the smart, capable, experienced, brainy women in American politics, she was paraded out not because of her capacity to govern smartly or make wise decisions, but because she was a) thought to be arch-conservative and b) a woman. And now, as she simultaneously portrays herself as the victim and the rough-and-tumble scrapper, all the while showing absolutely no competence either at political strategy OR government, she’s held up by pundits like you as the standard-bearer for political women. You love to write about how liberals just don’t understand Palin, but we understand her and her party all too well; it gives me a tiny bit of hope for the actual policy course of this country to note that we understood her well enough that she lost.
Neal Humphrey
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 8:43 pm:
I was surprised to return from being out of touch in the wilderness to the news about Palin’s resignation. But my first thought was, “She’s pulling a Nixon.” While I loathed Nixon the fact is, he became president six years after quitting. Palin has three years to position herself as the successor to Obama. And Obama is making enough dumb mistakes that just about any Republican with a pulse will make him a one-term semi-wonder.
Palin is denigrated by the mainstream media and definitely feared by liberals. Neither can bring themselves to admit it. And both media and liberals are blinded by their own mis-perceptions of Palin and underestimate her. Believing their own propoganda is their fatal habit.
They underestimated Bush, too. ‘Made it far to easy for him to win. Both times.
flatlander100
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 9:07 pm:
Ah, the good Mr. Humphreys, presuming to read liberal minds and tell us what liberals think. It always amuses me to hear Rush Limpaw or Hannity or the rest of the gang spouting off about “the liberals think this” or “the liberals think that,” since nearly every time, what they’re saying are things no liberal I know — and I know a lot of them — thinks at all.
But if Republicans can keep themselves warm around the political wilderness campfires at night by telling themselves “the liberals are frightened of Palin” —- hey, gang. Whatever works to get you through the night.
Cathy
on Jul 6th, 2009
@ 11:25 pm:
As far as being afraid of Palin… you know, I’m a little concerned that there aren’t very many of us who see her for what she is. After not giving any reasons for her resignation, she repeatedly stated that she gave us her reasons. If she did give any, can someone tell me what they were? She blathered on and on dropping little snarks about global warming and how we need more down syndrome people in the world, made a reference to sports… that should appease the conservatives, but are any of you LISTENING and PIECING TOGETHER what she is saying?
Compare the speeches for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
Michael Trujillo
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 1:55 am:
I have no idea where this idea came from that anyone “fears” Sarah Palin. Where did Doug and the other’s get this notion? Fear? No, not really. Do you “fear” Nancy Pelosi? I’m not going to try to say what you think, since I can’t read your minds, but I’m pretty confident that you don’t fear Pelosi, you merely hold her in low regard. The same is true about Palin as far as being Presidential material.
And regarding a “double standard’? Biden doesn’t market himself as a family values, Bible living, annointed leader. Palin does. So she set herself up to be hoist by her own petard.
Personally, I love strong, intelligent, capable women. I also love bimbos for the unique qualities that make them so appealing. I’ve known many women of both descriptions. When I see Palin, or hear her speak, my gut says “bimbo”. That’s not a bad thing, in and of itself. It’s just not a quality that I can take seriously as a politician.
So, if that’s what you mean by “fear” then, yes, I’m terrified of her.
Neal Humphrey
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 6:06 am:
Reading liberal minds …
Not much to it, really. I’m a registered Democrat. I have an advanced degree from a school largely populated by Marxists in both the faculty and student body. And a large part of my graduate-level education was in Berkeley, California. That much exposure to the flabby intellectual exercises liberals call “thinking” has qualified me to read their little minds.
I can smell a liberal too.
Al
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 7:40 am:
Hey Neal, nice to see you show off your facile contempt for what people are actually saying.
Again.
Neal Humphrey
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 8:14 am:
Al — You misread. I hold no contempt for liberals, merely pity.
I reserve contempt for those who don’t fully identify themselves on these internet forums.
Cathy
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 9:29 am:
Neal, can you answer this – for what exact reasons did Palin leave her office?
What is “politics as usual”? Can you explain that for the “liberals”? (Which I’m really not, technically, just a very crunchy conservative). If you can tie in any reality to someone “ridiculing” her son, that would help too, because I think she made that up… no one with any credibility would do such a thing.
If you can divine any of things from her speech along with a credible source, I will have to concede that I’m just not as smart as the average non-crunchy conservative.
Marshall
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 10:16 am:
Whether you love Sarah Palin or hate her, I think there’s only one way to look at this: the end. She’s done. It would take a miracle for her to regain the credibility she’s now lost. It was not a smart move. It may well benefit Alaska, but that fact only further serves to discredit Palin. She was an interesting VP candidate and her humor (intentional and unintentional) will be missed.
Jim Hutchins
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 11:21 am:
Neal,
I graduated from Berkeley, too, as well as a bunch of other places I won’t list, because they’re irrelevant to this discussion.
One thing you might learn there is that using condescension to (try to) make your point pretty much means you’ve lost the argument.
flatlander100
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 12:27 pm:
Since the topic seems now to involve political discourse more generally….
I am going to over-ride my instincts. I am going to break my guild oaths as a liberal Democrat. I am going to —- [insert smiley for "gritting teeth" here]…. I am going to….. I am, I really am, I am going to….. [this is SO hard]…. recommend a column by conservative David Brooks. Link here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=2.
Not only recommend, but strongly recommend and endorse. And I’d do so with equal enthusiasm had he not included his final paragraph.
There. Did it. Now I have to go take part in a cleansing rite. [ How long does it take to build a sweat lodge, anyway?]
Neal Humphrey
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 5:46 pm:
Hey flatlander100 — You’re having ‘way too much fun! Nicely done.
Asa
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 7:38 pm:
I think Doug explained nicely the fear factor. If she was as inconsequintal as you want to paint her , why all the fuss about her mere existence. The attacks and the noise by the mighty liberal left (most of it is white noise to me) speaks volumes as to her threat to the liberal etopian nest that b.o. and his ilk are attempting to construct.
Al
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 9:34 pm:
Thanks for that, Neal. What a zinger! You’re a gem.
Al
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 10:01 pm:
But I have to disagree with flatlander, whom I normally think is right on the mark.
Brooks is most persuasive when he argues that in all three cases we have individuals who for various reasons are untethered to a guidepost and find themselves simply unable to navigate a crisis (Sanford), get along in the adult world (Jackson), and project authority (Palin). But his attempt at generalizing and explaining these failings doesn’t work for me.
It’s one thing to observe, for example, the vastness of triviality in mass media and how it can suck all the air out of public discourse, but I think it’s tiresome to engage in the romantic hindsight visions of ye olde days, as if there weren’t scandal and indignity when Reagan was President. And when Brooks looks for a handful of “causes” for the phenomenon he claims to have discovered, he fumbles for a few cliche catch-phrases (I’d expect him to blame “naturalism,” of course, but he’s savvy enough to throw in the jab at capitalism, which he usually extolls for its natural sense of order, not chaos). His proposed explanations aren’t persuasive to me; is he truly suggesting that Mark Sanford couldn’t show proper deference to certain mores because we as members of a society have discarded a Code of Dignity? Doesn’t a better, more plausible explanation lie in our fascination with deviance and Sanford’s own intensely personal crisis? (He calls his mistress his true soul mate and can’t publicly work his way to finishing the affair; it would be far easier to set his jaw, say it’s in the past, condemn his critics and move on — more outwardly dignified, perhaps, but certainly not honest. Certainly Brooks would agree that the “back stage” of our behavior is as relevant as the “front stage” we display?) Finally, by suggesting that there are yet dignified figures even in this low era, he’s only providing ammunition against his anecdotal claim that other dignified figures were the defining dignifiers of other, higher eras.
Because of all that, I’m just not persuaded. Beyond what seems like genuine sympathy for these individuals, Brooks’ column reads like a fancified Andy Rooney monologue to me: “And another thing I don’t understand, why can’t kids these days act a little more dignified? In my day we wore our pants high and we knew how to order an ice cream sandwich from the conveyor-cart at the automat… and that reminds me, let me tell you something about postage…”
flatlander100
on Jul 7th, 2009
@ 11:08 pm:
Al:
We read it differently, I think, or at least found a different emphasis in the piece. I agree with Brooks’ lament, for example, that Sanford thought it not only necessary but acceptable to turn the podium into a confessional, and thus to parade the most personal aspects of his private life all across the papers and tv screens. I for one would have appreciated substantially more reticence — what Brooks calls “dignity” — from the governor. I cannot imagine someone from the Revolutionary founding generation — think Washington, or Jefferson or Adams — saying in public that he was “trying to fall back in love with my wife.” Doesn’t mean they weren’t, some of them, randy old goats. [Think Franklin.] Does mean they would never have considered [in the parlance of the 60s] “letting it all hang out.” The new standard — the personal is public — resulted most recently in the appalling spectacle of Sen. Lindsey Graham explaining on national TV that whether Gov. Sanford should remain in office depended on whether he could successfully reconcile with his wife or not. Not, note, whether he could effective govern the state, but whether he could reconcile with his wife. My god.
I also liked Brooks ‘ point about Washington’s rules of conduct for discussing political matters. They preserved civility, which permitted people of very different views — radically different views — in the Continental Congress and in the Convention, even people who despised each other, to discuss in detail matters that needed to be discussed without engaging in personal attacks and acrimony. Washington’s standards, which were widely held by gentlemen of the day, permitted Congress to get done a great deal that could, probably, not have been done, or done as well, in their absence.
Finally, I liked Brooks referencing the standards of public deportment that were expected of honorable men of the time:, particularly that they would, in office, place the public good before their own. [No, of course not all did that. But some of the most prominent did as a rule. Washington. Adams. Jefferson. And others.]
No, those standards of public deportment couldn’t have survived into the present. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson would all rather have had their hands palsy and fall off than accost some poor voter on a street corner, grab a hand to shake and say “Hi, there. I’m George Washington and I’m asking for your vote!” Gentlemen didn’t do that. That couldn’t survive the rise of popular Democracy by Jackson’s day. And probably shouldn’t have.
But — Brooks point, I think, or one of them — we lost a good deal with the demise of the old republican concept of “honor” in public men, and the older standards of acceptable public conduct by those standing for and in office. And I’m not at all sure that discussing what was lost with the loss of those older standards of public deportment can be dismissed as merely “romantic hindsight” or an Andy Rooney whine — unless you think honorable conduct in the sense that Washington, Adams, et al. thought of it is impossible in the modern age. I’m pretty cynical these days about American political culture, but I’m not quite that cynical. Not yet.
Almost none of my students, unless prompted by me, so much as mention “honor” when discussing the founding generation in my classes. And many of them seem puzzled when I introduce the idea. I think, along with I presume Mr. Brooks, that we ought to be talking about it a great deal more these days than we do. Particularly in schools an universities.
Interesting post, Al. Chewy. Thanks.
flatlander100
on Jul 8th, 2009
@ 12:06 am:
Neil H.
Thanks. [grin]
Josly
on Jul 8th, 2009
@ 6:05 am:
I am also Sarah Palin fan, this topic seems now to involve political discourse more generally.
Jim Hutchins
on Jul 8th, 2009
@ 11:42 am:
As Doug has correctly pointed out, Gov. Palin has the power to polarize.
As a proud Liberal (in the British sense of the word, not necessarily the Sean Hannity sense), I disagree with his analysis of the reasons Sarah Palin polarizes, but there’s no disputing the fact that she does.
See, for example,
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/palin-polarizer.html
and the results of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll that indicate that Gov. Palin’s favorables have gone *up* with Republicans but *down* with Democrats and Independents:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comments?type=story&id=8026703
Al
on Jul 8th, 2009
@ 5:51 pm:
Flatlander, thanks for the thoughtful response. I think you’re right that we took different points of emphasis from Brooks’ piece, though I want to push back on a couple of things.
I quite agree that we sure seem to see a lot of undignified behavior from all quarters (I’ll grant you my Andy Rooney quip was a bit too flip — though I also have to admit it was fun), and I myself am not too cynical to believe that gentlemanly comportment is impossible in modern D.C. I think we have common ground in the belief that civility, integrity, and honor are valuable principles — in any age — and that there are those who outwardly represent such principles and those who do not.
My core complaint with the column lies in Brooks’ observation of a phenomenon in individuals, asserting that phenomenon to be representative of a general phenomenon, and then ascribing that general phenomenon to several other, unexplored notions. Is it indeed true that we have lost our way and become unmoored from the guidance of dignity as a social norm? Well, it might be, but Brooks hasn’t shown me that piece; he’s only shown me three obviously extraordinary examples of failure to rise above one’s id and claimed to know how they became so untethered. (Michael Jackson did not become a man-child because he went from 6-year-old to King of Pop without passing GO, but because American society has given up on public dignity. Really?)
Were one of my own students to suggest that an observation of Sarah Palin is evidence of a social shift away from personal dignity and that such a shift is explained by the individualism inherent in unfettered capitalism, I would demand to see not only some data, but better-grounded reasoning for how the proposed mechanism brought about the asserted change. (And there is data on this; for example, Brooks might call on the World Values Survey to look for empirical shifts in attitudes over time.)
So when you write that we lost something valuable with the departure of honor in public men, my reaction is to think that, certainly that would be a loss — but has it actually happened, or are we really observing something else, as a function of a reporting and attention bias?
Finally, I think Brooks is in a tenuous position where he invokes, without a nod to context, Washington’s rules for civility. Those rules were likely inherited from some combination of French Court and rigid Protestant mores. It’s too easy to say that Washington and Adams were dignified because they *believed* in it — they were dignified it because they were direct recipients of the inherited prescriptions of manners of three hundred years of aristocracy. (You’re right on, I think, to note that some of those notions couldn’t have survived the emergence of popular democracy — it’s a smart point that should have informed Brooks.)
And so in that I certainly acknowledge that mores do indeed change over time, and not always for the “better.” It’s the certainty with which Brooks suggests this has happened, and the mechanisms he proposes for it, that raise my “this needs empirical grounding” radar.
Cheers-
Al
Michael Trujillo
on Jul 8th, 2009
@ 6:42 pm:
But nobody has explained how derision and contempt equals fear. That’s the part of Doug’s blog that I’d like explained. I do not think highly of Palin. But if my disdain for her is coming across as fear to some people, I want to know how to express myself without giving the wrong impression.
Unless … to certain minds, the mere act of ridiculing someone is automatically interpreted as fear. In that case, you all need to get out more. Channeling Nixon (”They all hate me because they fear me”) will only lead yo down the wrong road. Perhaps it’s easier to believe that people make fun of Sarah Palin because they’re afraid of her rather than acknowledge that she’s got some qualities and ideas that are worthy of a National Lampoon movie. Or, maybe, you so identify with her that our ridicule of her is deemed ridicule of you. (Which is not, necessarily, the case.)
At any rate, all I want to get across to you is that, speaking for myself, I don’t fear Sarah Palin, but I think she’s entertaining as hell.
flatlander100
on Jul 8th, 2009
@ 11:23 pm:
Al:
You wrote: “Were one of my own students to suggest that an observation of Sarah Palin is evidence of a social shift away from personal dignity and that such a shift is explained by the individualism inherent in unfettered capitalism, I would demand to see not only some data, but better-grounded reasoning for how the proposed mechanism brought about the asserted change.”
So would I, regarding his point about unfettered capitalism as cause. However, I think I’d accept much of the public reaction to Palin’s turning family matters into campaign opportunities — widespread long term coverage, cheering throngs at rallies, pregnant daughter and putative hubby-to-be as campaign adjuncts, etc. —- as substantial evidence of a social shift away from standards of personal dignity we not that long ago expected of public persons as a matter of course.
Cathy
on Jul 9th, 2009
@ 8:14 am:
I think in Sarah Palin’s case, people see her as a breath of fresh air – she’s not as stodgy as most conservative politicians. They see her as “real” and “honest” simply because she ISN’T as poised as she should be. But let’s don’t confuse novelty with honesty and competence.
A person who will be dealing with foreign leaders on serious matters should not just “let is all hang out” like that. They need restraint, poise, and dignity, or they will not be respected or taken seriously by other countries, particularly those from patriarchal cultures. I think anyone in the White House – particularly a woman – will need a quiet strength and dignity about her, to do the job well. Palin doesn’t have that, and she has shown time and again that she doesn’t care to get it. She garners too much attention and admiration for being exactly the opposite.
Al
on Jul 9th, 2009
@ 6:26 pm:
Flatlander: “So would I, regarding his point about unfettered capitalism as cause. However, I think I’d accept much of the public reaction to Palin’s turning family matters into campaign opportunities — widespread long term coverage, cheering throngs at rallies, pregnant daughter and putative hubby-to-be as campaign adjuncts, etc. —- as substantial evidence of a social shift away from standards of personal dignity we not that long ago expected of public persons as a matter of course.”
Well, assuming broader evidence that that shift has indeed taken place, I would certainly take it as an excellent illustrative case. (Complementarily, I would encourage those students to find a way to start with the observation and design a way to find out if it’s really true.) But the more recent tarnishing of Palin’s star might also suggest a contrary story — dignity reasserts itself after all?
Whew… I think we may have wrung all the juice out of this one column.
Thanks again for the thoughtful conversation.
Nicole
on Jul 13th, 2009
@ 3:33 pm:
Laytonion … I read a lot of publications all over the web, and I don’t watch Fox news or listen to talk radio. I could care less about Saturday Night Live. Thank you very much.
I stick to my assertion: Joe Biden is a complete embarassment to the United States of America. He is given a pass by the mainstream media (I don’t count SNL as mainstream media) because he is a Democrat and a man. Had Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin made ANY of the gaffes that he has made in his public life, they would not be able to show their faces in public again. There would be harsh editorials in the L.A. Times and NYTimes. They have pilloried Sarah Palin for much less. At least Palin didn’t say it was “corny” to be a proud American, or falsely claimed to have been shot down on a Congressional junket to Afghanistan. Um, no Joe, that didn’t happen. And, why aren’t we criticizing him for being a bad dad? Apparently his children do drugs and embezzle money.
DOUBLE STANDARD!!!
Oh, and somebody here called Republicans Chicken Hawks. What a joke. Bush was in the Nat’l Guard. Clinton did not serve at all. How many children did Bill Clinton have serving in the military? How about Obama? How many did McCain and Palin have between them? ‘Nuff said.
Let’s stop with the “chicken hawk” labels. It was always ridiculous to begin with. Both political parties have their draft dodgers, and their patriots. It’s a foolish divisive meaningless argument.
jasonthe
on Aug 10th, 2009
@ 1:12 pm:
More off than usual here Doug.
The idea that Sarah strikes fear in Democratic circles is a nice talking point, but the truth of the matter is that Democratic activists, liberals, progressives, and even conserva-Dems would love nothing more than a Palin 2012 run, or even a Palin 2016 run.
What you’re seeing as fear based backlash could also be that she is, simply, and easy target, filled with hilarious idiocy. In fact, it’s hard to not follow her every move, for the mere entertainment alone.
She’s not scary, she’s a shining example of where the GOP stands, and she’s probably the funniest thing to happen in American politics since Ross Perot.