I've had a few days to digest and ponder Sarah Palin's curious resignation. I'm not particularly interested in why she resigned or what she's going to do next. I'm also not that interested in her next run for public office. It will end in failure, I'm sure of it.
What does interest me is what Palin represents to the GOP.
Great conservative apparatchiks, whether Lee Atwater or Ralph Reed or others, knew well how to manipulate undereducated, rank-and-file conservatives. It's not hard, since many of them aren't that smart.
That's not to say they aren't God-fearing or hardworking or good parents or fine citizens. But they just aren't that intelligent when it comes to matters of policy or politics. They're not sophisticated enough to have much of a view on anything outside their own community, so they tend to focus on things that can be understood simply and easily - things like morality, a morality often imparted by a local church and taken as gospel without any kind of intellectual questioning.
They don't understand foreign policy or trade policy or tax policy or the kinds of economic matters the GOP power players are interested in. But they do get gay marriage and abortion and school prayer. So for a generation, the GOP talked about the latter in an attempt to gain enough power to influence the former. (N.B. Democrats do this bait-and-switch too, but I'm not talking about them right now.)
Today's conservatives, however, aren't in on the joke. Politically, they came of age hearing these paeans to Christian fundamentalism, without understanding that these were simply techniques of convenience used to sell other parts of the GOP agenda.
They are, in other words, mistaking the sizzle for the steak.
Many modern conservatives soldier on like theocrats, trying to sell this homophobic, xenophobic, Europhobic, Islamophobic, liberal-phobic sizzle as though it's the main course. They think you win debates by proclaiming that policies are "liberal" or "socialist" and then thrusting your arms upward in triumph. Those who come from this camp are rarely interested in honest discussion because they're rarely capable of intellectually defending their positions. They like using one-word labels to dismiss contrarian worldviews, and then quickly retreat to the comfortable surroundings of those who agree with them.
Sarah Palin is tailor-made for these folks. And this is the GOP's trainwreck-in-waiting.
The more that Palin talks, the more that is known about her, the less appealing she becomes to America-at-large. However, those who already think she's the bee's knees only seem to love her more with every accusation, every questionable joke.
Even as the breadth of her support narrows, the intensity of the support she receives grows greater, a fatal attraction for a political party whose base seems increasingly detached from anything resembling reality. To reinforce their delusion, those folks then go around talking about how the "other side" is afraid of or intimidated by Palin's superhuman political skills.
Hardly. Sarah Palin is an erratic, intemperate politician of average intelligence and below average eloquence. If she ran for President in 2012, she would undoubtedly suffer a loss worse than anyone since Walter Mondale met the Reagan steamroller in 1984. I remain confused as to why anyone would be scared of such a politician, but for the fact that lots of social conservatives are ineloquent and profoundly average and seem enamored by the notion of electing someone equally ineloquent and profoundly average to public office. Call it the insurgence of the mediocre.
The political arena will never be kind to Sarah Palin because her entire political career has been built around sizzle. Let her relegate herself to the arena of talk radio or Fox News, somewhere that she can live a comfortable existence and never again have to worry about how to answer a difficult question or articulately defend her positions or address her stunning lack of honesty because what she believes will be of no real consequence to anyone.
We will all be better off for it.
What does interest me is what Palin represents to the GOP.
Great conservative apparatchiks, whether Lee Atwater or Ralph Reed or others, knew well how to manipulate undereducated, rank-and-file conservatives. It's not hard, since many of them aren't that smart.
That's not to say they aren't God-fearing or hardworking or good parents or fine citizens. But they just aren't that intelligent when it comes to matters of policy or politics. They're not sophisticated enough to have much of a view on anything outside their own community, so they tend to focus on things that can be understood simply and easily - things like morality, a morality often imparted by a local church and taken as gospel without any kind of intellectual questioning.
They don't understand foreign policy or trade policy or tax policy or the kinds of economic matters the GOP power players are interested in. But they do get gay marriage and abortion and school prayer. So for a generation, the GOP talked about the latter in an attempt to gain enough power to influence the former. (N.B. Democrats do this bait-and-switch too, but I'm not talking about them right now.)
Today's conservatives, however, aren't in on the joke. Politically, they came of age hearing these paeans to Christian fundamentalism, without understanding that these were simply techniques of convenience used to sell other parts of the GOP agenda.
They are, in other words, mistaking the sizzle for the steak.
Many modern conservatives soldier on like theocrats, trying to sell this homophobic, xenophobic, Europhobic, Islamophobic, liberal-phobic sizzle as though it's the main course. They think you win debates by proclaiming that policies are "liberal" or "socialist" and then thrusting your arms upward in triumph. Those who come from this camp are rarely interested in honest discussion because they're rarely capable of intellectually defending their positions. They like using one-word labels to dismiss contrarian worldviews, and then quickly retreat to the comfortable surroundings of those who agree with them.
Sarah Palin is tailor-made for these folks. And this is the GOP's trainwreck-in-waiting.
The more that Palin talks, the more that is known about her, the less appealing she becomes to America-at-large. However, those who already think she's the bee's knees only seem to love her more with every accusation, every questionable joke.
Even as the breadth of her support narrows, the intensity of the support she receives grows greater, a fatal attraction for a political party whose base seems increasingly detached from anything resembling reality. To reinforce their delusion, those folks then go around talking about how the "other side" is afraid of or intimidated by Palin's superhuman political skills.
Hardly. Sarah Palin is an erratic, intemperate politician of average intelligence and below average eloquence. If she ran for President in 2012, she would undoubtedly suffer a loss worse than anyone since Walter Mondale met the Reagan steamroller in 1984. I remain confused as to why anyone would be scared of such a politician, but for the fact that lots of social conservatives are ineloquent and profoundly average and seem enamored by the notion of electing someone equally ineloquent and profoundly average to public office. Call it the insurgence of the mediocre.
The political arena will never be kind to Sarah Palin because her entire political career has been built around sizzle. Let her relegate herself to the arena of talk radio or Fox News, somewhere that she can live a comfortable existence and never again have to worry about how to answer a difficult question or articulately defend her positions or address her stunning lack of honesty because what she believes will be of no real consequence to anyone.
We will all be better off for it.
10 comments:
Nice post.
I'm a socially conservative, fiscally liberal guy in the mode of Tony Staskunas, and you seem to be more of a moderate libertarian. So we don't agree on much of anything, except that both parties are very often full of BS, and we don't particularly care for Sarah Palin and the brand of politics that she represents.
I have to say that when I first read Palin's bio in the Almanac of American Politics, I liked what I saw. I thought she might be a great presidential candidate in 2016 after (in all likelihood) two terms of a Democratic president.
Then I actually heard her speak, and I don't think I've ever lost so much respect for someone so fast in my entire life. She's just fundamentally not a very thoughtful or intelligent person. And that doesn't make her evil, it just means that she shouldn't be anywhere close to the presidency or even a governorship.
When Jay Wilson came out of retirement and went to News 3 as the sports anchor, I commented to someone that even though her degree was in sports journalism, she's not even as qualified to be sports director at News 3 as Jay Wilson was. So why on earth would anyone think she should be one 73-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency?
Intelligent people do have some cause to fear Palin's political gifts (a more accurate term than "skills" in her case). She motivates a segment of those who vote based on emotion and faith rather than reason. It is not possible to change these people's minds with facts nor logic.
Belief voters make up more of the electorate than you may think. Obama did not win the election primarily because he is an intelligent man with good ideas; he won because people wanted to believe in his message of hope. If all it took was intelligence and better policies than Bush, John Kerry would have won in 2004.
Fortunately, Palin's faithful are a small (though fruitful) minority of the country right now, and by the time their numerous offspring are old enough to vote, Palin will be too old to trade on her looks.
Forget Palin - Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN- 6th District) is going to eat her lunch. May be a little older than Palin (53 years old, but can get the MILF vote any day).
Love her interview about not providing unnecessary info to the Census Bureau (because of fears of what ACORN will do with it) & her "We Now Have A Total Gangster Government" floor speech (re: General Motors).
Once she gains traction, Palin will be left in the dust.
Isn't Sullivan the guy who tried to convince the world that Trig Palin was Bristol's son? Yeah...he's objective.
That's not to say that Palin doesn't have some whoppers in her backstory (the Bridge to Nowhere being tops in my book). You can put a list like that together for just about any politician; Joe Biden was equally bad, yet doesn't have his list of gaffes paraded around. Obama can say with a straight face that he doesn't want to run General Motors, while at the same time forcing out the CEO.
There are things to dislike about Palin; I think you're right to point out that she doesn't give a nuanced explanation on issues that go beyond her state borders.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908983-3,00.html
When she does have the background on an issue(s), she can give a simple, effective answer.
I don't think that she's dumb; I don't think she has the type of smart political advisors which you would expect for a national level politician. (Snapping back about keeping Willow away from David Letterman -- bad.)
If she does run in 2012, Palin will have to run the gauntlet within the Republican party...including debates in which she will have to stand out against other Republicans. (Witness all the "You hate immigration? Me too!" candidates who dropped out before most people knew who they were.) Arguments and strategy aside, the debate performance is also a part of how Obama beat Hillary.
I happen to think she'd be a better candidate in 2016, getting more distance from the events of 2008 (and Obama), but she doesn't have the advisors to stick with the conventional wisdom. I don't have a favorite candidate for 2012, but I am not opposed to Palin being a candidate.
"Stunning lack of honesty" is unfair. I'm sure you could make the same list for just about any politician, and certianly Barack Obama. (I read the link and some of these dishonesties are pretty minor points, like if/when she asked her family about running for VP.)
But anyway, you make a fair point, if not a bit elitist (nothing new for you there). The other commenters here talk about how she is not intelligent enough. If intelligence were the standard, would be electing anyone currently in politics? Probably not. There are far more intelligent people in the private sector. And intelligence doesn't necessarily equal success. FDR and Reagan were not the most intelligent men in the room but had successful presidencies. I'm not saying this applies to Palin, just disagreeing with the argument.
Great post. Should be required reading for Republican operatives everywhere if they want to avoid minority status on a permanent basis. MHT you can't be serious about Michelle Bachman. If that crackpot became president it would truly mean the Apocalypse was upon us.
Your ability to articulate in writing what I'm thinking in my head is a little scary.
Great post.
It seems like Palin is the first big time politician to rise from the actual ranks of the culture warriors, rather than from the group that manipulates and exploits them. That's why she appeals so much to the talk radio crowd. She's not faking it. She's not dumbing herself down for them. She is them. The lefty equivilent would be somebody like Michael Moore running for office, if he were an unknown when he entered the spotlight. Hits all the appropriate notes that the media has trained followers to salivate to, but there's no substance to the song.
I guess my point about Michele Bachmann is that she has the capacity to attract attention, just like Palin, but I don't see either as ever being elected(not that I know anything). Going forward, I think Palin & Bachmann would be sharing the same "base" of conservative voters. What I also found interesting as I googled Bachmann is that already there seems to be an "attack" mechanism in place to marginalize her (as was done to Palin) - makes me wonder if she really is perceived as a contender, if she is getting that kind of attention.
Bachmann's no contender outside of her own district. Her ideas garner attention because they are so aggressively crazy that they reinforce the coasties' prejudices about the Midwest being full of backwards rubes. Remember how Lasee's proposal to arm teachers got picked up by the national media? It's the same phenomenon.
Post a Comment