Palin and Thatcher
We're not done with this topic yet, folks. I might have been, but the Guardian (of all newspapers) wrote to me at about 2:00 this afternoon and asked me if I could get a column on the subject of "What Sarah Palin could learn from Margaret Thatcher" to them within the next four hours. I was meanwhile trying to steward the upload of our Gaza flotilla videos through the glacial Turkish Internet pipes. No sooner did I accept the assignment than my Internet crashed and with it -- boom! -- went the whole fragile edifice of spacetime. Berlinski's Internet down, Continent isolated. Of course, I had firmly in mind our earlier discussion about punctuality and the reason certain newspaper columnists keep their jobs while others don't. I was quite distraught, believe you me.
Anyway, I got the column to them in time. I'm American, after all. That's how we roll.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Great piece! Even a cursory glance at the comments, however, confirms that Palin Derangement Syndrome is alive and well across the pond.
Jun '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Your column brings us back to our earlier conversation given the reaction of the Guardian's readership. Proof again, as if anymore were needed, that Mrs. Palin has the ability to send leftists into a paroxysm of rage. I can imagine that your email box is even now filling with all sorts of vile and hateful comments. My advice: it's better to be right about the things that matter than loved for the things that matter not.
Jun '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Hey! Politics is rough and tumble for everyone except the affirmative action president. No one in recent history has had as free a ride as Barry. Yet we’re all supposed to think that the press has some magical way of presenting a public figure’s strengths and weaknesses. Interesting how Barry suddenly looks a lot weaker than he did when running for election and this in spite of a media too keen on leg tingles for his own good. Is there a perspective candidate that is prepared for every question that might be asked? The answer is no. What good candidates do is turn questions around or twist them to reflect themes (I hate the term talking points) they want to stress. Now, ask yourself, is that a vital leadership skill? It may get you elected, but voters are more often wrong than right. Even the great Margaret Thatcher only squeaked into office. The real insult is that the American electorate knew more about Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they did about Obama’s pals. If we’re to believe that the best leaders make reporters quake in their boots, then Hugo Chavez must be our man.
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Cas,
You write, "What good candidates do is turn questions around or twist them to reflect themes (I hate the term talking points) they want to stress." As it turns out, candidate Palin wasn't very good at this. Sure, she performed fine on friendly Fox News interviews, but came across poorly when faced with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. Were they hostile interviewers? Certainly no more so than the journalists Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher faced during a time when an alternative conservative media didn't even exist. President Reagan won two gubernatorial elections in California and two presidential elections, one of them a landslide. He won the support of a large percentage of the American public -- and like Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan won converts.
In contrast, Sarah Palin is enormously popular among her base, and very unpopular outside it. She hasn't accomplished anything in politics that is particularly impressive, and she has no ability to convert people to a conservative way of thinking, let alone the ability to implement major conservative reforms -- indeed, an inability to successfully navigate the game of politics led her to resign her seat in Alaska.
Jun '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
I work at a prominent university in the Midwest and had the following conversation with a "feminist" uber-libbie after Sarah released Going Rogue:
me: "So, looks like Sarah Palin has a new book out."
co-worker: "Oh G-d tell me you don't like her! I knew you were a conservative but please tell me you don't like Palin."
me: "Well, I wouldn't endorse her as a candidate for president but I agree with the vast majority of her views and think the way she is treated by the media is unfortunate and sad."
co-worker: "I can't stand that idiot."
me: "Which of her views don't you like?
co-worker: "....Well (pausing awkwardly) she's just an idiot I don't know."
me: "So you hate her for no reason then?"
co-worker: "You want a reason, here's a reason, her hair. You want another reason, her glasses. That's why I don't like her."
End conversation. What is it called when one person mocks another as stupid - without evidence - and then mocks their physical characteristics in hatred?... hmmmm. The most ironic thing about all of this is that Sarah seems to get the harshest hatred from the most intense 'feminists.' How progressive?
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
"I'm American, after all. That's how we roll." Great statement. A curious off-topic question...I noticed you spelled memorize with an "s". Do you modify how you spell words depending on where your article is published? Or, have you spent enough time surrounded by the Queen's English, now, that you have picked up on their spelling?
On topic, now. I'm probably only one of a hand full of people who don't claim a visceral response of some kind to Sarah Palin. She's sufficiently bright, but not enormously insightful of the big picture, so I consider her more of a personality with a passionate cause. And because I share that cause I want her to be successful. But, I have a hard time listening to her for very long and I don't usually gain much from it. There's an effort involved and I'm not sure if it's from her focusing too hard on crafting what she's about to say, or just me from listening to her style of speech. Either way, I'm on edge. I would much rather listen to Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Newt, Karl Rove, Margaret Thatcher, Claire Berlinski...and come away with an energized mind and new knowledge.
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Samwise Gamgee: that is my favorite handle so far at Ricochet. The Gaffer would surely approve.
Andrea, what do you think Ms. Palin's passionate cause is? On one subject, special needs children, I've heard her speak eloquently, earnestly, and passionately, and I am 2,000 percent behind her.
Otherwise, however, I can't discern the cause to which you allude, unless you mean that she wants to improve America, make a better world for her children, keep us safe from terrorists... in other words, stuff that basically everyone wants, while disagreeing about the way to get there. Perhaps I am missing something though. Would you share what specifically you meant?
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
I know exactly what you mean. I recently noticed that I always hold my breath when she begins one of her confusing sentences that changes meaning halfway through. Why do I hold my breath? I am not sure. Maybe I subconsciously want her to do well and wish I could feel justified in really looking up to her.
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Conor Friedersdorf:
Andrea, what do you think Ms. Palin's passionate cause is?
...I can't discern the cause to which you allude, unless you mean that she wants to improve America, make a better world for her children, keep us safe from terrorists... in other words, stuff that basically everyone wants... · Jun 15 at 6:15pm
What an excellent question. You made me think this through and I'm intrigued, now, because it's taking me a minute to put my finger on it. This isn't my answer, but I'll start with this comment. I like her because she torques the other guy so well. And it might be that I've applied that principle...The enemy of my enemy is my friend. She's possibly the only national figure I can think of where I actually pay attention to her not because of what she believes in, but what she cries out against. I guess I consider her passionate cause the way I consider the Tea Party's...speaking out against what's wrong and stirring up the pot. And I love that she does that.
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Brandon Zaffini
I know exactly what you mean. I recently noticed that I always hold my breath when she begins one of her confusing sentences that changes meaning halfway through. Why do I hold my breath? I am not sure. Maybe I subconsciously want her to do well and wish I could feel justified in really looking up to her. · Jun 15 at 9:08pm
I hold my breath, too. :-) Then I breathe a sigh of relief at the end that she made it through. How horrible...we're describing cheering on the Little Engine That Could. At least Conor got me thinking about it differently, which actually gave me my answer to why the idea of Sarah Palin meeting with Margaret Thatcher didn't sit right with me. If I look at Palin as an elected politician then I see too big of a gap between her and Thatcher in every quality that matters...talent, intellect, astuteness, articulation, achievement, etc. But, if I see her as a sort of stand-alone hybrid, representing her own category (and one that matters) then I do see value in their meeting. But, it doesn't work if Palin doesn't recognize what her value is and, as importantly, her limitations.
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Andrea,
Actually that helps me understand some of her appeal. I share an affinity for folks who "stir the pot," and Ms. Palin and I theoretically agree that the current incarnation of the GOP is woefully broken, though we disagree as to the best solution.
Unlike Ms. Palin and her most dedicated fans, I am not focused on moving the GOP in my preferred direction, at least not in the short term. The status quos that I want to fix, the pots that I want to stir, are the conservative movement -- I think it's become corrupt, intellectually lazy, and unprincipled -- and America's public discourse generally (in fact, I once wrote at length on why I disagree with the "enemy of my enemy" approach to politics).
Despite disagreeing, however, I understand your reasoning and its appeal, and although it's hard to tell exactly where you stand on every issue, I think there are probably a lot of areas where you and I would like the same pots to be stirred.
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Conor, why do you think that? Please illustrate. You've got my attention
As to Gov. Palin, here's what I think is really going on with a lot of people who like her (and I suspect the knives will soon begin diving into my back). She's beautiful. No, I mean absolutely stunning. When she appeared on SNL next to her doppelganger, there was no comparison. Sarah Palin is just plain gorgeous.
I suspect if Sen. McCain had selected another 1-term, popular, female governor as his running mate who was just a plain, run-of-the-mill looker, the base would not have been nearly as energized. However, we humans sure do like our eye candy. Truthfully, I could just stare at her lovely face all day long. I find myself wishing she was my big sister so she could give me makeup tips. And then I could gaze at her some more.
I first heard McCain's introduction to Palin over the radio...
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
I had no clue what the governor looked like. Admitedly, her speech made me tear up. When analyzing why, I realized I was so excited that McCain had selected a woman (Ha! Take that Democrat party!) who sounded like she loved the U.S. (unlike my take on Biden or Obama). But when I saw Palin, I thought, "Oh wow! Seriously? She is a governor? Sahweet! Our side sure can grow 'em purdy!"
And then when I compared McCain's Palin to Obama's Biden. Really? Was there any contest? Biden has been wrong on just about everything in public life. Palin, well, she did have some amazing successes in Alaska against corruption and the establishment, to her credit. Put beautiful Palin next to altered Biden, and it was not contest. So, I had hope. Oh, and I really liked seeing pictures of my team's candidates - well, the VP.
Soon, I was listening to the content of what the governor was saying, and realized, "I do agree with her more than I disagree." I also really liked her enthusiasm for the U.S. She loved her country and wasn't afraid to boast about it. And she made surly ol' McCain seem less... liberal.
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Felicia B,
I think that for a couple reasons. With regard to actual policy, I was dismayed by the excesses of the Bush years: the profligate spending, the decision to further nationalize education, the pork, the K Street project that Matt Continetti wrote about so well, the questionable appointments. Obviously a lot of rank and file conservatives share my complaints, but they tend to cast blame on "squishes" or "RINOs," whereas from where I'm sitting, the folks running things were unquestioned movement conservatives: Bush himself, Cheney, Rove, Delay, and Hastert aren't anyone's definition of "squish."
When it comes to public discourse -- and by the way, I love what the folks here at Ricochet are doing -- I think that "the conservative entertainment complex" of Fox News, TV guys like Glenn Beck, popular talk radio shows, and authors like Ann Coulter are egregiously willing to mislead their audiences about matters of fact, for motives I won't speculate on here. My word limit is nearing, but if I could offer one example just as an illustration of this phenomenon and its consequences, see here. Of course, there are so many I admire greatly w/in the movement, and I'd it returned to them.
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
This reminds me of a young scholarship student from the hills of North Carolina moving into the dorm at Yale (for that matter, ‘Charlotte Simmons”!) who wants to be dropped off two blocks away by his hayseed parents so that his cool new classmates won’t see them.
The Right is a big tent. There are old line country-club types who care about low taxes and minimized regulation, paleos who are still fighting Communism, new entrepreneurs with similar views, “neocons” who care about national security, Islam, Israel, etc., the “Religious Right” and its social issues plus freedom from government, TEA Party anti-spenders, elderly who don’t trust the statists who sympathyize with the “duty to die” and love estate taxes, Burkean traditionalists (Will, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Frum, at one time Jeffrey Hart before he went crazy), and another group like our scholarship kid.
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
I see a lot of younger, hip, Web 2.0, writers/journalists/aspiring pundits, plus establishment pundits who are considered safe dinner guests by the Opinion Establishment. It appears to flown-over, Midwestern, unsophisticated me as though these folks are very anxious to be approved by “those who matter”- by which I mean media and political leaders and their hangers-on. Who also usually went to a “good college” instead of a state university, and like to write in somewhat more dense and pedantic styles that remind me of the officers in PEN, quoting Sartre, Derrida, Orwell, etc..
The dream would be to land a job like Douthat’s at the NYT or Sullivan’s at Atlantic, or Weigel’s at WaPo. They want to be invited to Peggy Noonan’s and David Brooks’ dinner parties. They are far more libertarian than religious, and, I believe from what I have read, embarrassed by TEA Parties, by Palin, and the unwashed Right. I am eschewing the term “elitist”, though it could apply. I tend to think that they see a gulf between their own enlightened thought patterns and those of the group described by the Democracy Corps memo as the “conservative Republican” base fearing Obama’s “socialism.”
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
I have referred previously to Buckley’s 1965 campaign memoir “The Unmaking of a Mayor”, the chapter entitled “The Candidate and ‘His Supporters’”, describing a woman in a magenta hat interviewed by the NYT who opposed Goldwater “Because, if elected, Goldwater would take away my TV.” She had misunderstood the campaign call to privatize the TVA, and the glitterati hooted over her ignorance. Buckley quoted Prof. Richard Weaver’s reason for being conservative: “Because conservatism is a paradigm of essences towards which the phenomenology of the world is in continuing approximation.”
Buckley: “Professor Weaver would have voted for me in New York, in 1965, along with the lady in the magenta hat: and, in an odd sort of way, very likely for the same reasons, differently grasped… it is easy to ridicule the statements of typical voters as, often awkwardly, they stammer out the reasons for their preferences…. ‘Admiration,’ Ambrose Bierce reminds us, ‘is our polite recognition of another’s resemblance to ourselves.’”
I can’t help but wonder if there is not a great deal of angst expended over Palin’s lack of glibness more because she does not resemble certain personal ambitions of would-be “selves” than over the substance of her various comments.
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Conor & Duane, it seems to me there's a disparity among the younger conservative set and older conservative set. Those recently entering into the political discussion seem to be highly idealized. They have a view of how the world should operate and see anything less than their ideal as sub-par or embarrassing. Those who have been around long enough to have a few kids and maybe some grandkids seem a bit more... well... comfortable with giving up on some ideals to gain ground on other ideals. Of course, I'm really generalizing here since you can find more seasoned "opionistas" reflecting the same angst as the younger conservative voices and vice-versa.
Duane, you're right. I do see the Republican party has having a very large tent. Is that good or bad? I think it is very good. It is healthy, in fact. It is a positive sign when people of same and diverging opinions engage in discussions. What I don't think is healthy is slamming one another because we don't agree. In my mind, it's all about the arguments. Granted, arguments can get heated (which can also be quite fun to watch :D).
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
Duane,
In those three comments, you've done an awful lot of psychoanalyzing, and although I can't claim to know the inner motivations of every young Web 2.0 writer, I can say that I've never met anyone who resembles the caricature you've drawn. I'm also perplexed by the way you invoke Ross Douthat, an orthodox Catholic who writes openly in the New York Times about his opposition to abortion, wondered in The Atlantic whether pornography is adultery, writes film reviews for National Review and essays for the Claremont Institute, and whose books include a critique of academia reminiscent of Buckley and a manifesto about how the GOP can succeed in the future. What would be wrong with dreaming of a career like his?
In my critiques of Palin, or any figure in the conservative movement, my complaints are specific, and grounded in examples. My larger critiques may be accurate or off base, but either way, they can be responded to directly. Instead, the response is too often, "You're just writing that to please liberal dinner party hosts." It's a weak, non-responsive rebuttal, you're in no position to evaluate its truth, and if I'm actually wrong you should be able to say why.
May '10
Re: Palin and Thatcher
It appears to flown-over, Midwestern, unsophisticated me -- a twenty-something, poor college student who has worked dirty blue-collar jobs and served his country overseas -- that many supporters of Palin contemptuously sermonize over the starched and refined nature of her critics. Sounds like a lot of psychobabble to me. And you do not need to have a fancy degree to recognize an irrelevant -- and factually incorrect -- ad hominem.