Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Palin and Snobbery
During our podcast conversation about Sarah Palin, I noticed that everyone seemed to express some variant on the sentiment that they wished they liked her more because she so obviously infuriates the people they most loathe. I discussed this phenomenon in a review of her autobiography. It’s a curious kind of blackmail. Why should we pretend to love her just because pantywaist leftists are snobs about her? If the same snobs refuse to eat Velveeta, that still doesn’t mean it’s a great cheese.
Published in General
I have mixed feelings about Palin giving up her governor seat as she did. On the one hand, it seemed that liberals had indeed ensnared her in so much legal defense that she had little time for her duties as governor. If that’s the case, her state would certainly benefit from her decision to step down by replacing her with a governor able to act. On the other hand, by quitting, she gave in to injustice and validated the liberal strategy as effective. Her enemies were not only her enemies, and they will surely attempt to repeat their success. Even when you can’t win, it can be worthwhile to keep struggling.
Ultimately, I think Palin made the wrong choice. But her ability to inspire is a rare gift. As long as she falls on the right side of issues and chooses good advisers where she needs help (vital for any presidential candidate), I’ll consider her. The way she speaks her mind plainly would certainly restore the sort of diplomacy I hope to see in the Oval Office.
Lots of typos above.
And Brandon, I don’t consider you to be mysoginist. I do, however, consider the sociological context of what Paul wrote in Titus. He wrote elsewhere (Timothy) that it was a shame for women to cut their hair, or not wear their heads covered in church. I don’t know about you, but my wife cuts her hair, and never wears hats. BTW, she was raised Assembly of God (she is not in that denomination any longer, nor is Palin). Context is everything, as long as the eternal underlying truths are not suppressed.
The kind of compound that the family lives in in Wasilla is very much like an average extended, multi-generation family lived in in Galilee or Nazareth. And Proverbs 31, 800 years before Paul, describes how “she” goes out and buys fields, does import-export business on the side, and runs a garment factory, all while her husband is down with the boys at the pub bragging her up. So, who is watching the kids?
I have found a few snobs abide right here on Ricochet. This is sad.
I remember driving back from my climb of Mt. Whitney in September 2008 and hearing the news that John McCain had selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. Elated, I immediately wrote a check to the campaign (I was half-expecting Joe Lieberman). However, I agree with Rob that Sarah shot her presidential aspirations in the foot when she resigned as Alaska’s governor.
I am happy that Sarah has become a leading light in the conservative movement. I would vote for her over Obama right now if magically given the opportunity. But Palin is not the ideal conservative standard bearer for 2012, not by a long shot.
“She’s simply dumb.”
I’m fairly sure that you don’t have any actual proof of that statement. Sarah Palin is certainly not WFB, but she’s no vacant Caribou Barbie either. She’s shown plenty of smarts to get to where she is and, believe it or not, her endorsements in this past week’s primaries shows that she’s capable of some pretty darned smart political decisions.
Duane,
I am not sure this is the forum or the proper thread for a biblical debate, but at the risk of being a bore to everyone else, I will provide a quick response.
Your reading of “garment factory” into the Proverbs passage demonstrates a reading of the scripture outside of its cultural context – precisely what you just admonished me for. The term “factory,” with its modern implications, does not even approximately describe the work that the faithful woman performs in Proverbs 31. Rather, she was doing the daily work that was required of her in order to keep her family comfortable and well off, proving so diligent and skilled that her husband was free to pursue other concerns. And where was her husband? He was “known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land” (verse 23). Again, how did a leadership position among the elders of the land become simply “at the pub bragging her up”? Your interpretation is entertaing at least. But the role of the woman in this proverb is of a supporting position, and she was not engaged in lawmaking activities outside the life of the family. Rather, this responsibility was the husband’s.
I did not get a complete response in 200 words, but I promise I will be brief in finishing.
While it is true that Paul provides various bits of advice that must be understood in their proper cultural context – the hair and head coverings being classic examples – the teaching of the Bible on the proper and ideal workings of the family are not nearly as ambiguous. These teachings stem from an understanding of the relationship of the different persons in the Trinity as well as the relationship of Christ to his church. For a quick study on some of these ideas, look up Ephesians 5: 22 – 33. Also see 1 Corinthians 11: 33, which lays out the principle that found expression in the wearing of head coverings, etc., in that historical and social setting.
Further to my comment, above, she is most annoying/disappointing when speaking to groups; much less so on FNC. My guess is that over time, she will, for better or worse, lose some of her public speaking manner (and use some additional “g”.
Something about her is so ususual, so powerful, that I really hope she does so evolve.
I am preparing for my third trial right now (personal injury law), and one thing familiar that strikes me about Palin is that, like me, I suspect she is not a linear thinker (the right-brained thing), and I suspect she is a concept thinker (the ENFP Myers-Briggs type, if you’re familiar with that), all of which which makes reducing thoughts to language, especially spoken language, very challenging (that also explains why her Facebook posts are so much different than the way she speaks).
Hi Aldinsgirl. I’d love for you to elaborate, here. As Rob said, just because one doesn’t want Palin for president doesn’t mean, by default, that he or she is a snob. I share Aaron’s exact mixed feelings on her giving up as governor. Also, for ParisParamus, I have no problem with the way she speaks. It doesn’t cause me to think any less of her. However, there was a nervous guardedness during the campaign that gave me pause. I said on the podcast, I had every reason to be her biggest supporter. But one can’t have any hesitation or confusion when going head-to-head with Kim Jong Il, or whomever. She was embarrassed by Katie Couric, of all people. I believe she has a powerful knowledge in a few, key areas — oil is certainly one of them — and when the topic fits her, she’s out-of-this-world great. (See 2 videos here: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/12/palin-no-i-havent-had-implants/). However, she needs to broaden her areas of strength, considerably, to be presidential. I didn’t think Obama ever was or is presidential. No point comparing them.
I meant 1 Corinthians 11: 3. Sorry for the misdirect.
To build on point made by Duane and others, I think Palin added a charge in the Republican party when it was badly needed. However, at this point, her plausibility as a future presidential threat seems extremely slight at best.
The answers to my question about why some of us swoon over certain politicians who seem to be rooted in the same America as regular folks and yet wince at Sarah Palin, are interesting. From Ursula, it appears to be that where Gov. Christie exudes a confident command of the facts, Palin appeared, well, intimidated. Excellent point. Who can forget Charlie Gibson looking so far down his condescending snoot at her that he almost invited an inspection of his nose hair. She was caught off guard and on the defensive, as Scott and Rob have noted in the “high wire” analogy. Rob also observed that she resigned her governorship, a concern I share though I also note that in so doing, she deprived the left of the opportunity to make Alaska their battleground and has instead out flanked them by attacking them on her terms and playing a large part in the right’s electoral success thus far. It may not quite be Machiavellian, but it is shrewd.
I also notice, however, that none of the responses to my question really mirror Claire’s criticisms as explained in her column, and I find that most intriguing. I’m reminded of a piece by Mr. Derbyshire on NRO a few years ago, I think, in which he made a comment to the effect that gentlemen do not engage in weight lifting, or it may have been bodybuilding. As luck would have it, I read the piece while in the sleeper of my truck, having just completed a strenuous workout consisting of over 300 push-ups and 150 chin-ups, all while wearing a backpack. Now, I’ve always tried to be a gentleman, but did the presence of biceps mean I failed? Of course not. My reputation is in the hands of others, leaving me the job of being true to myself. I hope and trust it is the same with Sarah Palin, but I will say this much. She is a formidable lady, (and I emphasize the word *lady*), and I’m glad she is on our side.
Ursula, don’t you think that broadening herself is exactly what Mrs. Palin is doing? It is very rare for a Veep candidate to get the scrutiny and scorn that she received, the absolute hate pouring down even on her children. Correct me with examples please if I am wrong. She wasn’t an experienced national figure at the time of her nomination and she got thrown off her game by the pelting of the stone throwers. I doubt that will happen to her again. But no point in comparing her to Obama? He may not be Presidential, but he is the President, and whoever comes next will have a deep hole to pull us out of.
History is full of people who are sharp, funny, and cogent extemporaneously in their element or when the stakes are lower- I’d remind the lovely and talented Ursula to look at the contrast between Chris Christie when he was on the stump as opposed to today when he has the office and has determined that this is his penultimate position. When you talk to me in my office about my work, or on a stage in front of 200 people on the same subject, I am the most glib sonuvagun you ever met. Put me into a social situation where I know not precisely what the issues are, and I become very guarded, in addition to being inarticulate.
When the stakes go up- as when you are a legitimately viable candidate for national office, even very smart people start to think too much before speaking- and when the cameras are on, your pauses look like ignorance, especially if the words are edited to exacerbate the illusion. Compare Nixon in campaigning 1968 with Nixon campaigning in 1950, or in the 1959 “Kitchen Debate”. Two completely different people, and you can find many other examples as well.
Experience under the lights makes a big difference.
I can’t say I really agree with you. After reading the comments in this post, what I have observed is a lot of people voicing their honest opinions. I happen to not concur with some of those opinions, but I wouldn’t call them snobs.
I think this gets it, Dave. The liveliness of this conversation just proves that, like her or not, Sarah Palin is going to be someone to be reckoned with and I’d rather be standing with her rather than across from her. And folks on our side of the aisle finally are mixing it up in the discussion of who we want to carry our flag, instead of guessing who we’ll have to settle for (a la 2008, 1996 and 1988).
This will never happen, but can anyone imagine a Haley Barbour/Sarah Palin ticket in ’12? I have no idea whether it would be remotely successful but – man! – that could be fun. If you’re looking for a way to make Obama/Biden look absolutely effete and milquetoast, that’d do it. (Not that I don’t think Governor Barbour doesn’t have it in him to do it alone).
Absolutely shrewd. Palin’s resignation paid off in multiple ways. She is back on offense, using her prominence to great effect in highlighting conservative candidates for the upcoming midterm, and out of debt and providing for her family. Perfect in every way, except regarding her presidential prospects for the next election.
But she’s young. Only time will tell where Palin will settle in the conservative firmament. However, as many have observed, it’s great to have her on our side — and a bonus that she seems to terrify so many on the Left.
can anyone imagine a Haley Barbour/Sarah Palin ticket in ’12?
A ticket, yes; winning a general election, no–that is the problem and nightmare. COnversely, I can imagine a Romney Presidency, but fear Romney can’t get out of the primaries…
My curiosity is focused on whether a Romney-Palin ticket would work; would it turn off too many independents and “conservative Democrats” (any remaining?) ? Would it be a net electoral gain or loss when compared to a Romney+someone less polarizing? I can see a Romney winning California, but not with Palin…the mind boggles…
Remember the rule- a Democrat from NE and NY is generally too liberal to be a viable national candidate, and a Republican from the deep South with a noticeable Southern accent is relatively unelectable nationally. Haley Barbour is great, and his accent is just too strong- reminds too many independents of the Strom Thurmond and George Wallace legacy.
If Romney were the nominee, he needs either Palin or Pawlenty as his VP, because either one reassures the “religious right” and adds the working class, unprivileged, “common people” touch. Mitch Daniels needs someone really tall and for his wife to suddenly develop a love of crowds and cameras.
What’s interesting is that both Palin and Romney are developing kind of alternative support networks via endorsements. Romney is connected to Scott Brown, to candidate Meg Whitman, to Gov McDonnell (VA), and elsewhere. Palin’s network is more TeaParty-ish, but both set the table for national efforts that kind of circumvent the traditional roles of the parties.
By the way, Mr.Oyen, I’m not sure if Tim Pawlenty would sufficiently “counterbalance” a Mitt Romney (whereas the fear with Palin is that the see-saw (sp?) would go too far).
What’s interesting is that as the economy doesn’t recover, and President Obama looks worse and worse, Sarah Palin, separate from any of her own activities), looks better and better. So it’s really hard to know how much of a “high wire act” her run would be in two years.
So true, Claire. Palin’s heart seems to be in the right place, I think, and she seems so likeable. But to have the world’s top job, Republican’s should get the opportunity to vote for a really convincing leader. And it seems like there are a few of those about these days (Daniels, Christie, Jindal). As Jeb Bush said on a previous podcast, there’s real republican leadership talent out there. Give them a chance. Plus, let’s face it: A lot of people think she’s great mostly just because she’s good looking. Like Mark Steyn, a lot of folks are simply hot for the up-do. I’m loving the tide of strong female republican candidates, but in the case of Palin, republicans can do a lot better than babe-in-chief.
MC, though I certainly think a good breadth of knowledge is necessary for a strong candidate, it’s ultimately less familiarity with subjects than a strong ability to make decisions and see them through that makes a good president. As long as the person has good advisers and knows enough not to be utterly controlled by them, it’s wisdom more than knowledge that I’m looking for. All presidents face surprises and issues that don’t make the news, anyway. I’d bet Palin is learning a lot right now, but I wouldn’t mind if she was relatively ignorant on some issues.
Some of her reticence was likely due to being a VP candidate. She didn’t want to publicly conflict with McCain’s views. The lead was his.
Duane has a good point about people rising to the occasion. Everyone changes with the circumstances they are in. Palin seems tough enough, though Christie might be better.
Paris, I think Palin and Romney would go well together. The people I know who liked Romney in the last election were focused on economics. Palin has more appeal to social conservatives. But Romney’s healthcare history would get him into trouble in the primaries.
Aaron Miller, yes, the Romney heathcare thing is a problem; the thing is, in the general election, it maybe an asset overall since in the eyes of former Democrats and Democrat-ish independents, having at least been in the heath insurance “kitchen” (in the fray) may de-demonize him.
I’m somewhat surprised you think a Romney-Palin ticket would be a great synergy; I used to think that, but reconsidered after being disappointed with Palin’s Tea Party speech (in Nashville?), and endorsing Rand Paul. It just seems like she might be too much of a distraction for the MSM to play with come fall 2012. Then again, I live in one of the Berkeleys of the East (Park Slope, Brooklyn), and my attempts to judge “Normal America” may be coming up short.
Well, Conor, what’s that old saying? Oh yea, now I remember. “Now there ya go again”!!
“Can anyone quote or provide a link to an original intellectual insight she has had?”
To tell the truth Conor, I don’t follow every thought Sarah Palin expresses and I haven’t studied those she has expressed in the past for the purpose of determining if they were original. Why? Because I couldn’t care less and, frankly, I don’t understand how you would determine an “original” thought, or even why you would consider that important.
Sarah Palin is an executive type, a doer. Some poeple, perhaps you are one, are thinkers. There’s nothing wrong with being a thinker, so I won’t criticize you for your lack of actionable accomplishments, nor will I search your files for actual original insight. I’ll just trust you on that one.
I take two things away from this fantastic conversation: Sarah Palin continues to be one of the most controversial and interesting figures in American politics, and conservatives are excited but also anxious as the 2012 presidential election approaches. On Palin, I urge everyone to read Norman Podhoretz’s March 2010 essay: “What she does know — and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan — is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn.”
Most failed vice presidential candidates fade away. Not Palin. Why? I think it’s because of her remarkable political savvy. She has a deep connection with the conservative grassroots, because she is one of them. Surely that counts for something.
On 2012, we should all relax. The midterms aren’t even over! Right now the top tier of candidates is Romney, Huckabee, and Pawlenty. Daniels, Palin, and Gingrich are thinking about it but may not run in the end. It’s likely a dark horse will emerge: Who was talking about Huckabee in July 2006? Politics is a dynamic and ever-changing process. Speculation is fun. But it’s only speculation.
Most failed vice presidential candidates fade away. Not Palin. Why? I think it’s because of her remarkable political savvy. She has a deep connection with the conservative grassroots, because she is one of them. Surely that counts for something.
Great point 2, Matt. But I say N-Pod is strawmanning Obama. The truth is more complicated — in a more reassuring, but also more troubling, way. I’m certain Obama does think America has been a force for good — insofar as it has created the biggest possibility for goodness in the world to transcend America. A long tradition of left patriotism in America views US history as the history of moral progress in the world, overcoming a new social injustice at every leap, and pointing to ever-greater overcomings — including, finally, American exceptionalism itself. Obama’s moral sense of America is strong, but he dreams the wrong dream.
Palin in the VP debate: “Let’s commit ourselves; we need to ban together and say, ‘Never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again.’ …We need to not get ourselves in debt we can’t afford. Let’s do what our parents told us even before we got that first credit card, Don’t live outside of our means. We need to make sure that, as individuals, we’re taking personal responsibility through all of this.”
My challenge is now to Conor. Find me an insight by any of the other three candidates–or, hell, by any politician–which more profoundly states what should be the lesson of the last decade. Everyone please feel free to help Conor out in his search.
Re: New and original insights.
“Under the current imperfect administration of the Universe, most new ideas are false, so most improvements make matters worse.”
~George Will
I will tell you from my experience as a teacher that liberal educators worship at the altar of all that is “new and innovative.” Such ideas usually amount to more flapdoodle and humbug, but that doesn’t matter to the liberal mind. “New” is always identified as “progressive” and “progressive” is always by definition “good.”
In contrast, the conservative bases his ideas on a firm foundation of tradition before moving “forward.” Under the present circumstances moving forward means returning to our foundational principles. Mrs. Palin is doing just fine in this regard.
Aye, aye Paules!
A great line, Scott. I had hopes for Teh Fred for similar reasons. The issue is that distilling the case for private and public responsibility should be necessary to a good candidacy but not sufficient. That’s not original intellectual insight. It doesn’t need to be. But a strong candidate wins confidence by showing at least some.