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
Paris, Aaron….I don’t know, guys. I have a feeling that RomneyCare is going to hang around Mitt Romney’s neck and drag him down, somewhere between Iowa and New Hampshire. I simply can’t imagine Republican primary voters splitting hairs like that — Obama’s expensive, unaffordable health care plan: bad; Romney’s expensive, unaffordable health care plan: good — unless there really isn’t an attractive alternative, which is hard to bet on.
Rob Long, the only escape hatch for Romney is the 10th Amendment Escape Hatch: I will defend your state’s right to do what it wants…it might just work. But as a Romney guy, I am ready to be need alcohol to watch the debates (ironic given Romney’s LDS background…)
For many, Sarah Palin channels Ronald Reagan and, given that her speeches are strongest when they impart a common touch, it makes for an interesting comparison. It seems odd, therefore, that this thread implies that a bad book hinders her effectiveness as a presidential candidate. First, for those of us old enough to remember, Ronald Reagan’s autobiography, Where Is The Rest Of Me?, was hardly a literary coup. That he wasn’t part of the literati hurt neither his candidancy nor his presidency. More to follow…
Second, like Reagan, she is a disruptive force. She knows how to crowd source, she stresses competency (in women and minorities) above entitlement and she taps into the zeitgeist. Heaven knows the GOP needs this.
Matt argues that Sarah Palin knows “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.”
Does Sarah Palin really “know” that the United States has been a force for good in the world? Or does she believe it because people she trusts tells her it is so? I suspect what Sarah Palin really knows is that “the United States has been a force for good” is a savvy thing to say if you’re trying to appeal to a conservative audience.
I happen to believe that the United States has been a force for good in the world. But I’ll only believe Sarah Palin “knows” this when she makes an argument for why it is so that involves more than talking points.
And Scott, I agree with James: the credit card line and the sentiment behind it isn’t an original insight. Its what Republicans, including my grandparents around the dinner table, have been saying at least as long as I’ve been alive.
Also, Matt, shouldn’t “political savvy” require not just winning popularity or even elections, but achieving actual policy advances?
I think this whole debate, in itself, is the problem for conservatives. Ideally we want someone who’s a down to earth “regular” person, yet then we turn around and say being so is nothing but an inhibition and they have to become a pure politician to do so. See: Palin or Fred Thompson. We complain about the nanny state and the idea that we shouldn’t expect our politicians to be “saviors” and then turn around promote people who we expect to be technocrats, experts on all of the issues and to “fix” everything based on established norms. See: Mitt Romney.
Most of this is caused by the vicious circle of American politics in the “mass” age, and not easy to get out of. If we really want to point out who’s ‘qualified’ to be president, the answer is: no one. Anyone put in the position will have to learn many things while on the job. Yet, someone has to do it. The best thing we can do–and it’s not easy–is determine who, when confronted with difficult choices, will have the conviction to make the ones in America’s best interests and in the most ethical fashion possible.
I don’t think Sarah Palin is stupid, though I’ve yet to hear her say even a single thing that is notably smart. Can anyone quote or provide a link to an original intellectual insight she has had? Even on the subject of oil, her supposed area of expertise? Nor am I bothered by her colloquialisms, though I am troubled by the fact that her public oration frequently includes logically incoherent statements.
Tea Partiers hate politicians who put insider loyalty above principle and issues. These same Tea Partiers hate John McCain. At the same time, they like Sarah Palin, even though she is supporting John McCain out of insider loyalty (he helped advance her political career, so she is returning the favor). I find this incoherent.
Finally, Sarah Palin pursued the vice-presidency despite the fact that she has neither knowledge nor experience of foreign policy. That is imprudence that, while understandable for an ambitious person, should not be forgotten or easily forgiven.
Read the letters that Ronald Reagan wrote himself, and the letters Sarah Palin writes herself, and you’ll see that the two should never be compared.
cdor, I think we agree! She’s probably broadening her horizons by stumping for various people in various places. Great move on her part. She and her family were victims of unfair scrutiny. No quibble. She wasn’t experienced, but then she shouldn’t have done that interview or, if the reports are to be believed, worked harder to catch up on issues. However, maybe she was just following along with what the McCain folks insisted she do. Rookie mistake, I guess. Probably won’t happen next time if she has better people in place to advise her. I still don’t think there’s any point in — or any fair way to go about — comparing Obama and Palin, but I agree there will be a mess to clean up.
Conor and James: Couple points. First, isn’t it hilarious that we’re pushing 70 posts on Palin? Like you all, I don’t want her to be president, but we must admit that the woman is a force of nature, for good or bad. Second, as conservatives why are we so hung up on “original” insights. I’m more impressed with the pedestrian kind, especially those time-tested insights which are seldom uttered because they take political courage–like calling out the American people for their irresponsibility. I haven’t heard any original intellectual insights out of Chris Christie either, but his insights might as well be original, since only he has had the courage to say them.
That said, I understand and share your concerns about Palin’s intellectual firepower, if only to avoid the “high wire act.”
Agree, but my “hangup” is in part a consequence of the preferred alternative, to which not even Palin is immune: canned responses, simplistic catchphrases, and rhetoric that replaces, not embellishes, serious policy arguments.
Keep America Weird! This is part of the fun insanity of American public life. It can survive, of course, only in the wild, and is certain to die in White House captivity.
Palin’s work on behalf of McCain is laudable- loyalty should mean something; in the same situation, I would bet that Ronald Reagan would have been out there waving banners. It should only be trumped if there is a clear violation of principle by following that route. And pushing a nativist mediocrity like Hayworth is not a trump card, no matter what he says about spending. If it were McCain against Kyl, you would have a point.
And, ParisParamus, I am not a “Mr.”- the only one who calls me that is my wife if she’s irritated, so I avoid that eventuality like Breitbart at the DailyKos Netroots convention. I am, however, curious why you don’t believe Pawlenty would help Romney, other than the fact that he is a white male. Please elucidate.
When the swarm of cringers, suckers, dough-faces, lice of politics, planners of sly involutions for their own preferment to city offices or state legislatures or the judiciary or congress or the presidency obtain a response of love and natural deference from the people whether they get the offices or no… when it is better to be a bound booby and rogue in office at a high salary than the poorest free mechanic or farmer with his hat unmoved from his head and firm eyes and a candid and generous heart… then only shall the instinct of liberty be discharged from that part of the earth.
Question. Was Walt Whitman describing Palin or her conservative detractors?
Norman Podhoretz in that WSJ piece: When William F. Buckley Jr….. quipped that he would rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the combined faculties of Harvard and MIT, most conservative intellectuals responded with a gleeful amen. But put to the test by the advent of Sarah Palin, along with the populist upsurge represented by the Tea Party movement, they have demonstrated that they never really meant it.
You don’t have to be a Palin-for-Prez person to notice.
Scott,
If by “a force of nature” you mean that Sarah Palin can attract people to her speaking engagements, sell books, and engender feelings of trust among certain Americans, I won’t deny it, but I would suggest that these qualities no more qualify her as a political lodestar than Oprah Winfrey — or to name another “force of nature” on the campaign trail, Barack Obama, whose cult of personality was prudently mocked by the right until folks on our side of the political spectrum started talking about how they just “know” that we can “trust” Sarah because she is “authentic” (this about someone they only encounter through friendly tv interviews, a ghost written book, and speeches written by other people).
This trust is especially puzzling given that John McCain, the least trusted establishment Republican of them all, is the one who chose Sarah Palin with an assist from Bill Kristol, a longtime McCain champion who also happens to be an Inside the Beltway media elite — and lo and behold, Ms. Palin has quickly embraced the culture of insider political favors, endorsing McCain against a more conservative challenger while making tons of money selling books.
Yet she remains a Tea Party favorite!
Not to belabor this discussion, which has gone about as far as it can, but Powerline had a post today that is directly on point to Palin’s perceived intelligence, or lack thereof. I apologize to Mr. Freidersdorf for my gruff response to his first post on this subject, but I just don’t understand why we spend so much time beating up on conservative politicians when our country is flailing before our very eyes. Anyway, for those who haven’t read it:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026533.php
It begins with this:
Now, let me ask you a question: You’ve all read about the great men and women of history. Do you recall ever reading that a major historical figure was “bright”? Of course not. No one would even think of describing anyone of significance that way. The issue is not whether someone is ‘bright.’ The issue is whether that person is competent and wise.
This post was referring to Obama, but is just as relevant here.
Cdor,
No need to apologize, and thanks for posting that link. Also, I’d say the Framers and Lincoln were all quite bright.
At this point, Sarah Palin isn’t a conservative politician. She doesn’t hold any office, nor is she running for one. So what is she? Well, she is functioning as a public intellectual — doing television commentary, publishing a book, engaging public discourse on Facebook, etc. Is she a competent and wise public intellectual, or commentator, or whatever it is that she is doing? I don’t think so.
Let me offer a compelling example. We’re told that Ms. Palin is an expert on energy — that if there is one issue she knows about, it’s oil, due to what we’re told was an impressive tenure as governor of Alaska, when she dealt with the oil companies.
Well, take a look at this Fox News interview. Does that sound to you like someone who is able to effectively critique President Obama? Does it sound like someone who knows a lot about the subject at hand, her supposed expertise? Does she sound wise? Forthright about what she knows and what she doesn’t? And we’re told that is the issue she knows most about.
Conor, she is not functioning as an intellectual because she is not an intellectual, nor have I ever seen nor heard her claim to be an intellectual. That bothers you more than me, apparently. Does someone have to be an intellectual to have an inherent or internal wisdom about life? Would you take your car to Joe Biden or BHB if you were having mechanical problems? Would you call your college professor to fix your plumbing or electrical problems? Would you ask Charles Krauthammer to run the military in a war? Intellectuals have their place for sure. I don’t know that they always make great executives. A car mechanic might very well have a greater feel for economics than a college professor or a lawyer. The article spoke about this very issue. Einstein’s professors were unimpressed by him. You are unimpressed by Sarah Palin. That’s just fine with me. But why is it you think it is so important for you to make sure everyone knows your disdain? What has she done to acquire your wrath? .Isn’ t she promoting conservative policies and conservative politicians? Your critique seems venomous and I do not understand it.
It looks like, Conor, she makes her money now doing the same thing you do. She seems to be quite successful. She is actively promoting, campaigning, endorsing conservative candidates. She seems to be pretty successful in that area as well. Many conservatives do like her. Why is it your job to determine that her supporters have poor judgement? Is she evil, casting an ungodly spell over the American electorate? You have stated your postion and made your points. Everyone in the world,that knows or cares about you, knows you do not like Sarah Palin. You seem to think she is harmong the conservative movemet. I would propose the possibility that the harm is being caused by those conservatives making a living criticizing everything she does.
Cdor,
Sarah Palin resigned her governorship. She has since written a book, been paid handsomely to give speeches, signed on as a Fox News analyst, and endorsed candidates in certain races. In other words, she makes her living doing the same thing that journalists and public intellectuals do. That is how we encounter her in public life: through her written words and her spoken rhetoric.
How should we evaluate her if not by her ideas? Is the fact that someone promotes conservative politicians enough to put heir commentary on national affairs beyond criticism? Is it unreasonable to point out the manifold flaws of someone who a lot of conservatives would like to see run for office? Why is it verboten to argue that the trust a lot of conservatives put in Sarah Palin’s judgment is unjustified, or that she is not a very effective advocate for conservative ideas, or that her expertise on energy issues is exaggerated?
These are the kinds of straightforward criticisms that are made of everyone operating in the world of ideas, but when they are made of Ms. Palin the critic is accused of venom (and the allegedly venomous words are never quoted).
I agree that the words are not “venomous”. I think that they are vulnerable to an interpretation, presumably unintended, of condescension- both toward Palin herself, and toward many of her followers (Democracy Corps’ “conservative Republicans”).
I do think that the modern American political scene has been captured by the extemporaneously glib, coupled with an expectation of instant recall expertise on virtually every public policy topic. We now have Mr. Glib in the WH. Enjoy. He will declaim on vital subjects upon prompting- e.g., Reinhold Niebuhr.
I prefer good management- people who can delegate and assess alternatives when presented using a set of solid principles.
But then, I still admire (psst- George Bush) too, so what do I know.
Duane,
You accused me of being venomous without quoting me. I’m glad you now agree that word doesn’t apply to my critique, but suddenly I’m “vulnerable” to being interpreted as “condescending.” Well, okay. Is that interpretation correct? If not why bring up my vulnerability to it? If so, can you actually cite where I’ve been condescending? I’ve certainly been far less so that your treatment of President Obama in the very same post.
We can agree that “good management” is desirable — certainly preferable to mere glibness — but I am unsure how that is relevant since Ms. Palin has never proved herself to be a good manager, or good at delegating, or adept at assessing alternatives, or possessed of any identifiable set of solid principles. Time and again, when I press Ms. Palin’s defenders, or even the critics of her critics, they can neither provide evidence that she’s being treated as unfairly as they imagine nor defend their assessment of her supposed strengths.
This phenomenon is troubling to me because I want a strong, functional conservative movement adept at competently governing, and if that is your goal Sarah Palin is the wrong champion to rally behind, whether as candidate or intellectual.
You accused me of being venomous without quoting me. I’m glad you now agree that word doesn’t apply to my critique, but suddenly I’m “vulnerable” to being interpreted as “condescending.”…..
We can agree that “good management” is desirable — certainly preferable to mere glibness — but I am unsure how that is relevant since Ms. Palin has never proved herself to be a good manager, or good at delegating, or adept at assessing alternatives, or possessed of any identifiable set of solid principles.
Remember- I am not a Palinite. But, Conor- 1) I said that the words – not necessarily you– were vulnerable to misinterpretation; seems to me you overreacted a bit. You are a smart guy, fully capable of assessing the nuances of sender-receiver dynamics. If you didn’t intend venom, merely criticism by factual assessment, great. I accept the clarification.
However, I am curious where you got all the inside information about Palin’s executive management style, how she delegates, makes decisions, etc. to be able to make the assertions above. It seems to me that all of our discussions and knowledge have regarded her writing-speaking-punditry; candidate-TV stuff, not government operations. Did I miss a book by her former aide?
Duane,
My assessment is based on a bunch of reading I did back during the campaign in Alaska papers, and other coverage of her time as mayor and governor. If you’ve seen contrary evidence that Ms. Palin has proved herself a good manager in some instance, or a story about how she successfully delegated responsibility, or some cohesive set of core principles that she has laid out, I’d happily revise these assessments, but as yet, I’ve never encountered a Palin supporter who could offer the evidence that should ground their belief in these things.
And apologies if I overreacted RE venom. I’m enjoying our exchange.
I have enjoyed every minute of the Ricochet podcasts except the discussion of Sarah Palin, which left me vaguely disappointed. I have a left wing pacifist brother who has a similar air of condescension when he discusses Palin, and I’d hoped for a slightly less elitist tone from our esteemed podcast participants.
I just read the 82 comments on this post (Whew! Guess this is a hot topic for many Ricochet follwers!) and agree with Will Collier’s early statement that many urban and east-west coasters just don’t “get” Sarah Palin’s popularity. I moved to a small town 19 years ago and have much more positive impression of Palin than many in this thread. I know it’s politically incorrect to mention that she’s has a Down syndrome baby as well as a new grandchild, but to me her family situation probably influenced her decision to quit the governorship of Alaska, especially when she was repeatedly targeted by the left. Does that mean she’s less qualified to be president in the near future? Definitely. Quitting, for whatever reason, is a black mark without doubt, but the derision toward Palin expressed both from our camp and the left seems way beyond what’s deserved.