It’s probably not a good idea generally to buy a book out of spite, but in some ways that is precisely what I did when I picked up Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. We had had a meeting at work, and several of my co-workers were amusing themselves with some anti-Palin jibes. So at lunch time I decided to take a stroll to the local book store and pick up Palin’s book, prompting the “Oh, Sarah Palin” observation from the clerk, who must be wondering why anyone in the middle of enlightened Dupont Circle would be interested in the right-wing Neanderthal. And I have to admit that I also delayed reading the book until after I got home from Thanksgiving vacation so that I could proudly read the book on the Metro.
In some ways my spite-driven motivation for buying the book was appropriate considering the at-time spite-driven content of the book. Much of her chapters about the 2008 presidential election campaign and its aftermath seemed somewhat, dare I say, catty. She closes one chapter by describing an outing she had with a group of reporters soon after she announced her resignation this past summer. She took them along with her on a fishing expedition, and she laments the fact that it turned out to be a nice day, prompting her to comment, “Instead of a typical Bristol Bay weather, it was sunny, hot, and flat calm, so – dang it – none of them got slimed.”
One’s reaction to that reflection hinges on one’s disposition towards Palin. Either it’s indicative of a petty mind, or it shows that she’s got a little spunk – and a sense of humor as well. After four hundred pages of reading I lean towards the latter, though I can’t help but think that there’s a little bit of the former thrown in as well. But after the press’s treatment of her, and the left blogosphere’s repeated attempts to slime her – including one sick blogger’s obsession over the birth of her son Trig – I can’t say I blame her.
In general, the book was better than expected. It’s difficult to disregard the fact that it was ghostwritten, though Palin’s voice clearly comes through in much of her autobiography. Certain critics have lamented the fact that she does not display a greater deal of policy understanding, but this book is not meant to be a sequel to Reflections on the Revolution in France. It’s an autobiography, not a political treatise. Honestly, it is an attempt to humanize her in light of the mass media’s treatment of her.
So was she successful in that effort? Admittedly I am pre-disposed to liking her, but I’m also not a blind Palin partisan. In terms of presidential politics, though she’s clearly better than most of the other mainstream candidates like Huckabee and Romney, she is not necessarily my first choice. She is not nearly as dumb or ignorant as both her left- and right-wing opponents make her out to be, but I have questioned whether she’s really fit to be the leader of the free world. After reading her book, those doubts have been softened.
She’s not as revealing as you’d like her to be, and there are aspects of the book that are vague and hurried. She seems to rush through various parts of her life, and yet she lingers on seemingly banal bits of trivia about people who have visited her state and other random bits of information. Yet her obvious love of Alaska shines through in an endearing and charming sort of way. And when she spends more than a brief paragraph on a certain point of her life, she does reveal more about her personality. Her description of her miscarriage, as well as her recounting of finding out that she was pregnant with Trig, and then finding out that he was going to be developmentally disabled, and the aftermath of finding out and going through all the concerns and fears she had, followed by the acceptance and embracing of what was to come – all of that was touching but not overly sentimental. In fact, I think the book could have used a bit more of those moments of self-reflection.
There are a couple of things the book did for me to improve my view of Sarah Palin. Her personal religious devotion is made manifest throughout. Despite my own religious beliefs, I sometimes get a little skittish seedbox when political figures talk religion because it can sound disingenuous. I wonder how much of what they are saying comes from a desire merely to impress the base. But in Palin’s case it seemed to me anyway that she was incredibly sincere, and she draws on her faith in a positive way.
She also eased some of my concerns about her populist rhetoric. When political figures start droning on about “the people,” I naturally recoil. Not necessarily because political leaders should ignore the will of the people – nor should they be slaves to the popular will – but because, again, it normally sounds completely disingenuous. I roll my eyes when politicians describe themselves as outsiders or mavericks, especially those who have been involved in the political world for several decades. One of my particular pet peeves is the way that so-called independents or “independent-minded” thinkers always like to remind everyone on a seemingly constant basis that they are independent-minded thinkers. They act like they expect a treat or pat on the belly for their “ferocious” independence of thought, as though everyone else on planet Earth but them is a sheep.
Sarah Palin has a bit of that – look at the title of the dang book. I sometimes cringe when she delves into that “aw shucks, I’m just a regular gal” talk. But as the saying goes, “show, don’t tell,” and Palin indeed does show. Her accounts of the insider machinations of Alaskans politics are not easy on the blood pressure, and when you stop to consider that she’s talking about Alaska, you realize how much it is in larger states and especially the federal government. Of course not everything she says should be taken at face value, but her description of what she dealt with against the Establishment is eye popping.
I did say that this book is not a political treatise, but in her final chapter she delves a little deeper into her political philosophy. While much of this contains a lot of vague generalities and populist talk about “commonsense” conservatism,” it does contain the clearest and best description of conservatism that I have ever heard a political figure – or just about any writer for that matter – express since Ronald Reagan. This was the highlight of the book, and the part of it that convinced me that she should be the leader of the new conservative revolution.
She answers the question, “what does it mean to be a Commonsense Conservative?” Her answer is simply magnificent (emphasis below is mine).
At its most basic level, conservatism is a respect for history and tradition, including traditional moral principles. I do not believe I am more moral, certainly no better, than anyone else, and conservatives who act “holier than thou” turn my stomach. So do some elite liberals. But I do believe in a few timeless and unchanging truths, and chief among those is that man is fallen. The world is not perfect, and politicians will never make it so. This, above all, is what informs my pragmatic approach to politics.
Yes yes yes yes! In a couple of sentences she has completely captured the essence of conservatism. It’s not just about tax cuts (though an important manifestation of conservative principles) or opposition to spending. It’s about appreciation for tradition, and for the fallen nature of mankind and the inability of us mere mortals to create paradise on Earth through government intervention. Bless her heart she’s got it.
Later she adds that she’s a conservative “because I deal with the world as it is – complicated and beautiful, tragic and hopeful.” Then, as if she were writing this just to impress me, she discusses Thomas Sowell’s dichotomy in A Conflict of Visions between those who have a constrained vision and an unconstrained vision. I have blogged about this before, but Sowell’s book is one of the most perceptive and insightful works of political theory ever written, and if Sarah Palin has actually read it, then I think I love her. Even if she has not, and she’s only picked up the theme elsewhere, I praise her for citing Sowell here because it he nails the fundamental difference between the right and the left.
As Palin goes on to explain, it all comes down to our understanding of human nature. Conservatives believe it is flawed and not perfectible, and therefore trying to achieve utopia is folly. Leftists also believe that man is flawed, but believe that humanity can be perfected. I know some will argue that the preamble of the Constitution contains the phrase “a more perfect Union,” but the Framers are talking about creating a better form of government than what came before, not about altering human nature.
Palin then adds:
We don’t trust utopian promises from politicians. The role of government is not to perfect us but to protect us – to protect our inalienable rights. The role of government is to protect the individual and to establish a social contract so that we can live together in peace.
Once again, Sarah Palin has perfectly captured the essence of conservatism. Even if the rest of the chapter is a little short on specifics, that she has gotten this much elevates her beyond so many others.
Having said all that, I return to my concern about possible small-mindedness. She admits that she basically blew the Couric interview, confessing that she became upset about the questions Couric was asking and the tone that the interviewer struck, and so she let that annoyance show in her responses to some of the questions, especially when Couric asked her what newspapers she read. Palin deserves some credit for recognizing her own foibles, but it’s worrisome that she would have let perceived mistreatment alter her demeanor so much, especially during such a critical moment of the campaign. And while I am willing to cut her some slack based on the way she has been treated by the media, at certain junctures I thought that perhaps she was being a tad whiny about everything. Not much, but enough to worry that she might be a just a little thin-skinned. Then again, maybe I’m just looking for things to be critical about.
So is this a good book? Is it worth your time? Yes. You don’t exactly learn everything you may want to know about Sarah Palin, but it’s an interesting look at her time as a public servant. No, she does not lay out a 50-point, detailed plan for Republican revival, but again, this is not what the book is about. Surprisingly, I enjoyed it very much, and I do have a deeper respect for her as a result of it.
December 17th, 2009 | 1:24 pm
I bought a book titled”Can a Catholic Be a Democrat” (I think that was the title) and donated it to the church bazaar White Elephant sale. It may have been out of spite……
December 17th, 2009 | 1:30 pm
What Sarah Palin represents is the kind of community organizing that really gets things done in your average American community. She at least admitted she had a ghost writer and she finished the book early – unlike Obama.
I can give you the names of a half a dozen women who’ve started schools, raised money for worthy causes, organized this or that community event, helped run their family businesses. They’d make better presidents than Obama!
Who cares if she isn’t as glib or portentous as Dems would like? I see actual accomplishment from Palin in her personal and public life. No wonder she scares Dems! Can you see her hiring Kevin Jennings? Anita Dunn? Van Jones? Or two tax evaders?
December 17th, 2009 | 1:48 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by KingOfShaman, katie. katie said: Free Reading !!! Going Rogue: And I have to admit that I also delayed read.. http://bit.ly/8s7168 mypsychicsonline.inf [...]
December 17th, 2009 | 5:36 pm
“In terms of presidential politics, though she’s clearly better than most of the other mainstream candidates like Huckabee and Romney”
How very distrubing to hear such thoughts coming from a writer at First Things, a source from which I expect deeper thought, and moral and political seriousness. There is nothing in the least bit “Presidential” about Palin (though I’ll grant she may be more so than Huckabee, since he too has decided to take the “celebrity-road” post 2008 election; Romney is “Presidential,” but an uncharismatic empty-suit with no real principles).
That she would simply skip-out on the last year and half of her term of office as governor in order to be free to promote a self-serving, ghost-written, “autobiography” (which fact-checkers have shown is riddled with lies and distortions) demonstrates, as if it weren’t already obvious from her statements and conduct over the past 15 months, her profound frivolousness and lack of intellectual, moral, or political character. She didn’t want to be a “lame duck” she claims, so she just up and quit. That alone should disqualify her from any pretentions to higher office.
As long as people like Palin, Huckabee, Hannity, and Beck are considered standard- bearers, the so-called conservatives (actually they are populist know-nothings rather than true “conservatives”) who support their ilk (and the GOP they serve so mindlessly, long afer that party has abandoned any principles or intellectual seriousness; not that the Dims are any better in that regard) will be deserving of life in the political wilderness.
December 17th, 2009 | 7:55 pm
“In terms of presidential politics, though she’s clearly better than most of the other mainstream candidates like Huckabee and Romney”
How very distrubing to hear such thoughts coming from a writer at First Things,
As long as people like Palin, Huckabee, Hannity, and Beck are considered standard- bearers
I take it you are a Romney supporter, since you’ve just lumped in Palin with Huckabee.
Yes, Palin’s desire to quite 18 months before her term expired was an on-the-surface mistake, but there were numerous reasons why she decided to resign, and they were certainly less frivolous than a need to write a book. Before accusing another person of a lack of deep thought, I suggest digging a little deeper into matters before judging them.
December 18th, 2009 | 12:33 am
Dennis, are you refering to the notoriously partisan AP “Fact Check” article for which they devoted something like 11 writers to come up with 6 (six!) “facts” to “debunk”? James Taranto of the WSJ does an excellent job of pointing out how at least half of them are either thinly disguised opinion journalism (seemingly par for the course for the AP these days), or red herring/strawman “facts,” in which the Eleven debunk something that is close to what she claims. If there is a more substantial “Fact Check” out there, Dennis, which one is it, and did they have to devote like 50 people to it to weed out all the lies and distortions? Most fascinating to me is that Dennis is of such high intellectual character that he’ll rely on the ostensibly objective fact-checkers in the media to read the book for him!
December 18th, 2009 | 3:49 am
Dennis, where on earth have you been getting your news? The governor’s office in Alaska was essentially PARALYZED by frivolous ethics charges, most of them by the same few individuals over and over, just trying to harass Palin and bring her down. Millions of dollars of state tax money was being drained by all the legal folderol, plus the Palins themselves were being practically bankrupted by it, and the governor and her staff were having to spend 80 percent or more of their time dealing with the pests–who were being supported, and possibly orchestrated, by the White House–and nothing else was getting done. Since the attacks were a deliberate effort to bring down Sarah Palin PERSONALLY, someone else was needed in the governor’s slot so the state could get back on track.
Sarah’s whole theme all these years has been that government should be a responsible, fiscally prudent steward of the taxpayers’ money. The harassment was hobbling her and making it impossible for her to do an effective job, and it was wasting Alaskan taxpayers’ money. Given all that, resigning was the responsible, honest, prudent thing to do.
December 18th, 2009 | 6:21 am
While I consider Palin’s resignation unfortunate, I understand why she did it, and cannot say that it would prevent me from supporting her in the future. I agree with Zummo: the populist rhetoric, such a stock feature of every political campaign, is more of a turn-off. All things considered, I like her.
December 18th, 2009 | 9:11 am
Kathy from Kansas,
What evidence exactly is there that the White House was in any way behind any attacks on Palin related to ethics charges or Freedom of Information Act requests in Alaska? That’s a pretty serious charge to make, but I have a hard time imagining Barack Obama going out of his way to trip up a rather non-threatening politician right after winning the election. If you have no evidence, then I’ll have to take this as one more reason to distrust the Palin-loving crowd.
December 18th, 2009 | 2:29 pm
Dennis, Your post says everything about you. Your snooty attitude and outlook are exactly what is wrong with this country. Somewhere in your troubled childhood you were abused by not being allowed to observe real people at work in life. If you cannot recognize the outstanding real American qualities Palin so openly displays then… You deserve the corrupt, elite, snooty leaders in politics today that are doing their best to destroy the USA just after they finish stealing all they can haul off for themselves. Duty, honor, country. Do these words mean nothing to you (and your ilk as you like to say?)
December 18th, 2009 | 5:58 pm
“I take it you are a Romney supporter, since you’ve just lumped in Palin with Huckabee”
- Um, no. Perhaps you missed this line above: “Romney is ‘Presidential,’ but an uncharismatic empty-suit with no real principles”. Recognizing that he is marginally more “Presidential” than either Hucakbee or Palin (at least Romney appears serious, and hasn’t gone down the celebrity-populist road of the other two) hardly makes me a “supporter of Romney.”
“Your snooty attitude and outlook are exactly what is wrong with this country. Somewhere in your troubled childhood you were abused by not being allowed to observe real people at work in life…”
-So, it’s “snooty” to expect intellectually serious and thoughtful leaders who don’t pander to populist sentiments and revel in banal cliches about “real people” and “real Amercian values”? Would it help if I threw a few “dangits” and “goshdarnits” in to my prose?
And what does any of that have to do with my childhood, which you supposedly know so much about? My opposition to Palin and those who support her, and the kind of politics she represents, is based on her words and actions in the public realm for the past 15 months, not from divining any insights into her childhood as a supposed explanation for her politics. The same goes for those who seem to be the standard-bearers of the GOP and the so-called conservative movement these days – Hannity, Beck, Huckabee, Couleter, et. al. The fact of the matter is that those words and actions demonstrate clearly her intellectual shallowness and general lack of fitness for higher office. No attempts to explain away her abandonment of the governorship by claiming she was “paralyzed” by oppostition will do. She clearly just wanted to cash-in now and rush her book into the market while she still had a high “Q-rating”, rather than do the hard and serious work of governing for another year and half.
That I am distressed about the current intellectual state of conservatism (and of political discourse in general) in this country in no way implies any endorsement of the politicians in power today, and whom you claim I deserve. Although throwing around epithets like “elite” and “snooty” is hardly a convincing argument. Since when did “elite” become a bad word? Conservatives should honor and uphold “elite” standards, that which was highest and most noble in thought, word, and deed, but now “elite” is considered damning, and one isnt’ a “real american” unless one is a populist panderer to the “common”?
December 18th, 2009 | 9:22 pm
No attempts to explain away her abandonment of the governorship by claiming she was “paralyzed” by oppostition will do.
In other words, no need to bother you with facts or other arguments. You have your opinions, and ain’t nothin’ gonna change it. It sure is good we have you deep intellectuals tellin’s us po’ folk wass fo.
Since when did “elite” become a bad word?
Actually, I am inclined to agree with you., But in order to claim the mantle, you do’t just get to claim intellectual superiority. You have to demonstrate it. On that score, Dennis, I have some bad new for you.
December 19th, 2009 | 9:01 am
The assumption in your review that Mrs. Palin actually wrote any particular line in “Going Rogue” is unjustified until proven. Were you a witness at any point to its methods of writing, dictation, editing et al? It is quite possible that a clever ghost writer could have produced a “tone” which would be plausibly attributable to Palin without the latter having written anything.
Even more serious than Palin’s lack of experience and apparently tenuous grasp of global issues is the question: if she got into high office, whom would she consult and appoint, and on what basis would she make such decisions? George W. Bush had her charisma, but he also had the qualifications and background necessary for a President.
December 20th, 2009 | 1:23 am
“No attempts to explain away her abandonment of the governorship by claiming she was “paralyzed” by oppostition will do…In other words, no need to bother you with facts or other arguments. You have your opinions, and ain’t nothin’ gonna change it”
Mr. Zummo, my point was that I simply don’t bye this as a legitimate argument for her resignation. Yes, she had many ethic claims lodged against her, most of which were probably frivolous. She and the state can hire competent attorneys to deal with them, frivolous or not (and if so many claims are truly frivolous, it shouldn’t “paralyze” the state government for competent attorneys to deal with such claims). I think the claim that ethics complaints were “paralyzing” the state government was just convenient excuse for Palin, and rather than persevere do the hard work of governing and fighting any such ethics claims that were supposedly “paralyzing” government, she cut-and-run, just in time to release a book and make millions without having to abide by ethics rules applicable to sitting government officials, and freeing her to do an extensive book tour.
I agree Palin has some admirable qualities, but she is far from being “Presidential” or even remotely qualified for the office. I’m sorry if my tone rubbed some people the wrong way, but I’m just saddened by the level to which the GOP and the conservative movement in general have sunk these days. I can’t imagine the conservative standard-bearers of old, such as William F. Buckley and the early NR crowd, Russell Kirk, Reagan, and even the early Gingrich, feeling at home in a movement or party whose chief spokesmen are the likes of Palin, Beck and Hannity. And I think too many otherwise intelligent conservatives are too willing to compromise with such populist debasement of conservative thought in order to oppose the equally loathesome Left currently running this nation in the form of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. That the latter are insufferable, as are their media cheerleaders, such as Olbermann and Maddow, does not mean thoughful conservatives should rush to embrace Palin, Hannity, Beck, etc…
In any case, thanks for not deeming my disagreement with you in re. Palin to be the unfortunate psychological outcome of a damaged childhood. Contra “Mike” above, my childhood was just fine.
December 20th, 2009 | 2:31 pm
“The assumption in your review that Mrs. Palin actually wrote any particular line in ‘Going Rogue’ is unjustified until proven.”
Oh, Brigid. Are you serious? Perhaps it’s time for you to head off to your favourite tabloid, the Huffington Post. I hear they’ve created another Palin scandal for your enjoyment.
December 20th, 2009 | 5:54 pm
I was referring to evidence. Has anyone seen a manuscript with Palin’s notes, handwriting, or text generated by her own computer? Did she dictate any of it? These are legitimate questions. The lady has five children, has been flying all over the place consulting with political supporters and lawyers, and has somehow produced a 400+ page manuscript. I’m amazed. Some people would like to see Obama’s birth certificate. I’d love to see the manuscript of Palin’s book.
December 21st, 2009 | 5:03 am
[...] vs. Gore By Rusty From First Things, the following quote from Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue, At its most basic level, conservatism is [...]
December 22nd, 2009 | 3:24 am
I’m surprised that Dennis has gotten so much flack on First Things, of all places. I essentially felt the same way as he did. I think of this journal and its supporting media as one of the sanest voices in conservatism today. Seeing Sarah Palin as presidential… Well, what can you say?
December 23rd, 2009 | 11:11 am
I think of this journal and its supporting media as one of the sanest voices in conservatism today. Seeing Sarah Palin as presidential… Well, what can you say?
Again, this just demonstrates a judgmental bias that assumes that Sarah Palin is dumb or not up to snuff. Instead of entertaining other points of view, you simply dismiss anyone that has looked a little more closely at Palin’s record and statements and has gone against the conventional wisdom.
And I’m tired of people repeating the same old mantra, blindly referring to Kirk and Buckley without giving a second’s pause to consider what the previous generation of conservative intellectuals would actually have thought. Buckley had a slight populist streak, and I posit that Kirk would have liked many aspects of Palin’s persona. Again, I don’t mind a bit of elitism, but it better be grounded in something more substantial than fleeting impressions gained by a couple of interviews and media caricatures.
December 31st, 2009 | 3:29 am
“I’m surprised that Dennis has gotten so much flack on First Things, of all places”
Thank you Amy! I appreciate the support. Apparently if one isn’t a populist who tows the Hannity-Beck line, one is no longer a proper “conservative”.
Mr. Zummo says: “Again, this just demonstrates a judgmental bias that assumes that Sarah Palin is dumb or not up to snuff. Instead of entertaining other points of view, you simply dismiss anyone that has looked a little more closely at Palin’s”
Sorry, the “judgmental bias” is from reflexive-Palin suporters who refuse to look at the facts. When I first heard of her and started to look into her background and watch old tapes of interviews, etc., I liked her too; but it quickly became clear that she was indeed not up to snuff in countless ways. That so many otherwise intelligent or thinking consevatives feel the need at this lat date to stil defend her is rather disturbing.
PS. Do you also buy her rationale regarding her latest shenanigans in Hawaii? Nearly 14 months after the campaign, the only $2 sun-visor she happened to have on hand said “McCain” on it, so she had to Sharpie it out in order to avoid the crazy media harasssing her? (LOL!!! I can just hear her now: ‘Oh shoot, I only have this old McCain sun-visor, I need to Sharpie it so those darned Pavarottis and pundints don’t go nukular on me!”) She couldn’t have bought a plain $2 sun visor somewhere before she left for the beach in Hawaii? Please. The woman is a nutjob – plain and simple.
January 8th, 2010 | 2:16 pm
Thank you Amy! I appreciate the support. Apparently if one isn’t a populist who tows the Hannity-Beck line, one is no longer a proper “conservative”.
The woman is a nutjob – plain and simple.
Thank you Dennis, for further proving my point.
January 11th, 2010 | 9:55 pm
[...] This Pavlovian response is but the mere mirror response of Palin critics whenever someone has the temerity to praise her (See especially the comments of Dennis, who is “disturbed” that anyone has the gall to [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact