Jim Geraghty is trying to get to the bottom of the over-the-top hate the left feels for Sarah Palin, a hate that seems to intensified, rather than ebbed-away since the election.
Well, some of that may simply be embarrassment. After all, she was supposed to be “too stupid” to be Vice-President, but it’s a sure betcha she would not have given away her own “undisclosed location” or provided the weekly entertainment we get from Joe Biden.
But I kid. Geraghty writes:
My first thought was that it tied heavily to her appearance; in liberals’ minds, conservatives are supposed to look like the couple from the painting American Gothic: Dour and joyless, aged, spartan and frail. Political leaders aren’t supposed to be young, really good looking women, full of energy, smiles and winks.
Hugh [Hewitt] suggested it tied to the contrast between her lifestyle and her critics: “She is the embodiment of the anti-choice, the opposite of every choice that lefty elites have ever made — as to going back home instead of moving to the west coast, having children, having a child with Downs, staying married to one man the whole time, choosing rural or suburban over urban and living a generally conservative lifestyle, working with her hands… That everything she is is the antithesis of everything that liberal urban elites are, so it’s not just enough to say, ‘I disagree with you,’; she has to be repudiated and crushed.”
And now, I would submit a slight refining of that idea, that the seeming happiness of Palin’s life is a 24-7 irritant because it challenges the way some liberals see the world.
It’s a thoughtful piece, and well-worth reading. I think Geraghty gets quite a lot right, particularly as to the left’s rather ignorant perceptions of who and what conservatives are, and he suggests that there is a great deal of complexity to the hate.
He may be correct. Both adulation and hate have their subconscious roots and hidden nutrients. But the excessive Palin-hate may also be as simple as this; Sarah Palin, who came from middle class folk, did not go to an Ivy League school but managed nevertheless to find success as a small business owner, then as mayor, then as Governor of an important state, and she’s managed to “have it all” – family, success, expertise on a crucial subject (oil, gas, energy) – without succumbing to the siren song of leftism.
The truth is, if Sarah Palin had a “D” after her name, instead of an “R”, they’d adore her, and they would be falling all over themselves to showcase her as “the successful product of feminism and the opportunities provided by progressivism!” Hell, they’d even tolerate her having allowed Trig to live, as they could then prop her up as a “big tent, pro-choice Democrat, and you know, a Christian…ist…no, she’s an Evangelica Christian! And that’s…okay!”
This is of a piece with the Dubya-hate. Had a Democrat president kept the nation safe for 7 years after a heinous attack, kept the economy running and unemployment numbers low, even after that attack; had he taken out a murderous despot who gave sanctuary to terrorists like Abu Abbas, liberated millions of people and helped warring tribes forge a tenuous democracy in a region where it was thought impossible, we would have heard that the inevitable mistakes and difficulties of war were “inevitable mistakes,” and there would be talk about Mt. Rushmore. We’d be hearing that “the president did not overspend, the congress overspent,” (though the whole Sallie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle that upset the markets would still be underreported). But because a Republican president did those things, well, we know the rest.
It’s the same with Palin. Put a D after her name, and the story would be completely different; the hate would be the over-the-top, “how’d she get to be the greatest, most beautiful, from-the-ground-up, practical mommy-mayor-goddess ever” coverage we’ve become so used to.
Although, even in that best-of circumstance, there may be something to the idea I wrote a while back, that they hate Sarah Palin because she is not a victim:
They hate her because she is not a victim. And she does not see her son as a victim. And one gets the sense that she has no patience for disaffected drama queens with pretensions to victimhood, or with people who make their livings tearing down instead of building up, in order to keep the victim-mentality alive.
Let’s face it, even if Palin were a Democrat, I’m sure some of the abortion activists would be grumbling that the narrative would be more perfect if Sarah Palin, (D-Alaska) gave a weepy interview to Barbara Walters, discussing her “heartbreaking but right” decisions to abort her Down Syndrome child, who she loved too much to bring into the world and watch as he struggled, and fell behind, and looked different and stuff. Poor Sarah Palin; victim of circumstance, destroying her child in the painful feminist sacramental that makes her “human and like everyone else,” and so paradoxically, makes her a heroine.
The addition of that little story, plus the D after her name? Right now we might all be asking, “Barack Owhata?” Although – seriously – perhaps Krauthammer is essentially correct when he says she’s not yet a serious candidate for President. She will be, I think, but right now, Palin’s more like a rallying point. Also, check out allahpundit’s thoughts on the left’s “contempt for her intellect,” which we’re seeing in our comments section, already (contempt for her kids’ intellects, as well). But there is some real contempt for her intellect on the right, as we have seen. The Ivy League is deeply saturated in some minds as a definitive value.
And no matter what, she’ll have to deal with a press fully intent on destroying her with a savagery we haven’t seen them use even against Reagan or Bush.
Then again, there’s also this guy factor?
Julie Davis has an interesting quote from Skeptoid.
Memory Lane:
Palin’s Pipeline Gets Last Laugh
Paglia pretty much says it all
Sew the Scarlet A for Sarah Palin
Invading Palin’s Privacy
Side-by-side Gibson Questions and more
Is Obama Afraid of Palin?
Media, Authenticity, Feminism and Election ‘08
Palin “S/B Raped…”
Sarah Palin; Bad Mother, Bad Woman
Sarah and Bristol Meltdown the Left
Watch who is tolerant and intolerant
July 2nd, 2009 | 3:45 pm | #1
All the things she can do “and make it look easy,” as last summer’s jokes went; the perfect figure and gorgeous legs (not to mention the click-click-click-there’s-no-place-like-home ruby slippers): they’re just jealous. (Well, I am too!)
July 2nd, 2009 | 4:10 pm | #2
I think a key to understanding liberal hatred is that it is really themselves who they hate. The rest is just coping mechanisms. (I can go into greater detail, but not at this moment.)
July 2nd, 2009 | 4:15 pm | #3
I know this is unrelated, but I’d love your take on this (yes, I know it’s the times):
Thanks,
- H.
[I wrote on this here at First Things and will revisit this evening, so check back! Edited to insert link -admin]
July 2nd, 2009 | 4:44 pm | #4
Nobody really hates Sarah Palin based on her positions, just like how nobody in the GOP really hated John Kerry based on his positions, and how 95 out of 100 conservatives who rank on Nancy Pelosi are ever actually able to give a good reason for it. People hate Sarah Palin based on what she represents.
Much like Kerry represented the pseudo-intellectual, ineffective, it’s-easier-to-criticize-than-fix-the-problem attitude popular in the Democratic party, Sarah Palin represents the side of the GOP that’s willing to put someone directly in line for the Presidency who has none of the requisite intelligence, experience or wisdom befitting of a chief executive. She didn’t have a passport until 2006 and didn’t travel outside North America until 2007, the majority of her executive experience was as mayor of a city with a population of just over 5000, and after she joined the ticket, she wasn’t allowed to speak with the press until she was put through a crash course in media relations with her campaign advisers.
To the American Left, this was representative of everything that made George W. Bush a wrong decision that was symbolic of a larger cultural problem: Bush, in their eyes, was elected not because of his policies, positions and experience, but largely because he was “the kind of guy you’d like to have a beer with” to most of the American population. But few would deny that in spite of his grades, in spite of his constant tendency towards malapropisms and made-up words, he was a pretty intelligent guy. Palin hadn’t demonstrated any of that. She came out of nowhere and rattled talking points at the camera like a beauty pageant contestant being asked how she would make the country a better place.
Palin came to represent a party in its death throes: struggling with the irrelevance of its own positions in hard economic times, when the capitalist system had failed so many, when conservatism offered no solutions, the GOP opted to not even try to offer answers. They offered a gimmick who sat under pretty lights and stared at the camera and told the American people that nothing was wrong, that everything was going to be okay, and that none of this was anybody’s fault. It’s just a dip, it happens, and it’s okay because everything will recover.
Surely she must have known she was the wrong person for the job. She must have known her own inexperience would be to the detriment of every American. But she hung on, she still tried to sell herself. And it was dishonest. It felt just like when Kerry tried to sell himself as a war hero. From a policy standpoint, sure, maybe it wasn’t a huge deal. But it felt wrong. And it sure felt dirty.
That’s why “they” hate Sarah Palin. And it’s not just the left.
July 2nd, 2009 | 5:12 pm | #5
We liberals do hate Governor Palin because we are terrified of real people.
Please don’t run Governor Palin as your candidate in 2012.
If Governor Palin and Samuel, the non-plumber, were the GOP ticket in 2012, we would be terrified.
We hate the success Governor Palin has shown not just in her life but raising that next generation of leaders, her scholar-children.
We hate Governor Palin because she always tells the truth and her husband intimidates us because he is not just some mindless Peter Pan of the North playing with his toys as often as he can.
And we are really frightened that somehow “Real Americans” (and we are not: we just like crack, Islam, and aborting babies, even liberal men get pregnant to snub God) will break through the quiet dignity with which Governor Palin and her wonderful private family live their lives.
I wish we were not so evil, but we are. And you are good.
July 2nd, 2009 | 5:23 pm | #6
Why do they hate?
Because that is what they do.
All the time.
With everybody.
They hate. That is what they do. That is who they are, who they have allowed themselves to become.
July 2nd, 2009 | 5:30 pm | #7
Bender, so true and so eloquently spoken. As a liberal I hate all day long. Just hate hate hate.
Why I do not even listen to Rush Limbaugh with his gentle language and sheer wonderment at the intricacies of God’s Universe and good-spirited and elevated joshings of the other side.
Liberal=Evil
Conservative+Good
[I think any reasonable person can concede that "hate" is not exclusive to the far-left. A reasonable person should also be able to concede that Palin has been savaged mercilessly and often very unfairly. And her um, "scholar children" they're rather unfairly treated, too, even though politicians kids SHOULD be off-limits, (even to their snobby "intellectual betters,") wouldn't you agree? Your comments below...wonderfully "tolerant," and "compassionate" you know...learned. They speak more about yourself, though, than Palin. -admin]
July 2nd, 2009 | 5:47 pm | #8
Unnecessary P:
There are legitimate criticisms of Sarah Palin, but some of those that have been raised by her detractors on the left and right are baffling to me.
For example, you say “surely she must have known her own inexperience would be to the detriment of every American.” The woman is the governor of a state. She had more executive experience than Barack Obama, for pete’s sake. At least the GOP had its ticket in the right order.
And then there’s the rap that she’s “intellectually incurious” because she didn’t have a passport until 2007 and rarely traveled outside North America. There is nothing in this world I love more than international travel and if I could afford it I would haul myself and my family around the globe so we could see every inch of it. But I’ve made the decision to spend my limited financial resources elsewhere: on higher education, including grad school, I got married and had kids, and my husband and I are now putting those kids through expensive Catholic schools. International travel has taken a back seat, and that’s true for a lot of people who simply made other life choices.
Sarah Palin is hated for who she is, period.
Now having said that, I think someone with her abilities and raw talent should be positioning herself carefully these days and I don’t see that happening. I’d prefer to see her speaking out more forcefully on energy policy and other areas in which she has clear expertise rather than get drawn into defending herself against David Letterman, the disgraced idiots who helped sink McCain’s campaign, and hit pieces from Vanity Fair.
I think, unfortunately, that she may be too damaged to pursue a future on the national political stage. But she was targeted and taken down, make no mistake about it.
July 2nd, 2009 | 5:51 pm | #9
[...] 5: The Anchoress is even better on this with this truth: The truth is, if Sarah Palin had a “D” after her name, instead of an “R”, [...]
July 2nd, 2009 | 6:33 pm | #10
I think in some sense, it’s because liberals, especially feminists, feel betrayed. Because liberals in generations past fought for and won for her the right to be strong, independant, and successful on her own terms. The feminist movement wanted women to be able to achieve more than they could in previous generations, and she has benefited from that; yet she repudiates them, and throws it back in their face.
But…before feminism and women’s right movements, she couldn’t have voted; would never have been elected mayor, let alone governor of a state. So they laugh at her, and mock her, because I think there is a feeling of betrayal. And yet, it is over the top, because the “hatred” is driven from emotion, and not intellect.
July 2nd, 2009 | 6:35 pm | #11
UPortmanteau:
I disagree completely with the tired and worn-out “she didn’t have enough experience” mantra. If experience truly mattered, Obama would have never been elected. Had the tables been turned and he was the governor and she the community organizer and senator for 143 days, she would have been laughed out of the campaign. Either way, she is toast with the left and the media.
Fact is, Palin has done a great job governing Alaska. What has The One governed prior to being elected prez? Nothing.
What was dishonest about the last election wasn’t Palin trying to sell herself, but the media cover-up of Obama’s lack of experience and his opulent lifestyle complete with cooks and personal butlers that would have shattered the “I am a man of the people” b.s. The media wouldn’t look into his socialist/Marxist background and his ties to former terrorists. The mainstream media gave him a pass on his radical church ties for the last 20 years, yet they tried to paint Palin as a fundamentalist holy-roller because of the church she frequented. The media also completely ignored his ties to the Freddie Mack Fannie Mae debacle. There’s more but not enough time or room.
“Much like Kerry represented the pseudo-intellectual, ineffective, it’s-easier-to-criticize-than-fix-the-problem attitude popular in the Democratic party, Sarah Palin represents the side of the GOP that’s willing to put someone directly in line for the Presidency who has none of the requisite intelligence, experience or wisdom befitting of a chief executive.”
Surely you jest here. Obama can’t speak without his teleprompter! He can barely string a few sentences together and when he has his faux townhall meetings they are scripted, screened and sanitized to avoid embarrassment to the prez.
When left-leaning Helen Thomas gets mad about the control of the press and lack of transparency from this WH, well, we know something’s rotten in Denmark.
July 2nd, 2009 | 6:54 pm | #12
First, Gov. Palin HAS been speaking out on energy — none of you have been listening. She just got a landmark agreement with Exxon regardng the AK gas pipeline.
Second, she was drawn into the fight with Letterman because he made savage jokes about her DAUGHTERS. And, she has said absolutely nothing about the McCain campaign sniping or the Vanity Fair article. So, how has she been drawn into that?
July 2nd, 2009 | 6:55 pm | #13
She didn’t have a passport until 2006? Big deal! Up until this year, no one needed a passport to travel through Mexico or Canada, Alaska’s nearest neighbour. And, I hate to say it, but I don’t count vacationing in European resort towns as being internationally savvy. Look no further than the debacle over the removal of the Honduran president. It done under the guidance of their Supreme Court, in accordance with their Constitution. But the US has taken its queue from Venezuela and Cuba, calling it a coup and threatening to cut aid (a threat later withdrawn).
I have a different take on the treatment of Palin, though. I was unemployed for a time and ended up watching The View, Oprah, etc. because I was home. I thought some of the comments were strange, but perhaps done specifically to stir up controversy. Then one day there was a “debate” between women who stayed home with their children and women who worked full-time. Comments and questions were taken from audience members, too.
There was no middle ground, even among the audience members. The SAHMs acted as if the working mothers were neglectful, self-centered hags. The working mothers acted as if the SAHMs were lazy, ignorant breeders who sat around eating bonbons.
At some point I got it: Those women, as a rule, were white and upper middle class. The SAHMs didn’t have to take part-time jobs while their kids were at school, in order to make ends meet. The working mothers weren’t working in crummy, dead-end jobs where you didn’t dare risk taking a sick day to appear on Oprah because your boss would think you didn’t put the job ahead of everything.
In the same way, some of the criticism levelled at Palin is based on cultural bias. People mock her accent because it isn’t “cultured”. (If weird accents are a problem, the Kennedys should have been banned from office.) East Coast pundits made a big fuss about her attending a “state college” because evidentally in the East Coast that’s the same as “community college” is in the Midwest. She also attended different colleges while earning her degree, which isn’t uncommon. I’m not sure how “transferring credits” can have a stigma attached to it, but it’s a common practice among students paying their own way through college.
Since Palin was working her way through college, perhaps she didn’t feel financially secure enough to travel abroad. I suppose she COULD have gone abroad on the dime of taxpayers or lobbyists while in office, but that doesn’t seem very consistent with Palin’s conservatism.
July 2nd, 2009 | 6:58 pm | #14
One of the last pieces I wrote before bipolarity put an end to my blogging for good was about this. I certainly don’t hate Sarah Palin, but I find her very emotionally disturbing to look at and listen to, and you are quite right Anchoress, it really has nothing to do with any view she may have or position she may support.
But none of the reasons offered above explain it either. Although this may come as a surprise to you, the vast majority of Liberals are people as ordinary and typical as Sarah Palin herself and really don’t demand that every woman office holder be a clone of Barbara Boxer or Hillary Clinton and that every male office holder be a more or less goofy reproduction of Ted Kennedy.
Nor are they particularly “elite” and most of them really do have what old Hugh Hewitt calls “a conservative lifestyle.” But I have never seen a single one of this sort of liberal who has warmed to Sarah Palin personally, no matter how just plain folks they might be. Not one.
If there is one defining moment in the Palin candidacy that gets under my skin the most, it was the moment in the Vice-Presidential debate when she looked directly at the camera and winked. Why? Because this sort of personal signal, appropriate to a dark and smoky bar, a let down your hair undergraduate party, or from a woman to a man named John driving a very slow moving car; was stunningly out of place in the middle of serious public business.
I thought about it some more and I remarked that in virtually every photograph or film I have seen of her, no matter what the context, she has almost exactly the same expression on her face and it is the expression I remember on the faces of many women just before they winked at you.
And that’s what disturbs me. Nothing alters it. Nothing suggests that there are any emotions in her that would require a different expression, no matter what the circumstance. A wink and a come-hither smile. All the time. Facing anything.
Now this is tangled up with another problem, which is not my problem, but which is your problem and [maybe] Unnecessary Portmanteau’s, problem. He is giving very mixed signals about his own politics.
Sarah Palin, who came from middle class folk, did not go to an Ivy League school but managed nevertheless to find success as a small business owner, then as mayor, then as Governor of an important state, and she’s managed to “have it all”…
Let’s see, “middle class folk”, “small business owner”, “mayor”, “governor”.
And we can probably add “rural or suburban”, “going back home”, “working with her hands”, “having children”, “staying married to one man”.
And for the marischino cherry that we can probably put on the top: “real Americans”.
A picture immediately comes to mind, and I’m perfectly certain it comes to your mind just as readily as mine: individually Joe The Plumber [remember Joe?], and collectively the hand picked crowds for every George W. Bush speaking engagement.
You know exactly who I mean.
But the interesting question is who isn’t in that picture: nobody named Perez, nobody named Tamika, nobody named Singh, nobody named Al-malik, nobody named Chang or Lin, nobody like Ellen DeGeneris….and, of course, nobody “intellectual” and nobody “gentrifying” urban space no matter what their name.
So what’s the problem?
Once upon a time the people who are in the picture were an overwhelming majority of people in America. I remember that America. I was born in it.
They aren’t now. In fact, within a decade, they will be a minority. And all the other people, together, will be a majority.
As far as I can see, neither Sarah Palin, nor any of her political peers, have anything to say to the people who are not in the picture.
Thank heavens it’s not my problem.
July 2nd, 2009 | 7:05 pm | #15
I’m reading Prager and Telushkin’s book, “Why the Jews” – a little at a time. It is very depressing how widespread and eternal Jew hatred is, so my mood can only tolerate it in small bits. The simple (not simplistic) thesis is, the Jews are hated for their Jewishness. That is, their Jewish values of monotheism, nationhood, choseness, etc. And I think this simple explanation applies to Palin hatred and America hatred… and even the hatred I’m beginning to feel for the American Left in their success at “transforming” American values. Palin is hated for her Christian conservative values and the personal success she has achieved in applying them to her life.
July 2nd, 2009 | 7:14 pm | #16
Joseph, I can understand your feelings about the wink/smile because that is similar to the feeling I got when Mr. Obama did the rubbing-middle-finger-on-my-face while mentioning Mrs. Clinton (at two separate events).
But as far as “hand-picked” crowds, the Obama campaign admitted that they had arranged seating so that it was, for lack of a better term, a cheap knock-off of the Rainbow Coalition. In my area, that also meant women were removed from their seats because they wore headscarves. Nevermind the fact that they are “real Americans”.
July 2nd, 2009 | 7:58 pm | #17
Some hate what they fear. They fear her because she really has a chance.
I hope she DOES run again, preferably at the top of the ticket.
If she does run, I hope to God that THIS time, she wont be the only one on the ticket actually running.
-
July 2nd, 2009 | 8:14 pm | #18
We don’t hate her, that’s why.
I think she’s just about the worst thing to happen to the Republicans in a generation and as a Democrat I’m happy with it. She is supremely overconfident and underqualified and neither she nor her supporters seem to realize it.
Her media exposure is mostly tabloid diva gossip – when was the last time you saw Palin talk about a public policy? It never happens because she’s always in a little feud with someone whether it’s the teen father of her only grandchild, some Alaskan blogger nobody ever heard of or David Letterman. It never ends. She constantly tries to make herself the center of attention and obsessively tries to get the last word in her little tit-for-tat spats with D-List celebrities.
This is why Republican officials are leery of endorsing her for ‘12 and usually dodge the question when asked about her prospects for the Republican nomination. But the base LOVES her and thinks she can do no wrong, so the GOP is kind of screwed.
She’ll do a lot of unintentional self-inflicted damage to her image over the next 3 years and flame out in early 2012. Until then I’m just going to kick back and watch the trainwreck.
Pass the popcorn!
July 2nd, 2009 | 8:41 pm | #19
Well, MissJean, I don’t think any of that was really my point. It’s not the arrangement of the stage setting, or even of moving people around, it’s who the people in the crowd turn out to be. And, reading some of the other posts, I forgot that the crowd probably doesn’t include many people named Cohen either.
I actually used to make and sell Liberal bumper stickers on e-Bay. One of them said this: Diversity Is A Fact. Get Used To It. That is my point in a nutshell.
I see no Conservative commentator, blogger, or politician willing to even acknowledge that we are now a radically plural society, that the correctness of the Conservative point of view is not self-evident to everybody, and that people who vote have to be persuaded that it is correct.
The people in the picture are the ones who don’t have to be persuaded because they already agree.
In fact, Conservatives seem to take a perverse pride with not sharing any culture or point of view in common with everybody who is not Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palin, and that those other people are simply not worth taking the trouble to persuade.
Well, okay. But don’t expect them to vote for you. And don’t expect to win elections unless they do.
It’s the same with my unease with Palin. The point is not just that the gesture was inappropriate but that there really doesn’t seem to be anything else but the sensibility behind that gesture there.
I have this picture in my mind of her wearing exactly that same expression laying a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, making the TV speech telling us that we are going to war once again, announcing that FEMA is ready to deal with the flooding of Wall Street by the rising sea levels from Greenland’s melting ice cap, or that twenty of America’s largest banks are in immanent danger of collapse.
And this picture gives me the willies.
Based on the photo and video evidence we have, I see no reason to believe that she has any other public expression. And that is what disturbs me in a way that I am not disturbed by, say, Rudi Guliani or Mitt Romney, and was not disturbed by Condoleeza Rice or George W. Bush.
It has nothing to do with issues, it doesn’t even have that much to do with the much ballyhooed virtue of “character”, it is something far more primary and primal.
What else is in Sarah Palin but that? Can anybody here say they know?
July 2nd, 2009 | 9:09 pm | #20
Could you be more of a caricature, Joseph, She grew up working class, daughter of school teachers, yes she participated in beauty pageants for scholarships, that’s some kind of crime. She worked for a time in her chosen field, but she became a mother, became involved in the PTA, the city council, ultimately mayor, ran for lt. gov, ended up on the oil commission, gave up the post, burned many bridges, ran for governor, had an 80+ approval rating, and was torn down relentlessly. She’s a Feminist for Life, and she recognized that fact
at Seneca Falls last month, a practicing
Christian, she carries a sunny disposition despite all the moose offal that’s been thrown at her. If we some day have to go to war, she will not be cavalier of it’s cost. She lives in Alaska, you don’t think she has a better perspective on things than ivory tower academic. Seriously stop thinking “The Day After Tomorrow” is a documentary.
July 2nd, 2009 | 9:09 pm | #21
It’s really very simple. No long-winded analysis is required. Liberals hate Sarah Palin because they FEAR her.
July 2nd, 2009 | 9:33 pm | #22
Joseph,
First, I fail to see how ‘diversity’ is the issue you think it is. Conservatives don’t talk about it because we see it as a fait accompli. We do not value ethnic diversity in itself; why should we? We value ethnic diversity for its ability to offer other diversities; that is, other points-of-view.
You seem to assert, as a given, that America has no national character. I disagree. And I’ll give you quite a few excellent reasons.
One person I know works as an engineer at a local firm.
Another person I know is a student and the Comptroller of my University’s SGA.
Another person offers me astounding insight on a variety of matters whenever I speak with them about almost anything.
The first person is black, the second is an immgrant from the Czech republic (born in Croatia), and the third is an exchange student from Venezuela.
Oh yes, and two of them are female.
Something they all have in common is that they value the United States, and they share that sense with me.
So, please, stop with your assertions. I find nothing in them except the statement that conservatives have a different emphasis on what to value in people than liberals do. And do you expect anything different?
I feel that I am a typical ‘hard core’ conservative. I can assure you that we value people for their ideas. Beauty is only skin deep. As is many other things.
To add to the list above. Of my mentors that I hold in high esteem:
1) Ms. Scalia must be mentioned, of course.
2) Several of my professors. I can think of a group of roughly four that I consider mentors. One is a black man, a second a white man, a third an Arab woman, and the fourth a Hispanic woman. There is a fifth, who just happens to be an Asian male.
Odd, is it not?
July 2nd, 2009 | 9:34 pm | #23
Joseph –
Joseph –
She was winking at her dad, who was in the audience. I know that won’t change your mind about her, but perhaps you should rethink the metaphor you’re hanging your analysis on, as it doesn’t represent what you think it does.
And if I may point this out, the sexualized language you use in response to her–the comparison of her to a hooker because she winked, for crying out loud–has me wondering about your commitment to “diversity” if the diverse party in question happens to possess a uterus and has the absolute gall to pursue power.
July 2nd, 2009 | 10:56 pm | #24
Thinking about this some more, I went back up and looked carefully at the picture on top of this post. I took it over to my picture program, blew it up to 200% and really looked both at the expression on Palin’s face and the placement and gestures of her hands and arms.
Try as I might, I can’t see anything in the picture indicating that she is thinking about that child. Her entire attention is resolutely focused on the camera and photographer.
If I put my own arms into the exact position of Palin’s arms, that position is extremely awkward, almost painful. Try it yourself. But it is not a picture of an action caught in midstream that might cause this awkwardness accidentally. It is a static pose that Palin is deliberately holding despite how awkward it is. The baby has been pushed off Palin’s chest, toward the camera, and onto her bicep. Her left hand, which would curl quite naturally and comfortably around the baby’s upper left arm [again, try it yourself] is twisted on it’s wrist to the limit pushing on the baby’s head. And the baby’s head is pushed fully, and not very comfortably, to the extreme right of the baby’s body axis.
Now, as a former photographer, I can tell you exactly what would happen if Palin’s left hand were in the natural and comfortable position around the baby’s left upper arm.
It would block the lower half of Palin’s face from the camera.
And if the baby’s head were not pushed all the way to the right by Palin’s hand, only about 1/3 of the baby’s face would be visible,if even that.
This photograph is not about Palin, not about the baby, and not about Palin’s personal relation to the baby.
It is about photographing Palin with the baby.
And Palin’s face is her camera face and not her grandmother face.
If there is a picture anywhere of Palin’s grandmother face, I haven’t seen it. I’d like to.
[You know, Joseph, speaking as a mother, and not as a photographer, I DO think you're being a little unfair, here, and actually LOOKING for something that is not there. I have pictures of me holding my sons precisely that way. And it's not because I was having my picture taken...it's because it's how I held my sons. My husband snapped this picture of me singing to my elder son (who had a fever) in the very late hours of the night. Completely unposed for picture - he just said, "hey hon," and I looked over. But I suppose someone, somewhere, could look at this and say - by presuming to interpret my expression, or the way I am holding him, in a manner meant to bolster their argument, that the picture was "all about me holding the baby". - admin]
July 2nd, 2009 | 11:09 pm | #25
I really, really don’t understand people who say that Sarah Palin was a joke because she was “so unqualified” to be vice president and first in line to be president. Barack Obama was not as qualified as she was, and he was the candidate for president! Now that he is president, I am no more at ease about his qualifications than I was during the election.
Please, please, PLEASE tell me one thing he ever accomplished after graduating from college, other than getting himself elected. Anything at all.
July 2nd, 2009 | 11:13 pm | #26
They hate Palin for the same reason they hate GWB: because she (he) is a moral person.
To put this in a Christian context: who killed Jesus and why? They killed Jesus because He was a very moral person. He had the ultimate moral authority. The more his pristine Nature was known, the more they hated Him. He left them little choice: they had to fall on their knees to worship, or they had to do what they historically did to Him. Their hatred burns through the pages of Scripture. When you boil it down, their hatred of Jesus came down to “He isn’t one of us”.
Immoral people HATE moral people. Moral people know that hatred is morally wrong, so they try (as much as possible) to expunge the hatred from their thought life. But the dope-smoking baby-killers do not believe that hatred is immoral. In fact: the opposite is true. They believe that hatred of the correct people is a moral VIRTUE, hence they cultivate their many hatreds.
They hate Palin and GWB and they hate ANY one whose morals are demonstrably superior to their own. This has always been so, and will always be.
Our political divide is really a cultural one, and our cultural divide is actually a moral divide.
July 2nd, 2009 | 11:20 pm | #27
I find the reaction to Palin disturbing, but I agree that there is something different about her, something that distinguishes her from other politicians.
Looking at her photographs, I think there is a quality in her face that could be interpreted by the viewer as confidence, strength, intensity, or as falseness, forwardness, self-assertion.
Bearing in mind that most of our images of her are selected by others, we are exposed to a single, caricatured, aspect of her personality. In my country, nearly every image or video of Bush was a sample of him hesitating, pausing, speaking slowly, which fit in with the caricature of Bush as an idiot.
Likewise, I think we have seen depictions of Palin which take advantage of her confidence and depict her as shrill, overly self-confident, and therefore out of her depth.
So I think the reaction to her is a combination of her ’stage’ persona, which is undoubtedly more forward than many; how she is depicted in the media; and the subsequent reaction from those of a different political orientation that such confidence is unfounded.
We may all suffer when politicians disagree with our views, but to do it so brazenly, cheerfully, and confidently is surely a sign of deep incompetence!
July 2nd, 2009 | 11:25 pm | #28
Sarah Palin – not ready to be president. Why the woman is not much more qualified for high office than Barack Obama.
Seriously, why is she vilified? I suppose because of who she is. The woman she seems to be is the antithesis of everything the left stands for: identity politics, feminism, the cultivation of victim status, polymorphous sexuality, social activism, guilt and self hatred over America’s role in the world, anger and bitterness, benevolent rule by elitist philosopher-kings, dependence on big government to solve our personal problems.
I will concede that she was not ready for the presidency but Joe Biden will never be ready for the presidency, John McCain was a mediocrity and Barack Obama is the consummate rhetorician and self-promoter and nothing more.
Of the four Sarah Palin is the only one I would like to have over to my house for dinner. I like her. I respect her. She is a most attractive person. I would trust her to apply the right principles to important personal decisions.
I hope she is ready for the presidency in three years but even if she’s not, she is a remarkable person.
July 2nd, 2009 | 11:35 pm | #29
“I see no Conservative commentator, blogger, or politician willing to even acknowledge that we are now a radically plural society, that the correctness of the Conservative point of view is not self-evident to everybody, and that people who vote have to be persuaded that it is correct.”
—Joseph Marshall
I’m not sure which Conservative bloggers or commentators you are reading, but the question of bringing the conservative message is discussed frequently. I have read several articles on Townhall (among other sites) by Walter Williams, Reuben Naverette (sp?), Star Parker, Mona Charen, and others.
Part of the problem is the conservative message is not as emotionally appealing as the Democrat message–which is not classically liberal. Haul out an unemployed woman suffering from cancer who cannot afford health insurance: the Dems will tell her they’ll take care of her; the Reps/Conservatives want to know what personal decisions she made that led to her predicament and what she is doing to help get herself out of it. Which is going to sell with the general public? And how does one explain that while helping this individual is a good thing (and I think it is), how the government chooses to help may make the situation worse for many, many more people.
Maybe this can be described as a “needs of the many vs. the needs of the one” scenario.
P.S. I’m sorry to hear you’ve given up blogging due to medical circumstances. I hope your health permits you to continue to comment on this site for a long while yet!
July 2nd, 2009 | 11:42 pm | #30
Gail, Gail, Gail.
Please! He was a highly accomplished community ORGANIZER. He organized a lot of stuff in addition to his own campaigns, it’s just that nobody is sure what, exactly.
And he MUST have received excellent grades in college and law school–not that we’ve ever seen them, of course.
But still, he was a great legal brain! Just look at all those prodigious legal opinions and law review articles–not that we’ve ever seen those either….
July 2nd, 2009 | 11:44 pm | #31
Palin has a real faith, of course.
July 2nd, 2009 | 11:46 pm | #32
“took it over to my picture program, blew it up to 200% and really looked both at the expression on Palin’s face and the placement and gestures of her hands and arms.”
–Joseph Marshall
I believe the photograp is Palin with Trig, not with her grandson.
Babies with Down Syndrome have poor muscle control, which means that they don’t “relax” into the body of the person holding them as babies with normal muscle control often do. That might explain the awkward look of the way Mrs. Palin is holding her son.
We also don’t know when it was taken. Had she just delivered a speech? Was it late at night or had it been a long day? Had Trig been fussing and handed off? Did the photographer call her name and snap the picture as she looked over? The picture doesn’t look posed to me, and goodness knows there are probably lots of pictures of me in the universe where I look less than loving.
And, no, I’m really not trying to pick on you tonight!
July 3rd, 2009 | 12:02 am | #33
Well, Scott, once again, it is not about the fact of diversity, but the Conservative response to it. It is a matter of what conservatives have to say to the people who do not hold their point of view as self-evident. And it is a failure to either understand or acknowledge the communities that these people group themselves into.
Consider issues such as health insurance and public welfare. When a company such as Wal-Mart structures its health plan with the reasonable expectation that Medicaid will be the secondary carrier and sets the salaries with the reasonable expectation that the employee will have access to Public Food Assistance, the nice “associates” in the blue vests have a far different point of view on both of these matters than “middle class” people who both pay more of the taxes for Public Assistance and save due to Wal-Mart’s high volume, low operating costs, and low profit margins. Despite the fact that both sets of people are working full time.
If your name is Perez, Tamika, or Al-Malik, you are far more likely to regularly visit your public assistance office, even if you are employed full time. And, in fact, you are likely to live in a neighborhood where most everybody else does too, even when they work full time.
As diverse as your friends and co-workers are, do any of them visit the Public Assistance office on a bi-annual basis to have their income and expenses exhaustively reviewed for Medicaid and Food Stamps?
If they don’t, they live in a far different “community” [actually in a far different country, too] than I do [on Social Security Disability] or Mr. Perez, Miss Tamika, and Al-Malik.
What would Sarah Palin have to say to us? Would she even want to talk to us? Very clearly George W. Bush didn’t want us anywhere near where he was giving a speech.
What would you have to say to us? To us and not just about us.
We break down not just into individuals, but also into communities of radically different experiences and points of view. Government of free people is about accommodating to this.
Sooner or later any philosophy of government has to persuade if it wants to prevail.
On the conservative side of the web I see very little interest in persuading even the obviously persuadable, let alone tougher nuts to crack.
July 3rd, 2009 | 12:09 am | #34
Joseph,
As I mom and babysitter, I cannot for the life of me see what you are talking about. Have you held a baby before yourself?
I do appreciate your honest effort to understand the reasons behind your dislike of Sarah. I think you speak for many like you, who are content to simply pick up on what the negative media says.
Are your preconceived notions based on anything else, though?
As for me, I see Chicago politics when I see Obama. I hear an academic leftist mindset that does not reflect my current view on life. (I used to be like you, though). I might have voted for Obama in 1994, but I’ve changed since then and he has become much more defined. Nothing to do with race. I love Thomas Sowell, think Clarence Thomas is a decent person who deserves more respect that he gets, admire Condi Rice. Why does this charge of racism have such traction among liberals? Why are conservative blacks given such grief? Is it bigotry? Sawdust and plank, you know?
July 3rd, 2009 | 12:15 am | #35
“Very clearly George W. Bush didn’t want us anywhere near where he was giving a speech.”
You mean this George Bush?
The left is so misinformed about Bush. Want lots of links so you can be re-educated in reality?
July 3rd, 2009 | 12:42 am | #36
Baw, I think you have inadvertently reached the bottom line of this discussion. “the comparison of her to a hooker because she winked”.
The operating word here is “hooker.” Why? Because that’s EXACTLY what liberals think Sarah Palin is.
They don’t think of her as “inferior” because of her current position. They think of her as a “malinche” (the name of an Aztec woman who aided and consorted Cortez during his conquest of Mexico, and now her name is a synonym over there with “traitor”) because she dares to be a Conservative woman in spite of all of the progress granted to women by those who think they’re her “liberators” when, in reality, she has showed them indirectly that THEY are in much more of an intellectual slavery and corruption than they think.
When she dares to have a child with the 23rd chromosome when they would have aborted him in her stead; when she dares to be with the same man for over twenty years, when they would have been on their third husband, or maybe their fourth “live-in” or their first same-sex partner; when she dares to be supportive and understanding of her daughter’s fall from purity, and reinforced with her the values with which their family has been raised in and holden on to [correct me here, Anchoress: I might have this tense wrong], instead of breaking with those values and declare themselves “liberated” from them, thus abandoning that “Oppressive” cult called Christianity; and when she dares to do all of those things – small-business, children, PTA, major, commissioner, Governor – and no thanks to THEM who should be given the tribute they think they truly deserve… they have no other recourse than to hate her.
Their caricature of Conservative women looks like the Faith Hill character on “The Stepford Wives”, dancing out of control like a plastic ballerina inside a music box. (“Yippe-ka-yay, Yippe-ka-yay, Yippe-ka-yay, Do-si-do, Do-si-do…”) If a “right-wing” woman is not a Stepford wife, then she must be a “hooker.” Sarah “looks Stepford”, but she’s not “Stepford” by a long shot, and they know it. Since she’s who she is, she must have “given her body” to the “white male” network. That was the only way she could have achieved what she has so far. When a woman who is a Conservative dares to go against their stereotypes, they go nuts. Imagine that! They who so openly and publicly despise stereotypes so much are not afraid of engaging in that same exercise with gusto.
Thus, the “SARAH PALIN IS A C***” t-shirts. The “Sarah must not be the mother of Trig” stupidity from certain columnist who thinks he can outsmart OB-GYNs and women who have given birth naturally. The “Sarah Palin is not really a Woman, she pretends to be one” stupidity from someone who should know better than to say something like that. And so on.
(Digressing here a little, have any of you seen what kind of degradation Conservative women like, for example, Michelle Malkin, Dr. Laura, and a few others experience just because they dare to challenge the stereotype, the caricature Liberals have painted of them? Have any of you read the disgusting insults Michelle endures day-in, day-out because she’s not just a woman, but of Filipino ancestry? Other women on her same position have experienced the same thing. Of course, since I’m a Puerto Rican woman who dares to be a Conservative, I must have prostituted myself as well, thus making me a “non-wise Latina”, if you get my drift.)
And why do they insist on not just destroying her, but her family as well? They can’t leave their children out of it because their children are Sarah’s “silent rebuke” on them, as Dr. Krauthammer pointed out a long time ago. According to them, Trig “should be rat food”; her older son should be “bonging” with the Berkeley crowd, not serving his country in Iraq; Bristol should have worn her “I HAD AN ABORTION” shirt and paraded around with her ex while living in some cramped basement apartment; and the other two shouldn’t get over their heads, since Letterman and other comedians are setting their sights on them. Have you noticed none of those people comment on Todd Palin? They don’t dare, because they know he would put them in their place if given the opportunity. (Yep, another “oppressive white male” tendency, defending your wife’s honor when it is at stake.)
Sarah is a crime to Liberals because she’s a woman who is not ashamed of who she is before her God, her family and her country. To them, a Conservative woman who happens to be a Christian is a “living, breathing, walking” crime. (Heck, I am a crime!) Years ago, women like were praised: they were “essential” to the betterment of society. Today, they’re an anomaly to be rejected and abused, bloodied to the pulp and threatened to have her family, her whole world, destroyed because she dares to seek some sort of national recognition that only belongs to some Ivy League-educated, world-traveled, man-denigrating female with the morals of a Lenin or a Stalin.
I see women like Sarah Palin every day around here in TX. Not all of them seek politics, let alone run for Governor or President. But I’m sure they have gotten the message from the Northeastern Liberal elite. “Don’t you DARE to enter our territory, because we’re going to destroy you. According to us, you should not be allowed to exist among us.” I sure have. And I’m not even from the South, or a “rural”, or even white! I spent eight years – five in the Greater NY Metro area and three in the DC area – and I know that superiority does rub in very easily in those circles.
It is sad, tragic, to see a woman who is just like a lot of married women with children around me, being denigrated by Northeastern elitists who would “rather honor a prostitute” (my late father’s words in regards to his first wife) than acknowledge the career and the life of Sarah Palin.
You know, I would not be surprised if she says she doesn’t want the Presidency, and I won’t blame her. Actually, I think she doesn’t want it. Really – Who wants to deal with such a nest of vipers in the DC/NY/CA axis?
[About the wink; I didn't like it, wasn't charmed by it, thought it was inappropriate to the occasion. But I also understood it to be a simply, "hey there, I know you're with me," whether directed at a family member or or the GOP at large or whatever. Bush also winked from time to time, and even Clinton did it once in my memory. But a man winking is not perceived in the same way a woman's winking is. On this, Joseph, in fairness, I think interpreting "the wink" says more about the people who project a sexual meaning to it, than it does about Palin. It's sort of like when people assume they can call me "Liz." I don't like being called "Liz" for reasons that would seem silly, or even bizarre, to other people; it's my own hang-up and I'm aware of it, but I prefer not to be called "Liz." Some people are hung up on the wink...but it's possible "the wink" and their violent disdain of it really their own issue, and they should think about why that is. -admin]
July 3rd, 2009 | 12:42 am | #37
I’m sorry, Anchoress. I went on too long!
July 3rd, 2009 | 12:57 am | #38
These people go after Trig because they don’t like the fact that he’s alive. They truly hate this child not only because his life gives Palin credibility as a pro-lifer, but because we’ll be seeing Trig the adolescent smiling, competing in the Special Olympics and joyfully living a life these people claim had no value. These are people who consider themselves smarter than anyone who’d give birth to a special needs child rather than kill him or her and Trig Palin is a threat to their agenda.
July 3rd, 2009 | 1:17 am | #39
“I believe the photograp is Palin with Trig, not with her grandson.
We also don’t know when it was taken. ”
That picture was taken right after the end of her speech before the Republican National Convention of last September.
July 3rd, 2009 | 2:02 am | #40
Joseph Marshall: “I see no Conservative commentator, blogger, or politician willing to even acknowledge that we are now a radically plural society….”
Joseph, try one of my favorite conservative bloggers, Bob Parks at black-and-right.com He points out differences between being conservative versus merely voting Republican. In fact, one thing that saddens me is that many people vote for candidates based on their party and not on their beliefs.
“In fact, Conservatives seem to take a perverse pride with not sharing any culture or point of view in common with everybody who is not Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palin, and that those other people are simply not worth taking the trouble to persuade.”
That’s as silly as saying that Progressives take a perverse pride in putting down anyone who pay lipservice to their POV, and that those people are simply too stupid to be treated as anything but haters and neanderthals. Believe me, I’ve had people who, because of my sex and lifestyle have candidly told me things because they think I think exactly as they do. For example, the first time I heard an educated adult use the N-word was to talk about a black man who was conservative and was known to have voted for Reagan.
“It has nothing to do with issues, it doesn’t even have that much to do with the much ballyhooed virtue of “character”, it is something far more primary and primal.”
If it’s something primal with you, then how shall I reason with you?
I know you didn’t address the comment at me, but you asked if conservatives have friends and co-workers who visit the Public Assistance office. I do. I also have friends who are what was called “working poor”, who don’t qualify for much of anything. And I don’t count my buddy Audie, who’s disabled and lives in a garage, because he considers himself well-off.
One of my friends was informed that if she married the father of her child, she would lose her job training and well-baby care, which was worth at least $12K. He made a whopping $6000 a year at his landscaping job, with no benefits. They got married anyway because they have traditional values (pesky conservatives) and moved in with his granny, who gets a check from her tribe.
I have friends who are terribly afraid of rising fuel prices and policies that will punish owners of “gas guzzlers”. They live in ancient houses with 65-year-old furnaces that they inherited or in trailers for which they must pay a lot-rent. They couldn’t sell their homes if they tried, and they have conservative beliefs about paying their taxes, even if it’s tempting to see how long the county will let the back-taxes accumulate before the house is auctioned. In the winter, they spend their savings on heat (58 degrees during the day, 63 at night, with various rooms closed off until spring). They are fiscally and socially conservative, so they have never applied to the THAW fund, which they think should be reserved for the elderly and the destitute.
Two of my friends drive old “beaters” because a) they can’t afford a new car and b) they can keep it running on their own because it doesn’t require computer diagnostics, etc. like the newer cars. One is afraid of when her car stops running, because she’s gotten robbed while walking and harrassed at the busstop. A few of them have big conversion vans and the like because they are the sole transportation for their extended family.
They can’t take advantage of the new tax incentives to turn in their “clunker” because they’d need to have the thousands of dollars a newer car would cost. But you know who can? Their retired neighbours with a state pension and a teacher’s pension. Normally that old couple would have sold their old car, but the tax-refund is far greater than the Blue Book value of their car.
And forget Walmart. The grocery store is the only “new” place they go. For clothes, charity shops and rummage sales are good, and you can find things on the curb. In fact, in my area, when kids outgrow toys or furniture, a lot of people will kindly leave it by the road with a sign saying FREE/LIBRE (to cover the most common languages here). There is one red scooter-car and a plastic playhouse that has passed hands every couple years for the last 8. These aren’t rich people, but they’re charitable.
Sorry to be rambling so, but not all conservatives are WASPs on Wall Street.
[I do get very tired of the "rich Republican" and "Democrats for the little guys" meme...I once asked a pal of mine over at CBS about that he wrote back: I googled “wealthy democrats” and got 965 responses. I googled “wealthy republicans” and got … 17,900. Speaking only for ourselves, our newest car is 7 or 8 years old (can never remember); my husband's is 15 years old. We're solidly middle class folk over here, and not hyper consumers. One tv. I don't have an ipod or a blackberry or whatever. Frankly, the tax increases due in January, all of these enormous additional taxes and fees in NYS, and tax-n-trade are not going to impact our "wealth"; they're going to impact our day-to-day, which is - similarly to other Americans - not supported by a major buffer of cash hidden away somewhere. Joseph is a friend who is having a very tough time of it, and from his perspective, I'm sure it all looks as he says. But I am not always sure he realizes that there are plenty of conservative-leaning people who are one paycheck away from being close to where he is. "Plurality," indeed. Obama will be vacationing on Martha's Vineyard this summer - playground of the rich-left, like much of the American coastline - and (unlike the resentful folks re Bush) I don't begrudge him his vacation. But it's very true that lots and lots of hard-working Americans will not be taking vacations this summer (we won't) because that shot is simply not on the board, this year. -admin]
July 3rd, 2009 | 2:11 am | #41
I hate Sarah Palin about as much as I hate conservative thinking or right-leaning objects. God (whom I also hate and doesn’t exist) I hate Republicans. I hate them so much. You know though, as a liberal, I can’t help but see a silver-lining in all this hatred. I guess one could say that, in the end, I do love the hate I have for good old-fashioned American values.
[I'm glad you don't hate. I know how annoying it is to be called a "hater" when you don't hate. I never hated Bill Clinton (in fact, I managed to write a few complimentary things about him, which is something I never see anyone on the left do about Palin, unless it's with sarcasm - you know, "I don't hate Palin I love her cause she's so awful" sort of thing. I never hated Hillary (in fact, I managed to write a few complimentary things about her, which is something I never see anyone on the left do about Palin...etc and yet I would get the most vile emails calling me all sorts of names, insisting that I was a moronic hater and willfully misinterpreting my words. Got tiresome. So, I'm glad you don't "hate" and I hope you're not finding it tiresome to hear that the collective left does hate Palin (recall the de-humanizing bumpersticker; "she's not a woman, she's a Republican"). Aside from Paglia, though, those "few complimentary things" about her - sincere compliments issuing from the left - they seem pretty hard to come by. When I say "the left" I should probably clarify my meaning to the "blogging/pundit" left. I'm sure there are many, many people on the left who personally bear Ms. Palin - and conservative women in general - no animus; they do not, for instance, create "hatef***" lists about them. You are likely one of them. Welcome, non-hater! - admin]
July 3rd, 2009 | 2:13 am | #42
My husband a few years ago came home from a business meeting with one of the Minor Kennedys and stated for the first time he understood the whole Kennedy mystique. He didn’t agree with him on any issue, but if he had called the next day my husband would have gone and campaigned for him. (Fortunately it wears off!)
Palin has that charisma, mystique, attraction. We are unused to seeing it in a woman in politics in the U.S. and I think it can be misconstrued as sexual–but as she can appeal just a strongly to women it is a different and much broader attraction. (Although I think men unused to it from a female source, or just being narrow minded can confuse any sort of attraction to a female as sexual.)
So she pulls you in. How can she not? Physically she is exactly what popular culture has been telling us for years that we all want. Imagine how horrifying it would be if your own political opinions were completely divergent with hers, yet for even a second you felt the pull of her charisma. Of course the left hates her. Of course they lash out at her. Yes, they fear her. Not so much her politics, but the magnetic draw they are so used to seeing in the likes of Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Obama. Even without conscious thought, they understand the power of that inexplicable magnetism and know they must destroy it.
Jospeh, I wonder if I should feel badly for you. Your posts make me wonder if you’ve ever had the joy of either holding a baby or sharing a wink with a child. Babies can be awkward little things, and it is absurd to reserve winking as some sort of sexual overture…
July 3rd, 2009 | 2:21 am | #43
dear Anchoress:
I mentioned Governor Palin’s children because the argument was made at The Corner that we liberals hate Sarah Palin, which is not true in my case (the last person I truly hated was Osama bin Laden, because “she has it all”.
None of us “have it all”, and I think the Palin family is very American when it comes to the children. In America, circa 2009, children (roughly but accurately-speaking) fall into three categories: the elite students who are very motivated and accomplished, the middle who muddle through and would quit school in an instant except for a fear that they will be left behind, and that segment which drops out.
It is simply inaccurate to claim that any educated American would envy Governor Palin for “having it all”. I worry about any young person who drops out of High School because she is pregnant or loses his College Scholarship.
If the Right wants to accuse liberals like myself of hating Sarah Palin, at least give us some credible reason why you think we do.
The fact is, I think Governor Palin is the Bill Clinton of the GOP, and Bill Clinton for whatever it was that he accomplished hurt the Democratic Party and America because he could not tell the truth ever.
We liberals, to our shame, defended The Clintons lies. I see the same mentality with Republicans and Governor Palin.
((Now I know that many of your readers will cite COLB’s and Bill Ayers and a 1,000 other ways in which they will claim President Obama is a Bill Clinton-Class Liar. I think Mr. Obama is an honorable man. It is impossible for me to picture President Obama pounding the podium and denouncing “that woman!” Governor Palin does not share Bill Clinton’s oily id, (Thank God!) but she shares Clinton’s self-pity and deep umbrage that people would dare to suggest that she is telling bald-faced lies.
((I will be happy to be proven mistaken about Governor Palin being a liar, because other people’s sins cause me no pleasure whatsoever.))))
[Actually, I've given you lots of links in this piece, and you can certainly search my archives or do a google search if you really don't think there is sufficient evidence that the left literally "hates" Palin and her family. Begin with the one about Bernhardt wishing she'd be raped, that would be a good place. Cue Letterman joking about her daughter (no matter what age) being a slut and prostitute...oh, and Palin, too, "slutty flight attendant." If YOU don't hate...that's lovely. There is plenty of evidence that the left has a collective hate on for Palin, and you don't need to take my word for it. Read Paglia. As to Palin's apparently being a liar (except for Sullivan insisting that Trig is not her son, the one thing I don't see much is people calling her "liar." Inept, stupid, vulgar, etc...yeah, I see that. I'm not sure what the lies are? (I"ll have company this weekend and likely won't be responding much to anyone, but by all means, carry on with the rest of the commenters. I know all will be civil. -admin]
July 3rd, 2009 | 7:02 am | #44
i think that the hate that is spewing into politics is a result of pc speech. racism,sexism etc aren’t done anymore, unfortunately the darkness that is in the soul of humanity hasn’t gone away-people are looking for socially acceptable targets for their fury.Palin gets an extra dose because she’s republican(since Eisenhower repubs have been dunces or evil), and because of her appearance. female politicians are supposed to be post-menopausal and dowdy- H Clinton,Thatcher, Golda Meir, Merkel,I Gandhi . I don’t think that the public’s thinking has advanced that far yet.
July 3rd, 2009 | 7:03 am | #45
[...] The Anchoress, quoting some passages from other blogs and columns considering the same question, asks, “Why do they hate Sarah Palin?” Her answer is that, like Bush, they’d love her if she were a Democrat (except the abortion thing). [...]
July 3rd, 2009 | 7:48 am | #46
Thanks to everybody who replied to me. I overdid on this one and I’m going to have to lay off. Whatever my feelings about Palin’s public persona, she, I, and all of you are headed in the same direction and to the same destination and at least my real spiritual struggle is to keep that fact uppermost in my mind.
July 3rd, 2009 | 10:25 am | #47
The slipshod McCain campaign (including how poorly they used Palin, ending up making her look even dumber than I think she is), merely widened a gap created by eight years of Bush-Cheney. No Republican alive could have overcome that, unless Obama had decided to name Osama bin Laden as his running mate.
And I say that as someone who on my own blog recommended her as McCain’s running mate back in June, long before most folks had heard of her. I don’t hate her, and I think she has been mistreated–but I also think less of her as a presidential candidate than I did a year ago, not because of the media or the haters, but because of her own words and actions.
She will continue to energize the base if she runs in 2012 or 2016, but will probably lose the nomination to someone more politically aware and with a broader appeal. Though as a liberal, part of me really hopes she’s the nominee, which might help the Dems expand on their Congressional majority.
July 3rd, 2009 | 10:56 am | #48
Joseph, I’m glad you posted. It was a civil conversation, and I thank you for sharing your point of view.
July 3rd, 2009 | 11:22 am | #49
When one asks the question, “Why does X hate Y?” the answer NEVER has to do with Y. The answer ALWAYS lies with X. That is, the matter of hate is not about the hatee, it is about the hater.
People hate because they choose to hate. Period.
To look for reasons for hate beyond the hater’s choice to hate, or to assign blame or a cause to the person who is hated, is to distort and twist and deny the reality of the truth of hate. No one causes a person to hate, no thing causes a person to hate, other than the person who hates.
We have a choice — we can hate, or we can love, or we can be indifferent. Hating is a choice. Love is a choice. Love is a choice even when the other is an enemy. And hate is a choice even when the other has done nothing against me.
Sarah Palin is the the cause or reason for people hating her. People hate her because of something having to do with themselves. The cause of every hatred is not to be seen in others, but is to be seen only in the mirror.
To the question of why X hates Y, the answer has nothing to do with Y, it has to do with X. The question of why X hates Y does not raise the additional question of what is it about Y, what is wrong with Y? But rather, it raises the additional question of what is it about X, what is wrong with X that leads X to hate?
Those who hate Sarah Palin — or George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or Condi Rice or Carrie Prejean or Ronald Reagan or Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork or John Paul II or Benedict XVI or Mother Teresa or Catholics or Evangelicals or Jews or rich people or poor people or traditionalists or on and on and on — need to look inside themselves for why they hate, why there is so much hatred in themselves and, hence, in the world.
July 3rd, 2009 | 11:26 am | #50
** “Sarah Palin is the the cause or reason for people hating her.” **
Argh. Where’s that edit button???
That should be, of course, “Sarah Palin is NOT the cause or reason for people hating her. People hate her because of something having to do with themselves.”
July 3rd, 2009 | 12:01 pm | #51
[...] Sarah Palin has my deep admiration for maintaining her dignity and promoting American ideals, despite an obnoxious media and deranged detractors. Some rational people have sound arguments on her weaknesses that are worthy of consideration, but the Anchoress has a great summary of why she is loathed by certain segments. [...]
July 3rd, 2009 | 12:03 pm | #52
Bender, you are absolutely right.
July 3rd, 2009 | 12:07 pm | #53
Western Chauvinist–Good for you on your reading list. I agree, Prager and Telushkin’s “Why The Jews?” is sobering stuff. But it is, IMHO, the real reason why the Jews, the monotheistic traditions, Western Civ, etc. are so hated and so threatening.
July 3rd, 2009 | 12:48 pm | #54
Had a fleeting thought when reading James McPherson’s comments -
“The slipshod McCain campaign (including how poorly they used Palin, ending up making her look even dumber than I think she is), merely widened a gap created by eight years of Bush-Cheney. No Republican alive could have overcome that, unless Obama had decided to name Osama bin Laden as his running mate.”
Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate reminded me of Princess Diana with Charles. No one could have foreseen the way the Brits and the world adored her over her husband – which no doubt sealed her fate. I’m wondering if Palin got the short end of the stick with McCain’s handlers because she was upstaging him and brought so much electricity to the campaign. It almost appeared as if they purposefully submarined her and hung her out to dry.
I repeat though – this was a fleeting thought and probably has absolutely NO bearing on reality!
July 3rd, 2009 | 2:11 pm | #55
Wow – these are eye-opening comments. What scares me most is that the hate infects even regular people – not just activists and people “into” politics.
A Dem friend of mine – a bright woman – HATES republicans. Thinks they’re stupid and evil, and she probably foams at the mouth over Sarah Palin (we’ve never discussed her). I don’t get it.
I think it comes down to the ‘legislate morality’ issue. We hear that so much – but we do legislate morality. The “loud left”, for lack of a better term, wants us to accept their standards, which can be quite far from the optimal Christian standards. And when we disagree, they feel that we’re trying to push our values on to them and it threatens them. Whereas I see it as a different level (ours being higher, in our minds; theirs being higher in their minds).
Perhaps it is *what* we value: tolerance is their primary virtue, whereas Archbishop Chaput reminds us that love/charity is a virtue, and “tolerance” is not.
So Gov. Palin (and Reagan and Bush) represents the classic Judeo-Christian values which are not in vogue. This connection brings up a wellspring of other related emotions, but gets expressed in one : hate / intolerance.
I don’t think I’ve expressed my thoughts well at all, so I am going to work on these thoughts. But it can be so distressing….
“Why the Jews?” – what an awesome book. I just sent mine out via paperbackswap.com about a month ago. I’d like to plug that site for a moment – there are a lot of Christian books available, and the Catholic content seems to be growing!
July 3rd, 2009 | 4:10 pm | #56
I don’t hate her; but I would not want her as President. I don’t think she is savvy or smart enough to manuever our Country on the world stage. She makes Bush look like a genius and that’s saying alot.
July 3rd, 2009 | 4:14 pm | #57
i don’t hate Palin; but I do think she would make a terrible President. She makes Bush look like a genius; and that is saying a LOT!
Seriously do you want the leader of the free world engaging in cross talk argument with a comedian/entertainer? A President should have ‘regal’ qualities about them; not just plain trailer trash.
[The trailer trash line is uncalled for, and please don't talk about "regal" presidents when the one in there now has people skateboarding around, and went on Jay Leno. Try to be consistent? admin]
July 3rd, 2009 | 10:19 pm | #58
JuliB,
I think you have it perfectly in the legislate morality issue. Speaking for myself, that’s where conservatives lose me, by and large. I think when it comes with legislation, we need to legislate to provide the most latitude for others beliefs- conservatives are free to hold to their own stricter standards, even if they are not dictated by law. It’s not that I think my moral position is higher- I think it’s more inclusive, and does not hold people to moral standards that they do not support. I can’t legally live my life to looser standards then the law- which is why I think the law should be broadly drawn, and let those with stricter morals hold to them on their own.
July 7th, 2009 | 4:23 pm | #59
As a conservative who didn’t vote rather than vote for Palin I can say two things:
1. She said and did a lot of things that seemed to tap into a particularly nasty part of my party: the Know Nothings. I don’t find that appealing. I find the huge difficulty to present a nuanced position on anything disturbing in a vice president. It’s probably fine in someone new to politics, but it’s just not ok in someone that close to the highest executive position in the country. But when pushed to talk about the rationale behind a talking point, Palin often just chose to re-phrase the same talking point or say, in effect, “because John McCain said so.”
2. The winking, flirty, folksy thing she did/does was even more upsetting in light of 1 above. It’s like saying, “hey I know I’m not here because I can debate the merits of Aquinas or Ayn Rand, but that’s not what _you_ are interested in anyway.” Because most Americans vote on image that doesn’t mean we should eschew all else in favor of image and, frankly, the positioning of Palin as VP candidate seemed just that.
July 8th, 2009 | 11:09 am | #60
Unnecessary Portmanteau July 2. A reply. Surely only a leftist democrat would write this inanity. To compare her with John Kerry, a pro-abortion self-proclaimed Catholic, almost makes a rebuttal a waste of time. However it is important to note that the person who ran and obtained the presidency could not compare to Sarah Palin on any level. His attributes are an exrtreme pro-abortion mentality, a dubious educational background and a voting record demonstrating “non-postions” in the Illinois and U.S. Senates. Thanks to the acrimonious media, including some Catholic Republicans, we knew everything about Sarah Palin and the enormous fright she gave the left that she might prevail in winning the election which would have given her the opportunity to return this country to the Patroness of the United States and to God himself.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact