Ads


Peter J. Leithart

view all featured authors »

The Very Conventional Mrs. Palin

One would have thought that no Republican would be able to drive pundits toward the edge of sanity as deftly as George W. Bush used to, but Sarah Palin has surpassed him. She is as hated by the Left as viscerally as Bill and Hillary were by the Right. She’s the latest in a string of conservative targets: Reagan, Bush, now Palin—all cast successively as rightwing bumpkins du jour.

Peter J. Leithart Some of the horror is political, or claims to be. Andrew Sullivan, one of Palin’s most relentless critics, attacks Palin in the name of conservatism. She is a radical masquerading as a conservative. She’s unscrupulous, and a racist too. If Palin runs for President in 2012, Sullivan predicts, it will be ugly: “She will play the race card powerfully, often and repeatedly. . . . She will make the Willie Horton ad look like happytalk.”

Not content to attack Palin’s positions and tactics, Sullivan resorts to conspiracy theories and long-distance psychoanalysis. Trump, er, that is, Sullivan is a longtime un-birther, demanding proof that Palin is mother to her Downs Syndrome son Trig. Only in April of this year, following the publication of a lengthy Salon investigative piece, did Sullivan grudgingly concede that it might possibly be probable that Palin carried and gave birth to her own son after all. Sullivan has described Palin as “clinically deluded,” paranoid and vengeful, “psychologically unhinged.” She aims “to win power by a populist appeal, backed by a virulent Christianism” and leads a movement that aspires “to smash existing institutions and to ‘fundamentally restore’ the American status quo before the Great Society, and even, the New Deal.” Lust for destruction is “the core of today’s ‘conservative’ movement”—thus says the “conservative” defender of same-sex civil marriage.

I’m here to assure the Andrew Sullivans out there that America has nothing to fear from Palin. Even if she becomes leader of the free world, she will cause barely a ripple in the surface of American culture. It’s not just that her views are widely shared, or that she demonstrated uncommon courage, vision, and competence during her time as governor of Alaska. She’s no threat because she swims so easily in the eddies of the Zeitgeist. Rightwing she is on political hot buttons, but culturally she is as cheerily, effortlessly postmodern as they come. Palin is not a threat to the American way of life. She is the American way of life, a.d. 2011.

She’s one of us in so many ways. She gets confused about history for one thing—which side Paul Revere was on, for instance. And she has trouble remembering what she reads, as she revealed in the odd 2008 interview with Katie Couric. She misuses phrases like “blood libel” picked up from somewhere and never fully understood. She says we need to win the war “over in Iraq and Iran,” you know—a sweep of the arm—over there. She mangles English as amusingly if less frequently than Bush, but has the charming chutzpah to defend her misfudiations. Of course, every public person makes gaffes, but Palin’s gaffes and gaps and jolly self-defenses are so insular, so American. She is so us.

But she is us mainly because of the blobby mix of politics, celebrity, media, and pop culture that envelops her entire existence. The “blob” metaphor comes from Thomas de Zengotita, one of today’s most perceptive observers of our “mediated” culture and politics. We are surrounded by flattering appeals for our attention, too many to take any of them seriously. And we are producers of media as well as insatiable consumers. Our every move gets tweeted and FB’d, every event photoed or filmed and instantly uploaded for the world to see. Events still happen, but almost before they have stopped happening they are being represented with cell phone cameras or by CNN’s professionals. The blob begins to envelop life. We were there for the McDonald’s beat-down of the cross-dresser. It happened to us too. In mediated society, earlier distinctions between public and private, reality and representation, substance and style melt into a single mediated mess.

Palin didn’t create the blob, but she is fully at home there. Everyone who has paid the scantest attention can see that the “Lamestream media” is her lifeblood. She has her own reality TV show, a slot on Fox, and a best-selling score-settling autobiography. She creates a frenzied media wake every time she moves. We know her kids by their first names, like characters from a sitcom. What was that interrupted bus tour? The beginning of a Presidential run? A pseudo-event? A family vacation—in a flashy luxury bus decorated with American flags and a page from the Constitution? All and none, and nobody can do it better than Palin. Nobody else would even try. How American is that?

Palin’s celebrity, like all celebrity, illumines everyone around her. Bristol dances on Dancing with the Stars, with Sarah and Todd cheering from the stands. Catching a glimpse of the Palins on the show was my first clue to Palin’s pomo normalcy. Of course, any self-respecting twenty-first century family-values American is going to leverage a Vice Presidential bid to get her daughter a place on a popular TV program, where she can rip off her partner’s shirt and writhe sexily on the floor. Or, maybe, leverage her daughter into a position as spokeswoman for an abstinence campaign, another Bristol celebrity spot. Bristol is rarely far from the media. She puts in a guest appearance on a TV show, gets her picture to the covers of magazines, and has just released a juicy tell-all memoir at the ripe age of twenty. Levi (we all know who he is) is about to come out with his own tell-all-the-rest.

Writing back in 2005, de Zengotita saw Clinton as “Blobster-in-chief.” “Can the political get more personal?” he queried as he recounted the Lewinsky affair. Riding a mediated wave, Palin—who in politics and personal character is vastly different from Clinton—has answered his question with a resounding Yes.

Andrew Sullivan can relax. The world after the very conventional Mrs. Palin will be the same blobby world she inherited, only more so.

Peter J. Leithart is pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Athanasius (Baker Academic).




Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

7.8.2011 | 6:24am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Although I certainly believe that, the notion that Palin is not "really'' Trig's mother, ridiculous, and even doubting her being his mother is ridiculous, and she certainly deserves tremendous credit for giving birth to him, and giving him a loving home, I don't believe that she possesses the requisite intellectual "heft'' to be president of the United States. We need someone above and beyond "conventional'', to be the leader of the free world, the person responsible for directing US foreign policy, economic policy, and executor of the laws passed by congress.

The simple fact is, being president is hard. It requires someone who possesses a strong intellect. Palin may possess one, but thus far, I haven't seen any credible evidence to support it.


We need someone beyond what average Americans are capable of, intellectually, to be president. That's nothing against average Americans. They're decent, hard working people. But for leaders, we need more than average.
7.8.2011 | 8:15am
A.M. says:
Agree with comments @Bret .

The sense of the depth of the responsibilty of what the role entails seems to be not there - more like a grown up cheerleader , cheering for whatever one is assigned to cheer for !

Hope many others would recognise same soon enough , to leave room for a good solid candidate !
7.8.2011 | 8:52am
". . . .and she certainly deserves tremendous credit for giving birth to him, and giving him a loving home. . . ."

Ya, she is a real saint for not aborting her baby, or giving him up for adoption when she saw he wasn't "normal." Spare me.
7.8.2011 | 9:53am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Jared Williams: Palin could have had an abortion. She candidly confessed that, abortion crossed her mind. I'm not sure if this occurred when she was pregnant with Trig, or on another occasion. But it displayed courage, on her part, to not have an abortion, as well as admit that she thought about it.


unfortunately, abortion is legal, in our country, therefore someone who chooses not to have one, deserves tremendous credit. This does not rise to the level of sainthood, certainly, but it does rise to the level of courage and moral goodness.
7.8.2011 | 10:05am
@Bret, I believe we get the President we deserve. Our system of government has been stable so none has done irreparable damage. Still, we haven't been deserving of much for quite a while now.
7.8.2011 | 11:29am
David Nickol says:
For those who believe abortion is murder, I don't see how not having an abortion is anything other than adhering to the most fundamental of moral laws. The sole exception I can think of is when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, and in that case, probably most people would not consider abortion murder (although some clearly would). I don't see why someone should deserve "tremendous credit" for not resorting to murder, even in a case where murder is legal.

True, abortion in the case of Down Syndrome is the norm, but until such time (if it ever comes) that society considers it *wrong* to carry a Down Syndrome baby to term, not just acceptable to abort it, I don't see that opting not to have an abortion is worthy of extravagant praise. To make it so is to send a message to other women pregnant with Down Syndrome babies that unless they are heroic types, it's perfectly understandable for them to abort.
7.8.2011 | 12:24pm
I agree that Mrs. Palin represents the average American, and I think she would make a fine President.
7.8.2011 | 12:37pm
Chuck says:
If Sarah runs I will vote for her, not because I think she will be a great President but because it will be interesting to see what happens when she wins. The Republic survived Jimmy Carter, it will survive Sarah Palin.
7.8.2011 | 1:00pm
Fred says:
David, Our culture has become so degraded, degenerate, and morally anarchic over the last 40 years that it often _does_ take enormous strength and courage simply to do the right thing. And it _is_ understandable that women would abort Down Syndrome babies. They are a hell of a lot easier to kill than to take care of. That still doesn't make that decision any less evil or more excusable. I think the message to other women is "you too can and should have the courage to decide not to abort a Down's Syndrome baby. Not having it, while perhaps understandable, is as serious a character flaw as any other form of cowardice and results in real evil."
7.8.2011 | 1:05pm
David B says:
This is the best commentary on Sarah Palin that I've ever read. The fact that it could have been written by Frank Rich makes me appreciate it even more.
7.8.2011 | 1:08pm
Robert Wade says:
The two grounds for defense in this article are absolutely appalling. That she is like us, as Lythgoe mentioned, counts against her. We need not just a leader but a role model who will improve our society, strengthen our values, and help us to confront social, political, and military issues with superior intellect and integrity. As for the final quote, which I can only believe was intended to mollify skeptics, I am outraged,"The world after the very conventional Mrs. Palin will be the same blobby world she inherited, only more so," Such a message is simply telling America to give in to the social and economic disaster we are up against. If we do not have a president who tirelessly spurs us to be better, in all ways, then we are not the great country we claim to be.
7.8.2011 | 2:16pm
JDD says:
"She’s one of us in so many ways."


Most of "us" wouldn't make a good president.


The author has described qualities of a great political commentator, not a good president.


"She gets confused about history for one thing—which side Paul Revere was on, for instance."


Whether she mispoke or actually was confused - and yes, it was blown out of proportion - the problem was more her subsequent inadmission that she'd done either.


This is a major character flaw that has plagued many of our recent leaders in the Executive branch in particular - and yes I think including the current one - an active reluctance to admit any mistake, except in the most politically useful circumstances, and often with a subtle change in blame. It is hardly a character trait to be brushed off as insignificant.


And she has trouble remembering what she reads, as she revealed in the odd 2008 interview with Katie Couric."


No, she balked - badly - at the question. Her answer was absurd. If however she truly had trouble remembering what she reads *regularly*, then this is also not a good quality for a would leader.


She misuses phrases like “blood libel” picked up from somewhere and never fully understood.

...She has the charming chutzpah to defend her misfudiations.


These are not good qualities for a President. And this is a truly odd essay. Palin is 'just like us' because our culture has all collectively lowered the bar?
7.8.2011 | 2:19pm
Anthony says:
I generally agree with the author's evaluation of Sarah Palin as presidential material. She is a good leader in the conservative movement, but I don't think she would be a good choice for president. We have better options.
7.8.2011 | 2:41pm
First Things needs to add a like button. Dr. Leithart said all that needs be said.
7.8.2011 | 3:01pm
In these ways Sarah Palin is out of step with the culture: She does not think that being non-judgmental is the highest good. She believes there is evil in the world and we should name it and stand against it. She is not intimidated by those deemed more important by the media. Counter to her reputation, she follows policymaking, understands it, and pronounces correctly on it. These things may outweigh her undeniable immersion in the pop-cultural swamp.
7.8.2011 | 3:59pm
I enjoyed the article. I'm surprised that some readers apparently think this article is a defense of Mrs. Palin. I don't see it either a defense or a criticism of her, but more a piece of cultural observation and analysis, which uses her as its focal point.
7.8.2011 | 5:10pm
Michael M says:
Is the author suggesting that Gov. Palin would make a satisfactory presidential candidate because she is an average person? Does a "courageous" governor of Alaska resign in midterm? This brings to mind a conflicted Supreme Court nomination during the Nixon administration when Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska said of a mediocre nominee, "The mediocre people of the nation deserve representation on the Court too."
7.8.2011 | 5:51pm
Sophia Mason says:
What Mr. Hackman said. Honestly, I thought this piece was spot on--pointing out her virtues while quietly damning her (and our) cultural flaws.
7.8.2011 | 6:23pm
Raymond says:
after reading the comment threads, Americans are too intellectual that they become idiots and ignorant of what is really happening in the United States: corruption, overpoliticking, extreme tolerance on evil business matters, etc. How can we really define qualities of an effective president?? By being an Ivy league from harvard, Cornell or what? I am not in support of Sarah Palin, but i dare those who comment that she is incapable of being a president. For those of you say that Palin is not capable and a quitter, have you done something better than what she had done in Alaska... those kind of ability to govern in a bipartisan way that led to positive results for Alaska's best interest? Like me, it is very easy to comment or judge others but accomplishing some positive things that Sarah had accomplished, we are hypocrites if we say we had... Polticians like Obama, an Ivy guy promised us heaven and earth, but what is the result so far?? How is hopey change working out for us??
7.8.2011 | 6:24pm
Mark Noonan says:
I do so love reading these sorts of commentaries on Sarah Palin. The arrogant condescension is so alike, whether the commentator is coming from left, right or center.

There is just one thing that should be remembered about Sarah Palin - she is smarter than 999 out of any 1,000 people in politics and the MSM. Thomas Sowell is smarter than everyone, so he out matches her; Victor Davis Hanson may, as well...but you won't find too many others who actually do.

She's running intellectual rings around everyone - and doing it so well that even her critics don't notice it, even if they have to wit to understand that they might not know as much as they think. We have seen this before, by the way - the man's name was Ronald Reagan.
7.8.2011 | 6:49pm
Ed says:
As a single example: obviously Palin didn't think Revere was on the other side. You might believe her remark only accidentally reflected the truth (that Revere, arrested by the British, warned them they were about to stir up the hornets' nest). But to frame it as you did is mere snark. Maybe if the blobulous lot who go without the meat and curse the breads didn't see an unremitting sneer on the faces of their masters, they'd be less likely to vote so tastelessly.
7.8.2011 | 6:59pm
Jack says:
"She gets confused about history for one thing—which side Paul Revere was on, for instance"

The media were wrong about Revere; distinguished historical scholars have come out endorsing Palin's statement regarding Paul Revere.

Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account

"Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually
historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up"
bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353&srvc=rss


Even NPR confirms that Gov.Palin was right about Revere (interview of professor Robert Allison Chairman of history dept Suffolk university Boston)

"BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did."
npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere


"She misuses phrases like “blood libel” picked up from somewhere and never fully understood."

Sarah Palin was right; there is nothing improper using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations.
7.8.2011 | 7:22pm
Bill589 says:
Probably missing some of Sarah’s, but all of Obama’s are there.

SARAH PALIN’S history of executive and leadership positions:
1996 - Elected Mayor of Wasilla
-
1999 - Reelected Mayor of Wasilla
-
2002 - Elected as President of AK Conference of Mayors by fellow mayors in the state
-
2003 - Appointed by Governor(and fmr Senator) as Chairman of AK Oil and Gas Agency(A major leadership post in the state’s most vital economic field and industry)
-
2006 - Elected Governor
-
2007 - Elected Chairman of Interstate Oil and Gas Compact, a multi-state/intl group focused on energy development
-
2008 - Nominated by GOP as Vice Presidential nominee after being selected by party’s Presidential nominee
-
BARRACK OBAMA’S history of executive and leadership positions pre-presidency:
-
-
That pretty much sums up my point.

Anybody that thinks Sarah Palin is not capable of being a great president, may have their mind changed by reading about her accomplishments. She not only stood up to corrupt Republicans, she fired, fined, and jailed them. She not only stood up to big oil companies, she beat them at their own game, and brought them in line. “Conservatives4Palin” has a lot of information. Also, her book, “Going Rogue,” and apparently the new documentary film, “The Undefeated.”

Don’t judge her, at least until after you do research. If there is someone better to be our president, please tell me who.
7.8.2011 | 7:56pm
T D says:
Pastor Leithart, you sound pretty "conventional"ly American too.

Palin, like Reagan before her, has a lot of press about being dumb, inaccurate, and in the low cultural mainstream. (Reagan, after all, was better known as a Hollywood B actor and for GE Theater than as ex-governor of California).

Interesting what 20/20 hindsight can do. Even more interesting is which people at the time had the correct assessment. Não é?
7.8.2011 | 8:11pm
Daniel K says:
If Sarah Palin is like most Americans in her "blobbiness," or fuzzy sense of history and current events, Peter Leithart can be said to be like most political commentators in his extremely intellectual lazy descriptions of Palin. He repeats all the stereotypes of Palin that dominate the mainstream media and opinion-makers that reflect another, perhaps correct, stereotype of them being snobbish intellectuals, looking down on small-town Americans. An example of the laziness...even a causal research of the stories of about Palin's supposed flub would show that many historians, yes even the one cited by PBS, supported Palin's description. Paul Revere, stopped by the British at a blockade, warned the British soldiers that their compatriots were coming but were about to face a huge surprise from the colonialists. Is Leithart God or mindreader that he absolutely knows that Palin doesn't know the origin of the term "blood libel?" Given the hatred and absolute vitriol that Palin faces from her enemies maybe thart unfortunate term is appropriate. Shame on First Things for printing this column. It just confirms what the average person perceives of intellectuals of both left and right, both secular and religious. They are overweening snobs of the worst sort.
7.8.2011 | 8:19pm
David says:
Whoever is going to be the Republican nominee, he/she is going to need votes other than snooty First Things contributors and commenters. I'm surprised Leithart would fall so easily for the Leftist fever swamps.

'could have been written by Frank Rich...'

Funny how this is viewed as a complement to Leithart.

And may I remind Leithart that Ronald Reagan had dumber children than Palin. What is she supposed to do, forbid her adult child to dance on T.V.? This is why you never get your way. You make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I do think she 'deserves credit' for not aborting her baby in the sense that remaining slim in a food culture such as ours is more difficult than staying slim in a culture where food is scarce. It doesn't make her a saint but it reminds others of their inadequacy, hence the vitriol.

Palin is ordinary in the sense that Reagan is. Taking jobs the elite find beneath them and yet be in a position to be president. And blaming a politician of being drenched in the PC swamp is like blaming a pig for playing in the mud. Even Bush bought into the whole 'religion of peace'. But because we wanted him to be perfect, we got someone worse in Obama.
7.8.2011 | 11:37pm
Margaret says:
"She is as hated by the Left as viscerally as Bill and Hillary were by the Right."

I don't know of anyone who actually hates her -- I think most people just think she's a joke.
7.9.2011 | 4:13am
Nathan says:
Gov. Palin was right on Paul Revere. You'd have to think Palin was pretty stupid, I mean dumber than dirt, to believe that after she just left the Paul Revere museum she flubbed a basic like which side he was on.

Other than, all that is done here is attack Dancing with the Stars and other such pop culture fads. I don't recall any Biblical condemnations of public dancing, but I did see some scantily clad woman the couple times I watched, never watched Bristol, though, so I think I'll give Bristol a pass for that one. The most damning thing on Gov. Palin is her daughter's out-of-wedlock child, which her daughter has repented of the sin involved there, so I'll give her a pass for that one too. As far as Palin's mangled English, like it or not, in the age of texting and Twitter, the types of language Palin uses is simply the way we communicate when we only have 140 characters. The rest of it is media hype, media hype I used to believe until the fact the media was attacking her for something I knew she was right about (Revere), and the email dump gave me an even higher opinion of her.
7.9.2011 | 4:43am
Ed Snyder says:
"Strong intellect?" As if Einstein would have made a great President? I'll settle for personal integrity and conviction in conservative principles, thank you.

Which is why I hope that somebody other than Mrs. Palin can carry the standard against God-King Obama next year. In my eyes she fails the test in the former for resigning as Governor just as an investigation against her was about to get underway, and in the latter for showing a near total lack of ability to think on her feet under fire (i.e., during Charlie Gibson's infamous 2008 interview). I do not want anyone of either sex or any color who freezes up in those situations carrying the nuclear football, or making decisions about anything else that actually matters.
7.9.2011 | 6:37am
John Wickey says:
No, Margaret, she is hated. She is the anti-left-wing diva and so candid about it. Whether her accomplishments make her presidential material is another matter, but she insists Right is right and in the glare of the public eye. She is hated for this.
7.9.2011 | 7:20am
Wisdom may be the fuller actualized amalgam of intelligence, virtue, and character, two their aspects of character that Governor(sic) Palin possesses in abundance. Apparently the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and the cognitive darkness of the Enlightenment have seduced many into to thinking that the person with the highest IQ would make the best President. I would rather look for the person with the best character combined with above average intelligence..

Obviously the slander against the Governor swayed some individuals who apparently lack enough independence of thought to possess wisdom, a characteristic the Governor possesses in abundance. The Governor’s honesty in refusing to go along with Alaskan Republican community’s default corruptions, the humility to resign for the good of her state, her “genius of the gut” displayed in defeating many an agile attacker in public debate, her ability to coin resounding phrases, her clever ”thinking-outside-the-box” at every turn are all more important than being the “most intelligent”, a phrase that has seems top have a very unsavory definition as used in these comments and on the essay.

I am disappointed in Peter J. Leithart’s essay and most of the comments typified by Bret's comment “The simple fact is, being president is hard. It requires someone who possesses a strong intellect. Palin may possess one, but thus far, I haven't seen any credible evidence to support it. “ These comments presented together are disconcerting and reveal that these writers lack the wisdom needed to be worthy voters not Governor(sic) Palin’s wisdom needed to be an effective president
7.9.2011 | 9:04am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Some here have been comparing Sarah Palin, to Ronald Reagan. There's no comparison. Reagan was probably not an "intellectual'', in the conventional sense, but he was an intelligent man, who seriously reflected on many issues. He was an avid reader of NATIONAL REVIEW, HUMAN EVENTS, and read many books.


I simply don't get the same impression with Palin. Perhaps she will show otherwise. But I've seen no evidence that she has a well thought out political philosophy. What principles would she follow, for example, in dealing with foreign policy? Reagan, had a clear idea of how he would interact with the soviets, based upon well thought out views, regarding the importance of human freedom. Perhaps it lacked a sophistication, that some intellectuals would bring, but it was serious, and based on sound moral principles.


Palin certainly doesn't strike me as dumb, or immoral. But has she seriously thought about the US, and its goals vis a vis foreign policy? How would she decide to go to war, as opposed to rigorous diplomacy, for example? How would she decide whether to form alliances, with different countries? Should her administration be guided entirely by Adam Smith, or Milton Friedman, with respect to economic policy, or should she take a pragmatic approach, and adopt, say, Maynard Keynes's ideas, if she's convinced they would help solve an economic crisis?


As far as I know, she's provided no evidence that she's seriously reflected on these issues. Reagan, agree or disagree, had clear ideas on these issues, and stood by the implementation of these ideas, such as tax cuts, in the early part of his presidency, when the economy was in a recession. Would Palin do the same? It's hard to say, because she hasn't provided, at least as far as I can tell, enough insight into what governs her decisions to know.
7.9.2011 | 10:37am
I am disappointed in Peter J. Leithart’s essay and most of the comments.
They seem to be quite unfair.
7.9.2011 | 11:19am
Peter says:
She is, as it were, the Madonna of the political world, reinventing herself as opportunities present themselves. (It would appear that Bachmann is following her in this regard as Palin's own Mini Me, someone who's running for president not to win, but to hit the lucrative talk-show/lecture circuit afterward.) Somewhere inside Palin I do believe there is something resembling substance. However, by her own doing, at least on the surface, there appears to be nothing there. She is a cipher into which others can pour whatever they want. Edmund Burke would weep over our so-called conservative landscape.
7.9.2011 | 1:30pm
When I first saw who wrote this piece on Sarah Palin, I was excited.

Peter Leithart is the author of many good books, including Miniatures and Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen, a book that deserves much praise for its original insights into Austen's novels. In that work, he was up to the task, to compete with the countless volumes of Austen analysis already out there.

Unfortunately, in this article, Mr. Leithart brings up nothing new about Sarah Palin. It doesn't seem as if did any original research, either. Commenters on this page have already pointed out, for example, that Mrs. Palin had it right about Paul Revere. And was she so wrong about the "blood libel" attack on her?

What is original about Mr. Leithart's piece is the way he uses the damning-with-faint-praise approach. He makes sure to summarize the best (or, rather, the worst) of the attacks on Mrs. Palin, throws in several gratuitous swipes at one of her daughters and even that daughter's former boyfriend, and then for good measure brings in Bill Clinton and his lewd behavior with Monica Lewinski to argue that Mrs. Palin too makes the personal political. With friends like that . . .

May I offer some ideas for future essays about Mrs. Palin?

Apparently she reflects the American Zeitgesit, Mr. Leithart argues. Does that include her principled and unwavering pro-life beliefs and actions? Please explain.

Her supporters praise her optimistic view of the spirit of America. Is this an accurate label for her philosophy? Please explain. For extra credit, compare and contrast her attitude with that of Ronald Reagan's.

Or, for an easy assignment, write a review of her two books that explores both her writing style and the contents.

For a more difficult assignment, describe a possible future for America under a President Palin. Feel free to propose either a positive or a negative scenario. Each assertion must be accompanied by known facts gleaned from Mrs. Palin's history.

And finally, an assignment for the adventurous writer -- examine the reasons why men in particular, of both the Right and the Left, feel compelled to publicly analyze Mrs. Palin in a degrading way that no other American female politician has been analyzed. The assertions in this essay must be accompanied by supporting material from a modern academic theory, like that of Freud, Germaine Greer, or Grouch Marx. Only primary material will be accepted; this rule excludes the writings of any New York Times op-ed columnist. For extra credit, include a short discussion on the possible influence of the writer's own gender on the answer to this essay question.
7.9.2011 | 3:06pm
harry says:
If Ivy League credentials are what you want, you got that with Barack Obama. As part of the deal you got one who fiercely opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, insisting, in effect, that babies who survive an abortion procedure must die anyway.

With Palin you wouldn't get the Ivy League credentials but you would get someone with the moral integrity to respect the lives of everyone, even the least among us.

What made her such an exceptional governor was that moral integrity, not sophistication, which is exactly what we need in a President. What infuriates and frightens her detractors is her habit of actually living a life that corresponds to the traditional values she genuinely embraces. Genuinely! How refreshing! Refreshing to some of us anyway. That is exactly what is so horrifying to the the Ivy League sophisticates who have worked so long and hard at undermining those values. Of course they viciously mock her. She is their worst nightmare, as actions really do speak much louder than words. She is a threat to all the godless social engineering that Barack Obama personifies. This personification is why they worship Obama, experiencing thrilling tingles going up and own their legs as they do so. Sarah Palin is a genuine threat to the atheocracy the godless ruling class has imposed upon us. This is why they demonize her.
7.9.2011 | 5:06pm
Ira Goldman says:
Mainstream Media Is Not Reporting On Incredible Trend in Palin Poll Numbers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2732107/posts

POLL: Palin, Romney Take Lead Among Iowa Conservatives As Early Race Tightens
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2732097/posts

If Sarah Palin Gets in the Race, She Will be the Candidate to Beat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2732070/posts

Jobs Report: OK, Now You Can Panic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2745829/posts

Palin can ‘snap her fingers’ for money, run and beat Obama, warns GOP expert
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2731881/posts
7.9.2011 | 9:12pm
I've resisted butting into the conversation for hours and hours.  Vanity, defensiveness, sheer delight in arguing got the better of me.  So, a few scattered responses.
 
1) Many misread my article.  Gordon Hackman and Judy Warner got the point most clearly, though, contrary to Hackman, I was writing about Palin herself, not merely illustrating a general point. 
 
2) To Nathan: Sure, dancing is legal.  But would you be smiling and cheering if your daughter was on Dancing with the Stars?  Not me.  That Palin did smile and cheer strikes me as a failure of discernment, and a revealing one.
 
3) It's funny how quickly the discussion turns populist.  One doesn't have to be Ivy League to find our celebrity culture disquieting.  I'm a Reagan fan, by the way.
 
4) Palin a threat?  The burden of my article was to argue the opposite.  The undertow of contemporary culture sucks a lot of people under.  Palin jumped in, and she's not swimming against the current; she's being carried by it.
 
Can Palin pull herself from the media/celebrity culture tar baby, and scrape off the goo?  I hope so.  Until she does, she'll be neutralized by the blob.
7.9.2011 | 9:33pm
Anyway, she would make a far, far better President than Adjunct President Oblather, who seems . . . all . . . you know . . . intellectual and stuff and in all 57 states.

If it weren't for the ATM conspiracy, there would be a lot more jobs, maybe not for those who speak Austrian, but for many, many corpsemen.
7.10.2011 | 12:07am
Mark says:
Sarah Palin was accused of being responsible for the attempted murder of a public official. And you contend that blood libel is in no way analogous. I wonder how you would have felt about the term if similar accusations had been thrown at you.
7.10.2011 | 3:08am
Rick says:
Conservatism used to be characterized by Ivy League, intellectual "snobs" like William Buckley. All that has changed, though. As Mr. Leithart just remarked, above, "It's funny how quickly the discussion turns populist." I find the idea of President Palin to be appalling, but it certaintly isn't because I, the supposed elitist athiest, am possessed of an irrational, virulent hatred for the saintly. I don't really hate anyone, and Palin clearly has her own special charm. She just doesn't belong in the White House.

Mr Leithart is absolutely correct to skewer our populist media culture. I used to watch mostly PBS documentaries and Masterpiece Theater on t-v, because that was all my antenna could bring in here in rural Kentucky. Then, under pressure from my teenage sons, who felt out of step with their classmates, I subscribed to cable t-v. My wife and I have since been struck speechless by some of the crudely salacious "entertainment" that is vomited forth from these pornography mills. It may very well be that Palin is unwilling to take a stand against the vulgarity of our mass commercial culture because it would tarnish her credentials as a populist.
7.10.2011 | 6:28am
You Americans are funny. You actually think who you have as your President matters. The rest of the world really dosent care.

Its interesting to note that if someone writes something about American politics they get lots and lots of comments, but to have someone write something theological or philosophical the comments are far less. It kinda shows where you Americans have your priorities.
7.10.2011 | 1:27pm
Nothing has convinced me of the "blobbyness" of our pseudo-culture--plus the apparent inability of internet people to read to the end of an article less than ten paragraphs long, or (what is worse) process and understand a punditry opinion which does not simply ape every other pre-masticated reaction to Sarah Palin--more than this comment thread. Ugh.

I feel little desire at this point to join the singalong by rehashing / attempting to justify my own reaction to Sarah Palin. Keep on trollin', folks.
7.10.2011 | 3:09pm
Peter J. Leithart is ask for you to read the quotes below:

From a conservative blogger:

With Palin we get the worst of both worlds. We get the tinny appearance of a hardline right-winger, with the gun rhetoric, the lust for killing animals, and all the rest of it; and we get the concrete actuality of a feminist liberal who has allied herself with the homosexualist lobby. On the level of symbols, Palin is a rightist; the right loves her for it, and the left hates her--and hates all conservatives--for it. On the level of reality, she's a social liberal. All that right-wing excitement, all that left-wing fear and loathing, all that passion tearing our political society apart, and it's all about nothing, it's all about an illusion.

Why do I say that Palin gives us the worst of both worlds? Because with her we get the redoubled liberal demonization of conservatives as dangerous extremists, and we get the actual transformation of conservatism into social liberalism.

A discussion on Palin from amnation.com/vfr:

LA replies:

Yes. The liberal mainstream media sees the statement "Islam does not belong in Germany" as horrible and wicked, while serious opponents of Islam in the West see it as inspiring and hopeful. But both groups are operating under an illusion, for the simple reason that Friedrich didn't say it.
How many of our controversies today are just like that? Take Sarah Palin. Many conservatives absolutely love her, because they see her as a "real conservative," while people on the left absolutely loathe her, for exactly the same reason. But both sides are wrong, because in so many ways Palin is not a real conservative. For example, the left thinks that she's a Torquemada on abortion, when, in reality, she has never proposed any restrictions on abortion and has always expressed her opposition to abortion in terms of her personal beliefs while indicating tolerance for people with different beliefs.

Similarly, many liberals, amazingly, have called Palin a white racist, while some race-conscious conservatives have considered her at least a representative of whiteness. In reality, Palin has never emitted the slightest hint that she opposes the current liberal racial order or would do anything as president to undercut it.

Thus the whole passionate, hate-filled fight between left and right over Sarah Palin is based on illusions, driven by overcharged but misleading symbols rather than by anything real.

In the same way, every time some European political figure issues some patently equivocal statement criticizing multiculturalism, the left reacts in panic, and the right reacts with joy, both sides believing that the rule of multiculturalism has been rejected and is imminently threatened, when in reality, multiculturalism is deeply ensconsed in Europe.

What is the underlying reality that creates the susceptibility to these and similar illusions?

The left psychologicially needs a conservative enemy who threatens to defeat liberalism. The right psychologically needs a conservative champion who promises to defeat liberalism. In reality, no such conservative leader exists today; in reality, there is nothing on the scene today that poses an immediate threat to the reign of liberalism. But both sides, for their own internal reasons, need to believe that the reign of liberalism is threatened, and so they believe it.


Daniel S. replies:


I would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. The way liberals spend their every waking minute attacking and demonizing "conservatives" like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'reilly as if they were some sort of real threat to the reign of liberalism. In turn, the bulk of self-described conservatives rally around these same figures as if they were the saviors of America who would, like a sort of modern Republican St. Patrick, drive the snakes of liberalism from our shores. The truth is that Palin, Beck, and the rest are not any sort of threat to the dominance of liberalism, because they are themselves infected with a mindset very much shaped by liberalism.

I count this website as one of the best Catholic websites and to see some supporting Palin makes me sad. She's a capitalist, libertarian or a narcissist at least or a celebrity at most. She's possesses no substance and the reason the media hates and is obsessed with her is because they are so far-left they think liberal "conservatives" are far-right!
7.10.2011 | 5:52pm
MEnciso says:
I think the american people are still not ready for a woman president, but if they were I think she would make a fine one, she is a very caring person.
7.10.2011 | 7:31pm
Are phrases like “psychologically unhinged” and "clinically deluded” to be taken seriously from a guy who thinks same-gender sex acts are normal???
7.10.2011 | 8:47pm
dadfly says:
‘Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, And without sneering teach the rest to sneer…’. Pope.

it is both stunning and ironic to read the subtle and not so subtle ad hominem against one of the few who have, and continues to so ably, man the gates of our Republic against the ever pressing hun, their hoard and their.

may God continue to confound your enemies, mrs. palin.
7.10.2011 | 10:13pm
One has to wonder about the cultural literacy of someone whoonflates opposing Sarah Palin with being a left-winger. I for one have a great of difficulty in understanding why people are proud of manifestations of Ms. Palin's lack of intellectual distinction or ability.

In the jaded and critical part of the country that I live in, such manifestations are called, "dumb." Contrary to Pastor Leithart, I think it is preferable that my leaders be "smart." By which I mean that they can carry on a conversation that I would expect a sixth grader to manage intelligently.

Although I live in a rural area, I fail to understand the Palin supporters' glee with her drill baby drill mentality. The destruction of whole mountain tops to extract coal, the contamination of billions of gallons of fresh water with salt for drilling or worse contaniments for fracking, seem like last resort measures, especially in view of our potential for wind, solar and bio-mass energy generation.

I find the idea that making life tougher for the average citizen by cutting back education, food aid, medical care and other needed and long-standing domestic programs uncharitable. Most of the programs in place have been there in times thick and thin and to blame the recession or the deficit on them is, well, dumb.

Worst of all Palin's glorification of military policies that send our soldiers abroad to fight needless wars for no other reason than the flexing of American power is bloody murder.

Sarah Palin's political unsuitability and personal shortcomings are what make her an unsuitable candidate for the Presidency. It is a matter of prudence and integrity, not the political rohrschach test Pastor Leithart implies.
7.10.2011 | 10:41pm
Margaret says:
Love her or hate her, the bottom line is that Palin is simply not electable. It's very easy to insult the vast swathes of people who believe that, but maybe you could give some of us at least a little credit for studying her record in Alaska, her knowledge of economics and foreign policy, her ability to work as a team member, her parenting skills, and her analytical ability.
7.12.2011 | 3:14am
PhilipJames says:
Well, I see that Peter has mangled his own article by stating untruths in an effort to appear intelligent and perceptive.
These lines... "She gets confused about history for one thing—which side Paul Revere was on, for instance. And she has trouble remembering what she reads, as she revealed in the odd 2008 interview with Katie Couric. She misuses phrases like “blood libel” picked up from somewhere and never fully understood."
all these are pure baloney.
Sarah Palin was not confused about Paul Revere.... if Peter would take his head out of the sand he could check and see that a number of historians agreed with Sarah Palin. She apparently knows more about this than the comic book rendition that Peter relies on.
As for what she reads... well, if Peter can't figure out what a pile of cow poop that whole episode was with Couric, then there is no hope for him.
Blood libel.... well that was absolutely correct. Too bad Peter.... nice try at spinning that one into something it wasn't. Ask Alan Dershowitz if you don't believe me.
It appears Peter is lost.... lost in the false narratives of the liberal media and hate spinners.... too bad... for he is then just another deluded dolt who trys to convince us that he knows who Sarah Palin is and fails terribly.
And for your information Peter, when Sarah Palin becomes President.... she will change the system so dramatically for the better that even the left will have to thank her. There will be a massive upheaval of the corrupt and evil Washington establishment.
7.12.2011 | 2:16pm
sinclare says:
I like this article.

She is one of "us," us being a stereoptypical representation of our cultural development at this time in history. What that says about us as a people is more disturbing than what it says about Sarah Palin. She's attractive and photogenic. She loves the spotlight. She understands how to manipulate the media and further her career as a celebrity. In that, she is very clever and successful.

But don't think for a second any of her success as a media darling has anything to do with her desire for public service. She is simply using this platform for her own benefit. Toying with the media and granting this Newsweek interview confirms that--She doesn't really have anything to say in the interview that we don't already know, but she gets more exposure and has more photos taken of her as a regular person from Alaska. She is one of "us." Not a buttoned up politician in a $1200. suit. A regular gal. A mom, even. This image that she is promoting of herself is directly contrasted by the well heeled intellectuals in DC who dress, um, professionally. She is promoting herself as the girl next door, who, by the way, could run the country if she wanted to.

Is this the portrait we want painted in the white house next to Jefferson and Lincoln, is this how far we have come? I think not.

I hope not.
8.3.2011 | 4:19pm
mikey says:
Love her or hate her, the bottom line is that Palin is simply not electable....and I think this will be played out next, she is simply not electable
8.6.2011 | 5:36pm
Allen Voice says:
Although I live in a rural area, I fail to understand the Palin supporters' glee with her drill baby drill mentality. The destruction of whole mountain tops to extract coal, the contamination of billions of gallons of fresh water with salt for drilling or worse contaniments for fracking, seem like last resort measures, especially in view of our potential for wind, solar and bio-mass energy generation. unfortunately, abortion is legal, in our country, therefore someone who chooses not to have one, deserves tremendous credit. This does not rise to the level of sainthood, certainly, but it does rise to the level of courage and moral goodness.
8.16.2011 | 5:37pm
Sarah Palin's political unsuitability and personal shortcomings are what make her an unsuitable candidate for the Presidency. It is a matter of prudence and integrity, not the political rohrschach test Pastor Leithart implies. In the same way, every time some European political figure issues some patently equivocal statement criticizing multiculturalism, the left reacts in panic, and the right reacts with joy, both sides believing that the rule of multiculturalism has been rejected and is imminently threatened, when in reality, multiculturalism is deeply ensconsed in Europe.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact