Saturday, June 27, 2009

What's Your Problem With Sarah Palin?

Indulge me for a moment. Some of you may recall that I commented here the night of the Republican National Convention last September that Sarah Palin, even without John McCain, is a "formidable" political opponent. I offered this only a few moments after hearing Gov. Palin speak for my very first time. Among other things, I described her as

"...country-girl feisty with a smile; she carries the faintest hint of redneck incredulity about her that is squarely aimed at the temerity and presumptuousness of Ivy League and Beltway elitism. She looked quite stunning as she easily and deftly delivered lines that will be iconic by morning. And she created a metaphor that sticks: She's a pitbull with lipstick."

But my praise did not stop there. I also said:

"...Gov. Palin's speech was filled with criticisms of Sen. Obama (many of which were quite clever, I must say). And while she delivered her blows with a sort of wink-wink playfulness, I know that she infuriated countless pro-Obama supporters; she flirted with being incendiary. I saw it, heard it, felt it; and I swear I could hear countless folks around the country screaming at their TVs. But what she did tonight is at least part of the political game, and it is quite clear that senators Obama and Biden have their work cut out for them. Gov. Palin, even without John McCain, is a formidable opponent."

And at the end of my post-convention essay, I played the augur:

"Prediction: After tonight, Democrats everywhere will be arguing that the next Democratic Convention in 2012 should follow rather than precede the Republican Convention. Surely they see how easy it was for Gov. Palin to playfully but effectively mock the "styrofoam Greek pillars" of the Democratic National Convention, no?"

Please take note of the theme that connects these passages: Gov. Palin is funny. Not over-the-top funny, but funny in an effective, even disarming way. And a charming way.

And it is precisely this quality that has drawn the ire of those Democrats and liberals in press and politics who quite clearly despise her. Let me return to what I wrote just four days after the GOP convention. In "The Cardinal Sin: Laughter In The GOP," I wrote:

"One would have to be disengaged not to notice that the Democratic Party, and the party's scribes in the press, are really quite angry about the ascension of Sarah Palin. But it is not Sarah Palin that has them upset; it is not John McCain or George W. Bush or Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani that has the left in high dudgeon. It is not any one person or defined group that has given them fits. What has them so agitated is that the very visible Republican National Convention showed Republicans doing the worst of all possible things: It showed Republicans laughing at the Democratic Party and its candidate. And there really can be no greater sin." [emphasis added]

Indeed, in American politics, there can be no greater sin.

Democrats, especially those who would consider themselves members of the intelligentsia, or the truly cultured set, perceive themselves to be the party that excels at parody, satire; at scoffing and mocking and, among the truly bright, clever badinage. Democrats have some reason to believe this of themselves, as their own conceit in all matters funny is daily reinforced in print, in political cartoons, and in such places as "The Daily Show." But it is, at least to me, an empty conceit.

The other day, John Kerry, the junior senator from Massachusetts who aspired to the White House, joked about Sarah Palin in the wake of the sudden absence of Gov. John Sanford (South Carolina). Mr. Kerry said, in what strikes me as a mean-spirited way, that it was "[t]oo bad if a governor had to go missing, it couldn't have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin." (Guffaw!)

If one just pauses a moment to note not only the utter comedic vacuity of Mr. Kerry's quip but also its political implication -- that Mr. Kerry and his peers must be awfully afraid of Ms. Palin to wish for her disappearance -- one can't help but be somewhat stunned. Why all this vitriol and sarcasm directed at Gov. Palin? Is it because she is laughing at Democrats? One can only wonder how they will react to her response (given in Kosovo while visiting US troops) to Mr. Kerry's pathetic joke-telling:

“[John Kerry] looked quite frustrated and he looked so sad [when he told his joke]. I just wanted to reach out to the TV and say: ‘John Kerry, why the long face?’” [see YouTube clip below]

___________________

Governor Sarah Palin is laughing, and she gets others to laugh, too. This is what makes her such a threat. She is, in this one sense, Reagan-esque, as Ronald Reagan, too, got people to laugh -- playfully and lightly -- at the absurdities of the other party. I am not suggesting here that Ms. Palin has the chops to be president, but she has thus far out-performed many of her peers who claim superiority in both ability and experience. And humor. She is a formidable foe. There can be no doubt about it. And the Democrats, through fear and loathing, and by attacking her every day, are drawing attention, and sympathy, toward someone they actually wish went missing.

There's something ironic here, but I doubt my leftist peers can see it.

Peace.

©Contratimes/2009. All Rights Reserved.

Friday, June 26, 2009

What Happened To "Global Warming"? You Know.

It's been reported that Al Gore and his friends have invested billions of dollars into "green energy" futures. A mere $50 billion or so. Like most eager investors, Al Gore and friends hope to make a renewable and sustainable killing.

Everyone who has visited this site should know that I have long been a global warming skeptic. I am not "anti-science." To the contrary, I am pro-science. I just have balked, as you know, at the non causa pro causa fallacies on which Al Gore's campaign has been based. Mr. Gore, it seems to me, is anti-science and anti-rational. Blind to the irony, Mr. Gore is a part of the very assault on reason he decries in his book, The Assault on Reason.

If you find yourself skeptical of the "science" of global warming, oops, excuse me, climate change, then know that you are in pretty good company. Kimberley A. Strassel spells it all out for you in a very encouraging essay in today's Wall Street Journal. Please read "The Climate Change Climate Change."

What I want to know is this: Where is the outrage?

Once again: THEY ARE LYING TO YOU. It is their wont.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Where's The Outrage? (In Your Dreams)

Had this sort of story hit the presses, had it crossed the airwaves and satellite feeds anytime between January 2001 to January 2009, we would have heard the very hills tremble with outrage. Today we hear nary a rumble, really. Or have I just grown deaf? Please read it for yourself and then tell me whether you think I need my hearing checked.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

SIMPLY FASCINATING!

My little hiatus, or, I should say, my extended hiatus from prolific blogging has led me to some interesting places, both outside and inside the World Wide Web. One truly fascinating place inside the WWW is the essay on humanity's position in the biosphere written by George Ball titled, "The Neo-Luddites." (The essay appeared in the Wall Street Journal as "Naturalism Has Been Hijacked.")

Saturday, June 13, 2009

"Our Historically Challenged President": Another Important Essay

It will only take a few minutes for you to read Victor Davis Hanson's essay in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Our Historically Challenged President." It's a few minutes you should take. (According to the Chronicle's micro-bio of Mr. Hanson, he is a classicist at Stanford University.)

Question: Did George W. Bush show such incompetence with -- or disrespect towards -- history? If so, how did he mishandle it? If not, then what does this say about Barack Obama? What does this say about his staff, especially his speech writers?


Monday, June 08, 2009

Pre-mature Post-Racialism, Or Post-Post-Racialism?

What an interesting perspective Shelby Steele brings to his analysis (in today's Wall Street Journal) of Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court! I know, I know. You've heard it all before; sickened by the endless commentary about Ms. Sotomayor, you're eager to just move on. But I suspect that Mr. Steele's piece will, at least, give you a moment's pause.

Mr. Steele once again† brings us back to his very helpful rubric, that to properly interpret the world of racial politics in America one must understand that such a world is divided into two types of persons, bargainers and challengers. In light of the alleged post-racialism incarnated in Mr. Obama, and that Mr. Obama's nomination of Ms. Sotomayor is anything but post-racial, Shelby Steele makes this fairly damning observation:

But of course "post-racialism" is not a real idea. It is an impression, a chimera that grows out of a very specific racial manipulation that I have called "bargaining." Here the minority makes a bargain with white society: I will not "guilt" you with America's centuries of racism if you will not hold my minority status against me. Whites love this bargain because it allows them to feel above America's racist past and, therefore, immune to charges of racism. By embracing the bargainer they embrace the impression of a world beyond racial division, a world in which whites are innocent and minorities carry no anger. This is the impression that animates bargainers like Mr. Obama or Oprah Winfrey with an irresistible charisma. Even if post-racialism is an obvious illusion -- a bargainer's trick as it were -- whites are flattered by believing in it.

I can't imagine that this sort of commentary sits well with Mr. Steele's peers. One gets the sense that it is rather risky of Mr. Steele to imply that white acceptance of minorities is not essentially authentic -- it is not born of genuine compassion -- but is instead the outcome of a deal where whites regain their sense of moral authority, of being good and fair people.

Nor can I imagine that many folks who pride themselves on being particularly beneficent and sensitive to injustice would appreciate Mr. Steele when he writes about challengers:

Judge Sotomayor is the archetypal challenger. Challengers see the moral authority that comes from their group's historic grievance as an entitlement to immediate parity with whites -- whether or not their group has actually earned this parity through development. If their group is not yet competitive with whites, the moral authority that comes from their grievance should be allowed to compensate for what they lack in development. This creates a terrible corruption in which the group's historic grievance is allowed to count as individual merit. And so a perverse incentive is created: Weakness and victimization are rewarded over development. Better to be a troublemaker than to pursue excellence.

Sonia Sotomayor is of the generation of minorities that came of age under the hegemony of this perverse incentive. For this generation, challenging and protesting were careerism itself. This is why middle- and upper middle-class minorities are often more militant than poor and working-class minorities. America's institutions -- universities, government agencies, the media and even corporations -- reward their grievance. Minority intellectuals, especially, have been rewarded for theories that justify grievance.

Seriously, you should read the entirety of Mr. Steele's essay.



†I've mentioned Mr. Steele's work before, particularly that which is associated with his book, White Guilt. (Also, see here and here, if interested.)


Sunday, June 07, 2009

George Will On The Public's Hold On The Private Sector

George Will's essay, "Have We Got A Deal For You," should leave you feeling a bit alarmed. Mr. Will's topic is the government takeover of GM; his theme is that this takeover is irresponsible and an abuse, or, at best, a misuse of power, Mr. Obama's denials of government meddling notwithstanding.

Writes Mr. Will:

The pressure to politicize the economy is spreading. John Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO, and Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -- which is government organized as an interest group to lobby itself -- have demanded the resignation of two directors of Citigroup. Their premise is that businesses receiving direct government subventions should conform to the wishes of the president's allies. [bold added for emphasis]

Amazing, and utterly scary.

The final conclusion drawn by Mr. Will is also quite interesting:

Washington's "rescue" of GM began because GM is "too big to fail," and bankruptcy is (well, was) "unthinkable." Big? GM's market capitalization, $375.8 million on Wednesday, is about the size of California Pizza Kitchen's ($340 million) -- is it too big to fail? -- and one-eleventh that of Harley-Davidson ($4.3 billion). Fail? If GM has not already failed, New Coke was a success.

The administration is determined to prop up GM as a jobs program for the UAW and Midwestern states rich in electoral votes. This frenzy will intensify as the administration's decisions deepen the debacle. [bold added for emphasis]

"Deepen the debacle" indeed.

Friday, June 05, 2009

"Mirth In Funeral, Dirge In Marriage": President Hamlet

This morning's title is pulled from an incredible essay written in March 2009 by Sam Schulman. I cannot overstate the power and excellence of Mr. Schulman's "President Hamlet" published in The Weekly Standard after the Obama administration's first 40 days in power. In fact, I would be understating the case if I averred that if I was a Democratic leader or operative, I would fear Mr. Schulman and not Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity or Dick Cheney; I would fear Schulman's criticism more than anything else.

Permit me to put it this way. If you read this essay by Mr. Schulman you will find his pointed comparison of Obama and Hamlet to be ineluctable and indelible: Mr. Obama is Hamlet and his term in office is naught but a play, and you won't forget it. Mr. Schulman has found a near-perfect, if not perfect, parallel between the Prince and the man who is haunted, it seems, by Dreams From [His] Father.

I had never read a single line of Mr. Schulman's until this past Monday night. His skills impress me; I find his style of prose and polemic inspiring. I don't know if you'll agree nor am I sure if I care you agree. I just know that he has shown me that there is still much to aspire to as a thinker, writer, witness and, perhaps most importantly, a reader not only of the literature of the world, but of the human drama unfolding before my eyes this very day.

One last note. I will guess that readers around the planet have misinterpreted the last two lines of Mr. Schulman's essay. Perhaps those who do so are accidentally obtuse, but I suspect a willful blindness to Mr. Schulman's meaning.

______________

From T. S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock":

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.

Peace through dissent.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

An Amazing Argument: Why Gay Marriage Will Fail

Contratimes readers should take a moment to read Sam Schulman's brilliant and original essay, "The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage: It isn't going to work."

Let us know what you think (via email or in the comments below).