Peggy Noonan's "A Farewell to Harms" in the Wall Street Journal leaves me wondering where I stand in relation to the Republican Party. Ms. Noonan pretty much slams anyone who found Gov. Sarah Palin the least bit interesting. In fact, Ms. Noonan's slam -- so full of the sort of grace and poise one expects from really bright Republicans -- even made its way (no doubt heralded with carbon-neutral fireworks) to the Huffington Post.
And in the comments thread attached to Ms. Noonan's column (commenting is a new feature at the WSJ on-line, by the way), a commenter had the following to say about the GOP and Ms. Noonan's column:
Anyone who disagrees with this article by Noonan is either disingenuous or stupid. It's refreshing to see that there are some intelligent people (i.e. Noonan) in the GOP.
Such sweeping generalizations aside (and rather self-aggrandizing ones, too), Ms. Noonan's criticism of Gov. Palin strikes me as fatally flawed in several places. In fact, I simply don't get it: how can Ms. Noonan be so bright and yet so, well, dim?
Enough. I will not enlarge upon Ms. Noonan's commentary here for fear of unduly influencing those of you who have not yet read it. But I will ask you to pay close attention to Ms. Noonan's extraordinary wit. Just stand in awe of the paronomasia she employs with such ease in her opening sentence:
Sarah Palin's resignation gives Republicans a new opportunity to see her plain. [bold mine]
Such slant rhyme, such anagrammatic wit! I love it!
I will end with this: In her essay, Peg Noonan pegs no one but herself. You'll see that Ms. Noonan is not only NOT working class, she is without class. She inadvertently puts a new face on the class-less society.
(See, Ms. Noonan, how easy this is? I would remind you that such slant rhymes and word-plays may be fun, but in your essay, they strike me as rather sterile: You should think of employing no onanism here, if you get my drift. As I said, it's so easy.)
There is no time to read all the commentary about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's decision to leave her office on July 26. Clearly there is much to say about that decision; some people in fact have much to say about Gov. Palin's every move. Even after she leaves office an abundance of jokes, sarcasm, malice, and derision will be tossed her way. Members of the vituperative, vindictive set will not surrender her as easily as she has surrendered them.
Gov. Palin in the most objective sense was nearly unknown until August 29, 2008. On the day John McCain announced her as his running mate, the small-state-big-state governor was not only thrust into the limelight; her world was suddenly exposed to the glaring, and often leering and sneering, gaze of the media, the blogosphere, and the comedic and pundit classes. Any appeal to privacy; any suggestion that certain things were off-limits; all that fell away the moment she said "Yes" to John McCain.
She would have been better off saying no. That, at least to me, is what I read and hear between the lines. Had she rejected Mr. McCain's offer, the cameras would have focused elsewhere, the blogs -- some even funded by Democratic monies gathered in the lower-48 -- would have gone silent, and she could have completed (most likely) her term as governor.
Two things happened. One was that her critics, critics of all things Republican, understood that even after Sen. McCain's November loss she could and would use her experience as governor of Alaska as a springboard for higher office. And the second thing was that the governor had made -- even if only slightly -- Barack Obama look too much like the man he actually was: an inexperienced novice propped up by the media and the grand spectacle the Democratic Party created around him.
Thus, not only the Alaskan media and Democratic establishment but the entirety of the whole liberal class -- news, entertainment, and party leadership -- turned their guns her way. It wouldn't be an overstatement to describe her life since August 29, 2008 as one filled with harassment, even sexual harassment, and abuse. (Perhaps Sarah Palin has now destroyed what surely could have become a Democratic Party meme: that she only USED Alaska simply for her own inflated ambitions. Now, she has at least seized control of the narrative, which can only tick off her critics.)
I tried to pay attention at the beginning of Gov. Palin's rise to fame and infamy. I tried to follow the metaphors, if you recall, that were used to describe her. Of course, I only touched the tip of the veritable Alaskan iceberg of abusive metaphors that moved toward her destruction. She was reduced to an object, even a sex object, at which her detractors aimed their abuse: she was reduced to a target. Crude stereotypes abounded. They continue to abound.
Sarah Palin is not, nor was she ever, perfect. She may even be extremely imperfect. If I were to know her as a close friend; were I to know her deepest thoughts on life, politics, faith, beauty, I may discover that her imperfections are too great for me to tolerate. But there is no doubt, none whatsoever, that she was abused by people who should have known better. Her many imperfections do not merit hate and vitriol.† Or so I think.
In the end, Gov. Palin has made a choice I actually applaud -- barring her resignation is a flight from scandal -- for the simple reason that I think serving in the public sphere has become, in most instances, a very low calling. She may have "let down her base," as some have said, but my feeling has long been that most of the political classes in America -- especially the alleged intellectual and academic classes -- have long been rather debased. No doubt she has let them down. In that one fact, I think her recent actions are rather complimentary to her.
We've been hearing a lot about false choices these days, especially from the man in the White House. Barack Obama seemingly loves mentioning the many "false choices" made by his predecessor's administration. And I have shown (see link above) that Mr. Obama fails to see the irony in his pop-pronouncements on false choices, since, according to his wife, his very career is built upon a patently false choice.
In keeping with Mr. Obama's penchant for criticizing false choices that are not false and for creating "true" choices that are indeed false, the Democratic Party's statement yesterday regarding Sarah Palin's sudden announcement of her resignation from her Alaska governor's seat is exemplary:
Either Sarah Palin is leaving the people of Alaska high and dry to pursue her long shot national political ambitions or she simply can’t handle the job now that her popularity has dimmed and oil revenues are down. Either way - her decision to abandon her post and the people of Alaska who elected her continues a pattern of bizarre behavior that more than anything else may explain the decision she made today. [emphasis added]
The great and logical minds of the DNC have no problem creating such a false Either/Or, in large part because such minds are neither great nor logical. If I were to advise my readers to meditate on the DNC statement as if it contained profound religious truths -- I am not and it doesn't -- I am certain that readers would have some experience approaching epiphany: The Democrats who issued this statement are incredibly stupid and vapid. And petty.
Just think: the DNC has NO IDEA -- none! -- as to why Ms. Palin has suddenly resigned. And yet, like spiritualists probing through animal scat, they've divined the reasons behind Ms. Palin's actions: She is either overly-ambitious or she is incompetent. But note what the DNC has actually said (and they don't even realize it): Her resignation is solely due to her being a fool. There is no real or even false Either/Or here. Since Ms. Palin's alleged bid for national office represents a "long shot," at least according to the DNC, she is a fool for reaching well beyond her merits. And since she is leaving office because her job has become too difficult, she was a fool to have ever thought she merited the governorship. Really, the DNC's syllogism is dizzying in its rigor:
A. Either p or p B. p _______ C. Therefore, p
What is amazing is that Ms. Palin's alleged "pattern of bizarre behavior," as the DNC so confidently puts it, has not been shown to be either a pattern or bizarre. But the Democrats' demonstrable fixation on and targeting of all things Palin indicate a clear pattern of bizarre behavior among Democrats who accuse her of behaving in a bizarre pattern.
____________________
WHAT IS MS. PALIN THINKING?
If this question can be asked without resorting to the cheap-shot answer -- Ms. Palin is not thinking because she can't think -- then it must be asked in humility: As of right now, no one but Ms. Palin and her husband know what she's thinking. I have no idea what's going on, do you?
I think a sane person of decent intellect and breeding, possessing even a modicum of compassion, would choose reticence and not pompous declamations upon hearing of Ms. Palin's resignation. Is it not possible that she is ill? Is it not at all possible that someone in her family is ill? Perhaps her marriage is in disrepair; perhaps the battering she has personally experienced from the media and the DNC has truly taken its toll on her children, and thus, on her. And if the latter is the case, then Ms. Palin's decision shows an immense amount of competence and gives the lie to the assertion she can't handle the office of governor. A good governor would indeed resign to protect her family from the unjust abuse that constantly comes her way.
I am not suggesting here she has not some other plans. I am not defending or promoting her ambitions (or lack thereof). My fascination, really, has always been about how her enemies -- and they are enemies -- perceive her, and how they've treated her (and her family). In fact, I will admit that Ms. Palin's decision prima facie spells doom.
But I am also quick to point out that if the media and the DNC pile on top of her and there is some sad story behind this decision; or if Ms. Palin makes some stunning announcement in the coming days about an appointment or position that is truly to her political advantage, both the media and the DNC will look incredibly foolish, weak, and, as already said, petty.
I can't help admit that when I read and hear the ridiculously over-wrought and presumptuous criticisms of Ms. Palin, I am hoping she gets the last laugh.
We'll see, of course. But in the scheme of things, at least for me, what Sarah Palin does or does not do matters little. This is not to say she is not important. It is merely an admission about what fills my life. And what does not fill it.
Bottom line: I am hoping that there is not some sort of tragedy behind her announcement. You would think that would be everyone's hope in America. Sadly, it is not.
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.
Along with far too many other books, I keep at my bedside George Orwell's Why I Write, published by Penguin Books in its Great Ideas series. What follows is something I read to my wife the other night. (I am such a romantic; she yawned.) Please permit me to occasionally add things in [ ], and to use boldface when I think it necessary for emphasis.
From Page 71, George Orwell's Why I Write:
The fact that we are are at war [and in economic disarray] has turned Socialism from a text-book word into a realizable policy.
The inefficiency of private capitalism has been proved all over Europe [and apparently the United States]. Its injustice has been proved in the East End of London. Patriotism, against which the Socialists fought so long, has become a tremendous lever in their hands. People who at any other time would cling like glue to their miserable scraps of privilege, will surrender them fast enough when their country [or their retirement plan] is in danger. War [and economic anxiety] is the greatest of all agents of change. It speeds up all processes, wipes out minor distinctions, brings realities to the surface. Above all, war [and economic disarray] brings it home to the individual. That he is not altogether an individual [you must share; sacrifice]. It is only because they are aware of this that men will die on the field of battle. At this moment it is not so much a question of surrendering leisure, comfort, economic liberty, social prestige. There are very few people in England [or America] who really want to see their country conquered by Germany [or Wall Street, or jihadists]. If it can be made clear that defeating Hitler [and income disparity] means wiping out class privilege, the great mass of middling people, the £6 a week to £2000 a year class, will probably be on our side. These people are quite indispensable, because they include most of the technical experts. Obviously the snobbishness and political ignorance of people like airmen and naval officers will be a very great difficulty. But without those airmen, destroyer commanders, etc. etc. we could not survive for a week. The only approach to them is through their patriotism. An intelligent Socialist movement will use their patriotism, instead of merely insulting it, as hitherto. [It is interesting to read news reports of Michelle Obama's frequent and recent meetings with military families in swing states.]
But do I mean there will be no opposition? Of course not. It would be childish to expect anything of the kind.
There will be a bitter political struggle, and there will be unconscious and half-conscious sabotage everywhere. At some point or other it may be necessary to use violence [like Weathermen bombs]. It is easy to imagine a pro-Fascist rebellion breaking out in, for instance, India. We shall have to fight against bribery, ignorance and snobbery. The bankers and the larger businessmen, the landowners and dividend-drawers, the officials with their prehensile bottoms, will obstruct for all they are worth [or maybe they will even help]. Even the middleclass will writhe when their accustomed way of life is menaced. But just because the English sense of national unity has never disintegrated, because patriotism is finally stronger than class-hatred, the chances are that the will of the majority will prevail. It is no use imagining that one can make fundamental changes without causing a split in the nation; but the treacherous minority will be far smaller in time of war [and economic crisis] than it would be at any other time.
The swing of opinion is visibly happening, but it cannot be counted on to happen fast enough of its own accord. This war is a race between the consolidation of Hitler's empire and the growth of democratic consciousness. Everywhere in England you can see a ding-dong battle ranging to and fro -- in Parliament and in the Government, in the factories and the armed forces, in the pubs and the air-raid shelters, in the newspapers and on the radio. Every day there are tiny defeats, tiny victories. ... It is a struggle between the groping and the unteachable, between the young and the old, between the living and the dead. But it is very necessary that the discontent which undoubtedly exists should take a purposeful and not merely obstructive form. It is time for the people to define their war [and economic] aims. What is wanted is a simple, concrete programme of action, which can be given all possible publicity, and round which public opinon can group itself.
I suggest the following six-point programme is the kind of thing we need. The first three points deal with England's internal policy, the other three with the Empire and the world:
Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.
Reform of the educational system along democratic [read 'radical egalitarian'] lines.
Immediate Dominion status for India [Iraq?], with power to secede when the war is over.
Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured [sic] peoples are to be represented.
Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of the Fascist powers.
The general tendency of this programme is unmistakable. It aims quite frankly at turning this war into a revolutionary war and England into a Socialist democracy.
[end of Orwell quote]
______________
Interesting: "...turning this war into a revolutionary war..." in order to produce a socialist state. Sounds eerily familiar.
I just heard about the column by Kansas City Star editorialist Lewis Diuguid in which Mr. Diuguid claims the use of the word "socialist" is essentially a racial slur: it is veiled, or not so veiled, racism. I tracked the piece down, as I had to read it myself. Sure enough. In Plains English, Mr. Diuguid gives us all an incredible history lesson.
"Socialism" is an old code word for "black."
And here I thought George Orwell was white. And Karl Marx. And Vladimir Lenin. And Josef Stalin. And Bill Ayres.
And I thought I was thoroughly white when I talked like a socialist after graduating from college.
I swear, if I did not know any better, I would have concluded that "socialism" is actually code word for "white guys who not only feed on envy, they feed it."
All sarcasm aside (for just a second), I am not really surprised at this great straining of the mind, this great bending off all reason.
But I do think a deeper truth is being overlooked here: the words "McCain" and "Palin" are old code words for radical white supremacists who are damned for what they don't do and what they don't say.
Seriously, say "socialism" to me and all I see is Dr. Zhivago, you know, all cold snowy white...and profoundly unhuman.
Here's a clip from "The Grapevine" regarding what one well-known Catholic priest and novelist had to say about racism in the McCain-Palin campaign (all this after apparently bogus news reports claimed McCain-Palin supporters were heard shouting "kill him" -- referring allegedly to Barack Obama -- at a Palin rally):
The agent in charge of the Secret Service office in Scranton, Pennsylvania, says allegations are unfounded that someone yelled "kill him" when Barack Obama's name came up at a rally for Sarah Palin Tuesday.
The Times Leader newspaper reports Bill Slavoski was in the audience along with a number of other Secret Service agents and law enforcement officials. Not a single one heard the comment.
Reporter David Singleton at The Scranton-Times Tribune first reported hearing the remark. His account was picked up by media across the country.
But Agent Slavoski says he was baffled when he read the report. He says more than 20 civilians were also interviewed and "we have yet to find someone to back up the story."
Even if it did not really happen, the incident has prompted much criticism from the left. Catholic priest, liberal commentator and novelist Andrew Greeley writes in the Chicago Sun-Times that Palin is a "racist with her eye on the White House. She can stir up crowds to shout 'kill him' ... how can she ever justify silence when she heard a cry for lynching?"
Greeley went on to say that John McCain is also guilty of racism: "McCain increasingly acts like an angry, befuddled cancer survivor and treats his rival like a field n-word who is just barely human." [emphasis added]
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
The sheep know the shepherd's voice. Father Greeley speaks a language I don't know.
During Thursday night's debate, I wasn't sure of what I heard. I turned to a couple of folks who were sitting with me in one of the local pubs; the big debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin had drawn a decent crowd (for these parts). I asked whether I had misheard Sarah Palin. "Did she just say 'Taliban?'" I inquired. One man, Bob, who operates a NH political website where I "work" as a blogger, corrected me. "She said, 'Talabani,'" he replied.
Apparently, well, not everyone who opines for a living asks rather simple questions. Perhaps since I do not opine for a living, I am in the habit of making sure I have the simplest things right. At least I try.
E.J. Dionne Jr., that esteemed but always left-leaning columnist from the Washington Post, got caught playing the charlatan on Friday's "The Diane Rehm Show," broadcast on National Public Radio. The ever-attentive James Taranto gives us an example of people hearing what isn't there, and of people unwilling to look anything less than omniscient. Read Taranto:
A hilarious example of press bias against Palin occurred last Friday on "The Diane Rehm Show," a production of Washington's WAMU-FM. The exchange between hostess Rehm, caller Tom of Norwich, Vt., and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne begins at about 46:10 of the "10:00 News Roundup":
Tom: I just wonder why not more has been made of the statement by Palin during the debate last night that "Maliki and the Talabani"--this is a quote from the transcript--"also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to the point of victory." The Talibani obviously are our absolute enemy and have been since 9/11; Maliki, our central ally in Iraq. This to me is a tremendous blunder, revealing a very superficial familiarity with these sorts of terms.
Rehm: Thanks for calling, Tom. . . . E.J.?
Dionne: I think that "superficial" is absolutely the right word for the knowledge or the lack of knowledge Palin showed yesterday. I'm glad the caller raised that one, and I suspect there is going to be a scouring of that transcript for exactly that sort of gaffe. That has echoes of some of the stuff she said to Katie Couric.
If you look at the debate transcript, however, you will see that the reference is not to "the Talabani" but to Talabani--as in Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq.
Indeed, it is quite clear Gov. Palin was talking about Talabani, and not the Taliban; because I was in the back of the pub while watching the debate I can excuse myself for mishearing her. But I at least asked someone who did not mishear -- someone who did not strike a pose but rather got things right. And I recall wondering whether what Gov. Palin said -- or DIDN'T say -- would be leapt on by the extremist blogosphere. Who would've thought that E.J. Dionne and his interlocutor TOM would have spoken with authority, or some semblance of it, on something never said?
(I do find it interesting that in the above quote Taliban is spelled both Talabani and Talibani; I have no idea why but it does strike me as a curiosity.)
Regardless. The fact is that there is an a priori assumption out there that Gov. Palin is a dope -- a lot like the dope in the White House. She's Bush with lipstick while McCain possesses Cheney's age and pugnacity, and very little else. The McCain/Palin ticket is merely a pastiche, even an inversion of the Bush/Cheney ticket. Palin HAD to have meant the Taliban precisely because TOM had never heard of Talabani AND because she is, as we all know, just plain stupid (and TOM is not).
Good thing that E.J. Dionne Jr., who is often on Ms. Rehm's show on Fridays for the "News Roundup," has instilled confidence in his readers.
I have been doing it so long I might as well say I've been doing it forever; it's a very disagreeable habit. Every time I sit in church -- watching how people worship, and listening to prayers and sermons -- I imagine what some outsider who has dropped in for a visit might be thinking -- some gigantesque intellectual, a skeptical professor perhaps -- as he or she observes what is done and said in the presence and name of an "awesome God." It is interesting how I often I find myself squirming when I yield myself to such fantasies. Of course, I recognize nearly any practice, system, custom, ritual or ceremony can appear impenetrable to the uninitiated eye; even an opera, play or symphony can be esoterica to those untrained in the finer arts. Nevertheless, whenever I find myself in church playing the role of the outsider, I discover that I am often utterly uncomfortable. It all seems so strange. No. It all seems so weird, even insane.
OK. Perhaps I've gone too far. I admit this has not happened to me in all churches, nor has it happened to me in any one church all the time. But I have indeed witnessed what is clearly insanity, especially in those lower-type churches, ones given to informalism; you know, those pentecostal churches that have open mic Sundays. I tell you, when I have sat in services where there is virtually no order, authority or clearly defined leader, I am doing all I can not to call 911.
Last night I had the same sort of feeling -- that feeling of identifying with someone else in a psychological act of transpositionalism (invented term) -- when I was watching the debate. Like a fool, perhaps, I was thinking about what my more liberal friends were thinking and feeling when they watched and heard Sarah Palin. Indeed, I found that if I projected some of my own types of biases onto the motives of my friends, or if I actually absorbed into myself the sort of biases they articulated beforehand, I found, as you can expect, that I was terribly uncomfortable. Sarah Palin looked, at least at times and even if for but the briefest moments, like some sort of automaton. She was a bit like a kind of sexy android from Heavy Metal or Blade Runner. OK. Perhaps that says too much, but it did appear, at times, not so much that she was reading from a teleprompter but that she had become one.
Forgive me. I like Sarah Palin. I like her in many ways because she comes from my sort of stock. I know that. I get it. I've seen babes with dirt under their fingernails; I've dated one or two: Sarah Palin is not the sort of woman a man would have ever had to hold the branches for while bushwhacking in the Great North Woods. In fact, she wouldn't need the branches held because she would be leading the way. Sarah Palin is clearly, at least to some, a BMW -- a beautiful mountain woman.
And I also like Sarah Palin in a sort of inversion of the way my father hated the New York Yankees, who always, or so he spat, won: she's the underdog challenging the well-heeled and conceited pinstripes in the Beltway. I am rooting for the smaller payroll, the roster of the Lesser Knowns.
But there were times when she made me leave my seat. Not because she was sabotaging something. She wasn't. Nor was she imploding or melting down. But what she was doing was missing opportunities to turn Joe Biden's words around on him. Because she was constantly looking at her notes when Joe Biden was speaking (I recognize that's OK for her to do), she would miss things he said that she could have rebutted without any notes. One example:
When Sen. Biden (apparently wrongly) insisted that John McCain also "voted against funding our troops in Iraq," he added that Sen. McCain did so because there was a timeline provision for troop withdrawal added to the bill. Of course, all sharp debate coaches were probably screaming at the telly, as Mr. Biden had just informed the American people that John McCain had a different but apparently rational reason for rejecting the bill. A shrewder debater would not have given Sarah Palin or the viewers any clues about Sen. McCain's motives. Sen. Biden should have just let it all hang in the obscurity of implication: McCain rejected the bill because he does not care for our troops.
Hurray, the door was wide open, and yet Sarah Palin somehow did not walk through it. And not a more courteous gesture could the gentlemanly Biden make! Here was an opportunity for Gov. Palin to think on her feet: 'Jeez, Joe. Don't you think a timeline is not in the best interests of both our troops and our objectives? Timelines are a bit like an invitation to capitulation via micromanagement of war, for it essentially says to our enemy, "You can stop fighting us now and return to your vicious objectives after we leave on this particular date." No wonder John McCain voted against it. Oh, and by the way, since I am not an archivist in the US Senate, I can't immediately refute your claims. Are you willing to provide our campaign with the documents that prove Sen. McCain -- and Barack Obama -- did what you are asserting?'
And when Senator Biden said this about his campaign's plans for Afghanistan, Sarah Palin missed a real chance to score major points:
"With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen.
The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge -- the surge principles used in Iraq will not -- well, let me say this again now -- our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan, not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan.
He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan." [emphasis added]
Had Gov. Palin been willing to take a risk now and again and directly challenge Joe Biden's words -- not words two or three years old but those spoken right then -- she might have said this, though prefaced with a laugh:
"That's rather funny, Joe. I wonder if you see the irony. I mentioned using the principles of the surge in Afghanistan. You say they won't work, and then you not only call for a key ingredient to those principles -- 'more troops' -- you spell out pretty much key aspects of the Bush Doctrine: Building governments, investing in infrastructure. John McCain and I very much agree with our military advisers in this key area. I am glad to hear that Barack Obama and Joe Biden agree with us and what John McCain has been working towards since the beginning of the War on Terror: peaceful democracies in the Middle East and its surrounding regions."
These are but two of the several if not many opportunities missed by Sarah Palin. And I have to say that, without even identifying with my liberal friends, these missed opportunities irked me. But I recognize that these were not fatal misses; but had they been properly exploited, they may have proven fatal to Barack Obama's campaign.
I can understand, really, why Sarah Palin might make my liberal friends squirm. There were times that I found her "Aw, shucks" and "Doggone it" affects a little too premeditated: at times her attempts to appeal to "Joe Six-Pack" (Oiks!) seemed far too much like political artifice. The down-to-earth stuff was just a bit too canned for me, too designed. I know that a bunch of midwestern- and western-types in the media defended Gov. Palin's diction, pronunciation and cadence as all very familiar and real. Maybe I am tone deaf to Gov. Palin; maybe this is my east coast snobbery rearing its head. But the fact is I don't mind casual speech; I engage in it all the time. It just seemed that there were moments her idioms were too forced to be authentic.
OK. Where do I stand in all of this? Well, I should think my last post was clear. She won the debate because Joe Biden was not able to separate himself from her by the leagues and leagues his vast experience should have provided him. As I said, he was merely adequate, which is equal to failure. She came across as calm and confident; and she seemed bright in a way that was not simply cognitive: she seemed to actually sort of radiate. There is a light about her; well, perhaps not so much a light as an aura, a lambent gleam, a shimmer. And she looks unflappable; she was not daunted at any point.
Lastly, she won because of one thing, one very important thing: No one in this entire election season has been under as much pressure -- not by a long shot -- as Gov. Palin. Her every pore and corpuscle, every preposition and conjunction, have been scrutinized in a very compressed time: she comes in with virtually no national experience, and yet she did not waver, nor did she embarrass, nor did she fail. Her family has been abused, mocked and derided. Her parenting has been doubted, questioned, and dismissed. Her background has been explored and found wanting. And yet, without so much as a sigh, when she finished debating, she waved and smiled at America, walked to the center of the stage, thanked Joe Biden, and then took her little baby in her arms -- a seamless transition from one role to another.
I am afraid I will have to offend some of my readers today. Not that it will do any good, but I offer my apologies in advance of what I am about to say: Readers, forgive me.
Last night, as I watched the much-awaited debate between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin, I found myself unable to sit or stand still. I was doing everything I could not to pace; instead, I stood and fidgeted, I trod a small circle. I left the room, I went outside. I flinched. I winced. I said "Ouch!" I did everything I could to stay cheerfully mild. I discovered, to my shame, that I could not.
In the end all I could do was say, "Poor, poor Joe Biden." ____________________
Senator Joe Biden. He's a legend in Delaware. He's a legend in the Senate. Nay, he IS the Senate, at least for most of us who were mere children when he first took office. He's a fixture of the Democratic Party. He has been the stuff of some of the wildest tales told about Senate hearings: He has reproached, chided, upbraided, rebuked, rebuffed, and rejected the likes of Robert Bork. He has raised his voice to men who now preside on the Supreme Court, men who barely made it through the very gauntlet which is Joe Biden.
This senatorial and legislative behemoth, this veritable leviathan of legislation, renowned for his 35 years of service to this country, failed -- abjectly, fully and undeniably publicly -- to put an upstart country-girl-small-state governor in her place. Not only did he not annihilate her in the debate's first five minutes, he permitted her to remain relatively equal to him in nearly every way. He did not impress us with his vast and superior command of all things political: his responses were adequate, and that's all. But mere adequacy is grossly insufficient; in a debate like this, adequacy is failure. Clearly, he never really distanced himself from his opponent. She remained doggedly confident; she did not lose a single ounce of confidence, her aplomb. She remained controlled, poised, eager -- and defiantly cheery. And she without a hint of embarrassment looked directly into the camera and spoke what we all knew -- and she knew that we all knew -- were some clearly canned set-pieces. But the fact is that she did all of this with pride, gusto, elegance; she laughed at diffidence and shame, and made her case to America. She came out of the debate liked by more Americans than when she went in.
But the Great Peacemaker's Great Elder Statesman, Joe Biden, made himself look like a dried-up old Washington insider who merely played verbal games: Instead of blowing Gov. Palin and the country away, he simply failed. The rookie was not fanned by the legendary CY Young award-winning pitcher; in fact, the rookie ended up on first with a 13-pitch walk. The novice was never schooled by her master. In that, Joe Biden's performance was a profound and legendary embarrassment.
A dear acquaintance of mine (I love him but we are not close) wrote a very well-received op-ed in New Hampshire's only state-wide daily paper. He was pitching for an Obama victory as the state headed into the last week's of the NH primary season. And in that ably written op-ed, my friend compared essentially the length of time it took Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to get where they were in December 2007. Hillary Clinton, far older than Barack Obama, had begun at a higher social rung than did he (at birth); she had a privileged upbringing, attending the best schools; she was a lawyer and first lady, and yet at her age was only now ready to run for president. By comparison, Barack Obama had actually accomplished far more in far less time, and he began with far less. The op-ed writer remarked:
"Obama's accomplishments show greater efficiency and clarity of purpose, forming productive alliances, making the most of his comparatively short career."
In effect, or so I believe, the op-ed writer could have been asking, "If Ms. Clinton was only ready to be president when she turned 61, how much more ready would Barack Obama be when he was 61 if he was ready at 47?"
Undoubtedly the same kind of question could be asked of Sarah Palin. If Gov. Palin is clearly fit to debate Joe Biden with only five weeks' experience, what would she be like when she was Joe Biden's age? If an inexperienced candidate can be considered by many pundits to have equaled the vastly more experienced Joe Biden in a debate, what does that say about her potential compared to his -- or even Barack Obama's?
The fact is clear in the plainest political sense. This sense may not be common sense; it may not spill over into the general populace. But the fact is that Sen. Joe Biden lost last night, terribly. No, he did not walk off the stage blushing, weeping, looking utterly dejected. No, he did not appear to wobble, nor did he begin to mutter circumlocutions like a doddering old man. But that Sarah Palin was able to walk off the stage last night in St. Louis, Missouri, waving and smiling and remarking that the whole thing was fun -- without being the slightest bit delusional -- proves that Joe Biden lost every second of last night's debate. Every second.
Lastly, even Sen. Biden's strongest points were utterly weak. He had an enormous debate advantage: he is a senator. Since Gov. Palin is not, he could pretend to talk authoritatively and knowingly about John McCain and Barack Obama's Senate records. Why would a governor know anything about such records, many of which are obscured by legislative politics and the trivialities that such politics engenders? Sarah Palin, as an obvious outsider, could not counter what the presumably all-knowing senator claimed to know. But it was precisely her outsider status that Joe Biden assiduously avoided: he did not argue against her record as governor -- for then he was in unknown territory -- he argued instead against John McCain's alleged record as a senator. Of course, today we are all learning that Sen. Biden essentially fabricated both Sen. McCain's and Sen. Obama's records in the Senate; he could do so simply by taking advantage of Sarah Palin's strength, namely, her outsider status. Last night, Sen. Biden was quite safe dropping complete or half-truths about his two colleagues in the senate chambers, realizing his interlocutor could not counter him during a live televised debate.
But all this shows the weakness of Sen. Biden, for even with his fabrications and assumed privileged position, he still failed to render Sarah Palin irrelevant, inconsequential or uninformed.
That is why the Contratimes poll, indubitably infallible, shows that, of those who were asked to declare who REALLY won the debate, 0 percent said Joe Biden won.
0 percent! That is just a few points lower than his class placement in his graduating class from law school. OK. Unfair. But could I really resist?
In 2004, on the eve of the general election, I wrote a letter to my local newspaper in which I explored a brilliant comment by the well-known Republican satirist, P. J. O'Rourke. I had heard Mr. O'Rourke, who lives nearby in this part of New Hampshire, speaking earlier in the year on New Hampshire Public Radio. Concerning what he said during that broadcast, I wrote, in part:
‘Let us stipulate that George Bush is a mediocrity, that he’s not particularly bright,’ said Mr. O’Rourke (and I paraphrase). ‘OK, fine. But to say that a mediocrity is unfit for the Oval Office is essentially antidemocratic, going against the very ideals of the American Dream. For if Mr. Bush is unfit for office because he isn’t brilliant, then the alternative is that only smart people can hold that office. If that’s the case, we’ve become a meritocracy, even an aristocracy of the mind.’
I would like readers for a moment to simply insert any name into Mr. O'Rourke's unarguably astute observation. Just add Barack Obama's name, or Joe Biden's. But maybe you should put Sarah Palin's name in the whole of O'Rourke's equation -- in bold letters.
Let us indeed concede, at least for the sake of argument, that Sarah Palin is the most mediocre person in the world, at least the Republican world. Considered it so conceded.
But are we not at worst conceited if we insist that a mediocre person -- and surely none of us here is one whit tepid, bland, or insipid -- is unfit for the vice presidency of the United States?
I recall arguing with a liberal Democrat friend during the 2000 election cycle. He had worked himself into quite a fury; I swear there were flecks of foam gathered in the corners of his mouth. You see, he could not comprehend that anyone could consider George W. Bush a viable candidate; my friend denounced the man as an idiot, a dolt, a veritable ingrate.
As you should all know by now, I've never been a big fan of Mr. Bush's. And I can assure you that in 2000, the man was nowhere to be found on my political radar screen. But I was at the very least somewhat taken aback that my friend would call George W. Bush stupid and incompetent. To counter this, I recall making this foolish statement:
"I don't quite know how you can call him 'stupid.' That man can't be all that stupid who earn degrees from two Ivy League schools (Yale and Harvard's Business School)."
I cannot tell you how counter-effective my statement instantly became. My friend became even more irate, denouncing me as stupid for not realizing that Bush was a "mere legacy" child of Yale and Harvard, that he was an "affirmative action" placement for the stupid but obscenely rich.
It struck me as odd how quickly my liberal friend had turned against such an esteemed credential as an Ivy League diploma; I noted a paradox. For only years earlier, America had been told that the "men of the people," the good old southern boy Bill Clinton and his sidekick Al Gore, were proud holders of Ivy League degrees (Clinton, a Georgetown undergrad, earned his JD at Yale). These added to their bona fides; they could not possibly be typical dopes. But amazingly, George W. Bush in 2000 was dismissed for being nothing but a privileged white kid whose daddy bribed Yale to serve as his son's reform school.
And then, of course, 2008 came along and we find ourselves constantly reminded that Barack Obama is qualified to be president because he holds degrees from two Ivy League schools.
(Did you know that George W. Bush actually performed better at Yale than his contemporary, Sen. John Kerry? You probably didn't, but, oh, how we heard about that C-student in the White House!)
Now comes Sarah Palin. Note that the Democrats, the leftist media, and even some of her own Republican colleagues have turned the American Dream upside down: Not everyone can be what they want to become, Sarah, and you should just cease aspiring to America's highest echelons. As I wrote in 2004 in my letter, such language does destroy the American Dream:
[Mr.] O’Rourke’s comments are quasi-revolutionary. For he affirms nearly every high school and university commencement address given over the last 30 years (‘Believe in yourself and you can be anything’), and yet subverts the popular paradigm. To oppose Bush or any president on grounds of intellectual inferiority is tantamount to declaring that some people - the mediocre - should not be allowed to fulfill their dreams. Only the brilliant should be in high places.
In other words, a democracy such as ours is only open up to a certain point. There are some places the mediocre cannot go, at least when it comes to participating in the governance of what is, or so it is said in theory, a nation governed by its own people.
I've already spotted, like you have, extremely damning commentary about Sarah Palin's lack of academic credentials. Writers have mocked her for attending the obscure North Idaho College and less-obscure University of Idaho. Curiously, nary a word is said about Joe Biden's self-described profoundly mediocre academic ventures at both Delaware and Syracuse (and we all know that neither school can ever pretend to be Ivy League). Sen. Biden's Wikipedia is rather telling (if true):
Biden attended the Archmere Academy in Claymont, where he was athletically, not academically, oriented and a natural leader among the students. He graduated in 1961.
Biden attended the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, where by his own later description he was a lazy student. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts with a double major in history and political science in 1965, ranked 506th of 688 in his class.
He went on to receive his JD from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968, where by his own description he again underperformed and ranked 76th of 85 students.
____________________
Thursday night is the "big debate" between Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden. It is a one-shot deal for both of them. Here's hoping they both do well. But we can expect a billion words printed, published and voiced about "mediocrity" in the coming days. In anticipation of those words, I would like to conclude here the same way I concluded my letter in 2004 (with slight modifications):
One must consider carefully: We’ve all known smooth talkers who chat themselves into great jobs, only to drive co-workers and employers batty. Often the less stellar interviewee for a job turns out to be a winner. No doubt Bush has milked the diamond-in-the-rough image effectively, while oleaginous Kerry has become all-things-to-all-men so completely, he is nearly no one. All to say that – and please forgive the doggerel – a master of oration may be a disaster for a nation.
If we are truly committed to diversity and tolerance, if we are to dance about celebrating our grand differences, then ousting [or rejecting] a president [or candidate] because he [or she] is intellectually mediocre is philosophically repugnant.
I make no claim for myself that I am the first or only person to ask the question in this post's title (though I do notice a few bloggers who beat me to it who failed to spell Ms. Miers' name correctly in their respective headlines).
Regardless, I do hope you will take a look at the interesting Kathleen Parker essay over at National Review Online called, "Palin Problem." And yes, Parker is a real conservative.
I thank Contratimes' visitor SE for passing along Ms. Parker's commentary.
Following up on "Who Needs Karl Rove? (Part 2)", I direct readers to the following interview given yesterday by Sen. Joe Biden, Barack Obama's running mate.
Where does Joe Biden leave us? And what are Democrats -- middle American Democrats -- thinking when they hear this sort of confession?
Mr. Biden thinks that his OWN RUNNING MATE'S advertisement denigrating Sen. McCain is "terrible." What does this admission say about the very health of the Obama-Biden ticket? And if these sorts of admissions are already coming from the Barack Obama campaign, what should we expect once Barack Obama assumes the presidency? If this no-holds-barred tactlessness, this scorch-the-earth-and-screw-the-handicapped-senator-and-his-satanic VP is de rigueur for Obama Nation BEFORE the Democrats have the White House, what will that Nation do if Sen. Obama did something untoward, controversial, stupid or, God forbid, illegal, after he attains the White House?
Honestly, I don't know how anyone in good conscience at this moment can support the Obama-Biden ticket. I really don't. But people of clearly bad conscience do support that ticket, people like "Forrester," a commenter over at FoxNews.com. Note what Forrester says:
“one reason McCain doesn’t use computers much is that his injuries from Vietnam prevent him from doing so” . . . riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Stephen Hawking can use a computer, but John McCain, not so much.
The idiocy of Forrester's comment is evident if one pauses for only the slightest moment. Moreover, his idiocy is pervasive; I've heard this unbelievably stupid statement uttered by callers to talk radio. (Forgive my incendiary remarks!)
The fact is that John McCain is simply a different person: according to reports, it HURTS John McCain to use the computer keyboard. But the paraplegic with a keyboard or the man with Lou Gehrig's Disease are not necessarily in pain while tapping out sentences or using voice-activated systems. Sure John McCain could probably afford to purchase an adaptive keyboard, but why should he bother when his wife is willing to type in his stead? Those of us who can actually feel pain know that pain can severely limit; even temporary pain stops a person in his or her steps.
What distances me from those who support the Obama campaign is that such folks, many of whom are my friends and neighbors, seem quite able to tolerate a level of cruelty I simply can't. The abject cruelty shown not only to Mr. McCain but to his VP pick is beyond the pale, and it is not a cruelty hurled from the bottom of some pit, but from society's highest echelons. Barack Obama APPROVED an advertisement that was cruel; and whether by intent or sheer ignorance, such cruelty is inexcusable. And only a complete incompetent could not find a brutal, cruel and even vicious essay or commentary written or voiced about Ms. Palin less than a stone's throw from this website.
Barack Obama is here to help us feel good about America again? Today, that strikes this writer as a rather cruel joke.
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." -- Anne Lamott
I remember getting emails from a very progressive woman who used the above Anne Lamott quote as her email signature. It is a great quote, of course; despite it being the only thing I've read by Anne Lamott (save for a few fragments here and there) until a few minutes ago, I have to confess that Ms. Lamott gets something wonderfully right in just 25.5 words.
Sadly (and it is sad), Ms. Lamott gets just about everything wrong in her Sept. 16 Salon.com essay, "A Call to Arms." This writer laments Ms. Lamott's great lamentation not solely because of its loathsome invocation and confession of hate, but because it bewilders the soul, as Ms. Lamott is known as something of a "Christian." Hence, her remarks draw attention to the fact that her Christ must be a projection of her own self-image.
Here is Anne Lamott on Sarah Palin's ascension to the vice-presidency:
I had to leave church Sunday morning when it turned out that the sermon was not about bearing up under desperate circumstances, when you feel like you're going crazy because something is being perpetrated upon you and your country that is so obscene that it simply cannot be happening.
I sat outside a 7-Eleven and had a sacramental Dove chocolate bar. Jeez: Here we are again. A man and a woman whose values we loathe and despise -- lying, rageful and incompetent, so dangerous to children and old people, to innocent people in every part of the world -- are being worshiped, exalted by the media, in a position to take a swing at all that is loveliest about this earth and what's left of our precious freedoms.
When I got home from church, I drank a bunch of water to metabolize the Dove bar and called my Jesuit friend, who I know hates these people, too. I asked, "Don't you think God finds these smug egomaniacs morally repellent? Recoils from their smugness as from hot flame?"
And he said, "Absolutely. They are everything He or She hates in a Christian."
I have been in a better mood ever since, and have decided not to even say this woman's name anymore, because she fills me with such existential doubt, such a sense of impending doom and disbelief, that only the Germans could possibly have words for it. Nor am I going to say the word "lipstick" again until after the election, as it would only be used against me. Or "polar bear," because that one image makes me sadder than even horrible old I can stand.
I hate to criticize. And I love to kill wolves as much as the next person does. But this woman takes such pride in her ignorance, doesn't have a doubt in the world about her messianic calling, that it makes anyone of decency feel nauseated -- spiritually, emotionally and physically ill.
I say that with love. As we say in Texas. (Also, we say, "Bless her heart.")
We felt this grief and nausea during the run-up to the war in Iraq. We felt it after the 2004 election. And now we feel it again.
[…]she is absolutely, hands-down the most ludicrous person ever to be nominated. She's a "South Park" character. There was a mix-up. Mistakes were made.
Everything you need to know about how to bear up during these two months is already inside you.… Now, I am a reform Christian, so it is permissible for me to secretly believe that God hates this woman, too.
Ms. Lamott, I recognize, is a writer. This fact should surely be offered as her excuse; she is exploring ideas, playing with words, exorcising her demons. Her writing is a catharsis; it is her coping strategy. As such, she cannot be held accountable for her actual words, or what those words mean: nay, only intent matters, and her intent to is self-medicate, to heal, offering analgesics to others along the way. She's offering potions. She's a medicine woman, and writing is her wagon.
Her strange elixir, however, is hardly helpful largely because it is plainly un-Christlike. Not that I am putting myself forward as an exemplar of Christian behavior; I haven't presented myself as such in the past and have no intention of doing so now. I am too busy trying to love myself the right way to even start hating anyone else. My own worst enemy is inside these very words; I haven't any need to blame anyone else for my woes. Of course, I do poke fun at others, particularly those folks in the media who seem (to me) to think they've somehow arrived ahead of the rest of us. But I do not hate these folks, nor do I call anyone "friend" who does. But Ms. Lamott DOES hate Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin not only makes Ms. Lamott "spiritually, emotionally and physically ill," she is likely hated by God Himself, or so Ms. Lamott intimates from beneath her un-Christlike sarcasm.
I take that last part -- that God secretly hates Sarah Palin -- as a bit of Lamott vanity. But even a woman of letters should perhaps be circumspect when invoking the Lord's Name, let alone His Hatred, in vain. But if Ms. Lamott believes that when she and He hate the same person she is committing self-generated idolatry, worshiping her finely apotheosized self, she leaves us precious little to hold onto: She's created God in her image and she either doesn't know it or she doesn't care.
Hence, she gives fearful import to that noble warning: what a dreadful thing it is to fall into the hands of thy God. I, at least, think being judged and damned by oneself is indeed a great thing to fear. All by myself, I have enough to fear. Is there not woe enough in the world without having to worry whether Anne Lamott and her God hate me, too?
On Friday, September 12, 2008, the New York Times ran an editorial, "Gov. Palin's Worldview." On Saturday, September 13, 2008, the New York Times published a story about Gov. Palin's manner of governance. After reading the two pieces in sequence, one can immediately dismiss any thoughts that the New York Times intends on setting things straight.
The two NY Times pieces remind me of something Times columnist David Brooks wrote in his great little book, Bobos In Paradise. (I am also reminded of what I wrote regarding the industry of political prognostication -- that nasty habit -- in my essay, "The New Alchemist: The Pundit Who Makes Gold From Nothing.") Here is what Mr. Brooks said about journalism (for the complete quote, see immediately preceding link):
To get the most attention, the essay should be wrong. Logical essays are read and understood. But an illogical or wrong essay will prompt dozens of other writers to rise and respond, thus giving the author mounds of publicity.
What Mr. Brooks was discussing conforms to my feelings perfectly, as it makes me wonder whether the New York Times' strategy to maintain a committed readership is simply to get things wrong. Surely the Times draws thousands of conservatives its way each morning, all intent on counting the blunders, spotting the omissions, and denouncing its undeniable bias and hubris. How else to explain its demonstrable penchant for propaganda, its blatant disregard of journalism's presumed posture of objectivity? Is it not a bald attempt to maintain a readership and secure its profits?
Before the Times ran its sophomoric yet probably effective (how sad!) piece on Saturday, it showed its hand on Friday: The Times, as I said yesterday, is intent on reshaping reality before our eyes; it intends to bewitch and confuse, and it wants to play to its faithful readers' anxieties -- the very anxieties the paper creates on any given day. For the Times' goal is to portray Sarah Palin as the new George W. Bush, secretive and power-grabbing. The only difference is that she's George W. Bush in lipstick.
There is no way this can be denied; one read through either piece proves the case against the Times. The paper cares less about the news; it cares everything about controlling the human mind. It essentially trundles out all the old canards and false impressions: Bush and Palin are intellectually incurious, inflexible, ambitious, grossly dependent and scripted, learning their positions on the fly, surrounding themselves with friends. Both "pray," and believe that they are on a mission from God (gross characterizations, of course). Both are fun and witty and playful, no doubt; they have an ear for singing the right tune to the people. And yet both run profoundly secretive administrations; they abuse power (like email!), and they demand absolute loyalty from their staffs.
(Note: Have you ever noticed that the Bush White House is always described as the most secretive in history, and yet every dopey leftist journalist and pol knows exactly what's going on, not only in the obscure machinations of the Oval Office, but in the dark and devious brains of the President and his Lord, Dick Cheney? Doesn't anybody see the irony here?)
It should be obvious that the Times' editorial exploring Gov. Palin's worldview will not, and does not, explore the governor's worldview at all. This oversight cannot be accidental; if it is, then the Times is truly a waste. It can only mean one thing: that Gov. Palin does not really have a worldview. Which is exactly what the Times wants you to believe.
There was an amazing article in Saturday's New York Times. Perhaps you heard about it. Maybe you even read it.
I read it, and I found it amusing.
The story -- as if you could not have guessed -- focuses on Sarah Palin's governorship of Alaska. The portrait it paints of Alaska's beloved governor is apparently quite controversial. Here's perhaps the most damning passage, which just happens to be the lead:
Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.
So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency. [emphasis added]
The editorial slant of the Times' lead is hardly worth noting, since the Times can't help itself. The lead is really a broad and silly assertion based in pure fantasy: if you read the story to its end, you will discover nothing that justifies the Times' conclusion that Ms. Palin lives a certain way; that she follows a maxim. It's obscenely overwrought.
What we find instead of journalism is the Times damning a politician for being something apparently really bad, namely, a politician.
Only a naif would think that a governor in a small state like Alaska (demographically speaking) would not appoint some friends to decent administrative posts. That Franci Havemeister is not really sitting atop a very high position -- she's merely the director of the Division of Agriculture, which falls under the direction of Alaska's Department of Natural Resources' head Tom Irwin -- is hardly alarming. Nor is it all alarming that a high school friend might be picked by a governor for a certain post.
Let me state that I can think of at least five people from my small high-school class I could easily choose to serve the state of NH effectively were I this state's governor. One of my old classmates is the executor of my estate; I did not choose him because we are chums -- we're not really, or I should say that we definitely were not in high school. I chose him because he is excellent at what he does. I have no problem choosing good people, especially if I KNOW them. In fact, it makes sense to choose those one knows, especially if those folks are competent or excellent. Amazingly, Sarah Palin is damned for appointing people with whom she is familiar.
Note that the Times never mentions whether any appointment made by Governor Palin to any position has wreaked havoc on the political or social fabric of Alaska. No list of complaints against the head of the Division of Agriculture; no laundry list of corruption or ineptitude follows a single paragraph in the Times. No, what is apparently so appalling is that a governor would appoint a handful of friends to relatively low positions in the state bureaucracy who were GOOD at their jobs. (For perspective, there are state police patrolmen in Massachusetts who earn far more per year than Alaska's director of agriculture.)
What else does the Times neglect? (Note what I've suggested in my question: the Times neglects things. How sad that what has been considered the most important paper in the country actually does neglect fundamental things.)
For example, it neglects to tell us what Ms. Havemeister's full qualifications actually are; there is not even a mention of her education. But the paper also neglects to tell us what Ms. Havemeister's job requires; I look at the Division of Agriculture's homepage and it sounds to me like someone with a background in real estate and small business might be able handle the job quite well, particularly since agriculture in Alaska is all about land and small business. At least I learn from the Times that Ms. Havemeister has a background in real estate, though what sort of background (a wildly successful one?) is too much for the paper to explore.
The Times also fails to mention whether former Alaskan governors have appointed friends; it fails to explore if any governors in America have classmates from high school in their administrations. Perhaps Governor Palin's actions are actually quite modest, with other administrations hiring far more "friends of the governor." Clearly Gov. Palin's appointments and actions have not been unwelcome or detrimental, since Governor Palin enjoys astronomical bi-partisan approval ratings.
Here's another very odd passage from the Times' report:
The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc.
I hope you see why this is odd. First, the paragraph makes a rather odd leap. It has "Mr. Bitney," a former JUNIOR high school bandmate as somehow connected to Ms. Palin's HIGH school graduating class, and that this weird leap and dubious connection amount to proof of cronyism (or so they imply). The implication that Mr. Bitney is where he is in politics today because he played in a band with Ms. Palin in seventh grade is absurd and sophomoric. Second, the Times has already told us in paragraph 3 that
Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.
The Times, apparently, cannot tell how many of Gov. Palin's former classmates work in her administration, which is very odd, considering the paper has a "veritable directory of state government" at its disposal. Can a "veritable directory of state government" only have six names in it? Are there only six Wasilla High School students running the entire Alaskan government?
I admit that my questions are partly facetious, but only in part. The fact is quite overwhelming that we are witnessing the "greatest" newspaper in America at its very best, doing its very best to damn a Republican vice-presidential candidate, and yet in the process proving its profound ineptitude. Is this the best the Times can do? Is this all the dirt that's fit to print about Ms. Palin -- that she behaves like a politician, one so down and dirty most Alaskans love her? This is damning? Of Ms. Palin, or the New York Times?
And I have to say that I love this [emphasis added]:
When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.
Say it isn't so! A chief executive huddled with -- no! -- her husband "who is not a state employee"?! You mean she had the audacity to run Alaska's state house like, I don't know, Bill Clinton ran his White House, "huddling" with his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was "not a state employee" at the time? How shameful!
Lastly, check this out:
[...]four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.
“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”
That this detail is mere gossip does not ruin the fact that it is plainly funny. Why? Well, because if this is Ms. Whitstine's blog, then I would ask her to quit blogging, too. (I am surprised the Times did not tell us the name of Ms. Whitstines's blog, or provide a link to it for its online readers.)
By the way, I have a message for Ms. Frye: On behalf of bloggers everywhere, thank you! (I am sorry, Ms. Whitstine.)
The Times has proven itself once again unable to escape its current well-established legacy of mediocrity. It's still the sort of paper you read in public, but now only discreetly. It's a gossip sheet, really. And gossip is only sexy for a little while. Then it just gets old. Old, and gray, and really annoying.
(Psst! Listen to this. You know what this article is really saying? Sarah Palin is like George W. Bush! Shhh! No, no. I am not kidding you! What? How dare you suggest Ms. Havemeister has more executive experience than Barack Obama. Shame on you!)
The American media have been talking a lot about elitism of late, particularly after the Republican National Convention. A few in the press see the Democratic Party as being rife with elitism and snobbery, unjustly condescending toward the "fly-over states" of the American heartland. But most journalists, or so it seems to this writer, denounce such characterizations as paranoid and even hypocritical, and yet in such denunciations often actually prove the case against them.
This writer also admits the obvious fact that snobbery can easily take up residence in the homes of conservatives or liberals. However, I believe that most media and academic portrayals of American life are often far more favorable toward liberal and progressive values than they are toward conservative ones. I think any reading of the American press's reaction to Sarah Palin, that apparent rouge-covered rube, proves that elitism abounds in the popular and liberal press and is blisteringly critical of the heartland. That Barack Obama said at a San Francisco gathering that heartlanders cling to God and guns precisely speaks to this point. And irrespective of what Mr. Obama meant, what was heard was snobbery of the highest (or lowest) order.
The other night I watched a rerun of the now syndicated and long-popular TV sit-com, "Frasier." It was one of the show's earliest episodes (actually the third). Readers familiar with the back-story of the show know that the title character, Frasier Crane, is an insufferable pedant infatuated by his own effete persona. Being a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and a recently hired radio talk-show personality in Seattle, where he lives in a trendy apartment with his elderly father (Martin, a retired cop, blue-collar to the core), Frasier can afford to move in society's higher circles where he, and his equally effete and rather frail younger brother (Niles Crane, also a psychiatrist) imbibe in life's most refined pleasures. The show's irony is that the two psychiatrists are wildly insecure and even self-delusional, blundering through life with an assumed transcendence, putting on airs at every turn. Frasier Crane is really Charlie Brown; he's just Charlie Brown with an Ivy League education ... and a great deal of conceit. The entire show is probably Charles Schultz' "Peanuts," just in sit-com format.
The episode I watched was called "Dinner At Eight." It originally aired on Sept. 30, 1993. The story line is rather simple: Frasier and Niles, feeling so estranged from their blue-collar working-class father they wonder if they were fertilized from someone else's loins, decide to take their dad to a tony Seattle restaurant, Le Cigare Volant, both to elevate their dad's sensibilities and improve their relationship. When Frasier's Le Cigare Volant reservation is lost, he and Niles reluctantly follow their dad to Martin's favorite steakhouse, The Timber Mill. To Frasier and Niles, the theme-oriented restaurant is hopelessly tacky, sub-standard, and impossibly "American." They feign enthusiasm but fail to conceal their contempt. After getting their steaks and potatoes (three "Paul Bunyans"), they have this exchange (amid complaints that the courses are coming out of the kitchen too fast and the place too tawdry):
Martin (father): I don't mind you guys being tough on this place, but you could be a little nicer to the waitress.
Frasier: You're right. I'll apologize when she comes with the dessert, which should be any time now.
(Pause for eating/chewing)
Martin: Sometimes there is nothing like a good steak.
Frasier: Well, I wish this was one of those times.
Martin (exasperated): What's wrong?
Frasier: Well, I don't mean to complain but--
Martin: Well, then don't!
(Pause)
Martin: For your information, these steaks come from prized beef raised at... (distracted by Niles, who is picking at his potato) What the hell are you doing?
Niles: Something seems to have fallen into my potato.
Martin (excitedly): Those are bacon bits!
Niles: But I didn't ask for them.
Martin: I ordered all the fixins' ... you got all the fixins'.
Niles: But I don't eat bacon because of the nitrates.
Martin: No problem, they're artificial. They're made out of soy.
Frasier: They really look out for your health here, don't they?
(Both sons suppress giggles.)
Martin (scoldingly): Everybody in this restaurant's enjoying the dinner. Can't you guys do the same?
(Everyone resumes eating.)
Frasier: Niles?
Niles: Hmm, hmm.
Frasier: Is Maris [Niles' wife] organizing the arts council benefit again this year?
Niles: Matter of fact, she is.
Frasier: Where are they holding it?
Niles: Well, they haven't picked a spot yet. Perhaps I should tell them about this place!
(Suppresed laughter; dad glares disgustedly.)
Niles: I would like to be a fly on the wall that night.
Frasier: You wouldn't be the only one!
(Explosive laughter.)
Martin (throwing down his napkin): Alright. That's it. I had enough of you two jackasses. I spent the whole night listening to you makin' cracks about the food, and the help. Well, I got news for you. People like this place. I like this place. And when you insult this restaurant you insult me. ...You know, I used to think you two took after your mother, liking the ballet and all that. But your mother liked a good ball game, too. She would even have a hot-dog once in a while. She may have had fancy taste but she had too much class to ever make me or anybody else feel second-rate. If she saw the way you two behaved tonight she'd be ashamed. I know I am.
(Martin leaves the restaurant.)
(By the way, is Sarah Palin the waitress?) __________________
"When you insult this restaurant, you insult me." It's a powerful indictment, a piercing rebuke.
I know that all classes insult one another. I know that some of the poorest folk in America think themselves better than the "filthy rich." I know some in the upper classes patronize their lesser neighbors. But what I also know is that the way many on the left insult the leaders of the Republican Party is to identify them as rubes, rednecks, and far worse. George W. Bush is an Ivy League product, but he's not generally identified by the left as elite. Rather, he's depicted as an essential village idiot. Sarah Palin is chided for being a hunter, a hockey mom, a mere Alaskan. The left always, or nearly always, considers the gravest insult to be some identification with heartland values, ideas, sentiments or tastes.
Middle America, that broad landscape, has grown sick of it. It has long been saying that when you insult this country, at least this corner of the country, then "you insult me." Describing Middle America as backward, dumb, homophobic, racist, docile, pliant, creationist, fundamentalist, native, naive, bigoted, clingy, belligerent, gauche, provincial, homey, low-brow, simple or crude, is derogation aimed not at mere adjectives, but at real people. And the irony of such abusive language is exactly the irony of Frasier, for it reveals the left's blindness to its own contemptuousness, its own resentful lack of class. (And it shows the left forgets one critical demographic fact: elites are always in a minority, hence its broad insults injure the majority -- who will vote.)
Look. When Sarah Palin is dismissed for being a beauty queen or because she attended North Idaho State, while Barack Obama is deified because he went to an Ivy League school; when John McCain's class-standing at the naval academy is trundled out to denounce him while Barack Obama's editorship of the Harvard Law Review proves him "brilliant," elitism and not humility comes to mind. There are so many damning snide and condescending remarks issued by the left on any given day it is almost pointless to point out the obvious; a man may as well boldly announce he's discovered that the sky is blue.
Martin Crane's lesson is an important one, especially this campaign season, but I am not sure it is a lesson possible to heed. No doubt his words have made me more circumspect. But I wonder. I wonder.
