« The best column ever written about the war in Afghanistan | David Seaton's Blog | If it isn't Sarah, it'll be somebody like Sarah »
The Sarah Palin "mystery" unlocked
Palin's popularity has as much to do with class as it does with ideology. In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president represents the meritocratic ideal -- that anyone, from any background, can grow up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal -- that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard. Ross Douthat - New York TimesReading most of the mainstream media (MSM) comments on Sarah Palin I get the feeling that for the urban Americans who write in those media Sarah Palin is as foreign a personality as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the attraction she possesses for fly-over Americans seems as mysterious to them as the propensity of Koreans to eat cute puppies.
One of my odd experiences covering the US in the early 1990s was visiting militia groups that sprang up in Texas, Idaho, and Ohio in the aftermath of recession. These were mostly blue-collar workers, - early victims of global "labor arbitrage" - angry enough with Washington to spend weekends in fatigues with M16 rifles. Most backed protest candidate Ross Perot, who won 19pc of the presidential vote in 1992 with talk of shutting trade with Mexico. The inchoate protest dissipated once recovery fed through to jobs, although one fringe group blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995. Unfortunately, there will be no such jobs this time. Capacity use has fallen to record-low levels (68pc in the US, 71 in the eurozone). A deep purge of labour is yet to come. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard - Telegraph
Think globally, suffer locally. This could be the moral of "Methland," Nick Reding's unnerving investigative account of two gruesome years in the life of Oelwein, Iowa, a railroad and meatpacking town of several thousand whipped by a methamphetamine-laced panic whose origins lie outside the place itself, in forces almost too great to comprehend and too pitiless to bear.(...) The madness stalking tiny, defenseless Oelwein may eventually come for all of us, we learn, and once again, as happens in America whenever our collective attention wanders from the gray struggles of the little guy to the purple capers of the big wheels, attention must be paid. Right now. Or else. Review of "Methland", New York Times
This leads me to believe that the urban-based commentators are "misunderestimating" this woman, for in reality the reaction she produces in them is the mirror image of the the reaction she produces in the masses of people these commentators by turns patronize or despise.
Whoever Sarah Palin may really be, she functions powerfully as a type. What, for deracinated urbanites, constitutes prima facie evidence of trailer trashdom, resonates as identity for the struggling members of America's discouraged and marginalized warrior caste, the rural-rooted scotch-irish and their various semi-urban sept clans. Although it in politically incorrect to notice it, they too are a hyphenated, disadvantaged, ethnic group.
Also on a personal level she also seems to have solved one of America's most crushing and ubiquitous problems: how can a woman without exceptional academic qualifications, or inherited money, successfully have children, a happy husband and a productive career? The sneaking suspicion that this lady is not as dumb as she is made out to be even creeps occasionally into the consciousness of many women of impeccably liberal credentials .
Sarah Palin's attraction for her base is that of the "Woman" of Peggy Lee's big, Lieber and Stoller hit, who sings, "I can make a dress out of a feed bag and I can make a man out of you".
Those who have never seen and handled a cotton feedbag, or seen and handled the type of women who has done so, may have trouble relating to this message. There are millions of Americans who do... and almost all of them live in the lower 48.
Palin's move is the only logical one open to her.
Leaving Alaska is essential if she is to have any future in US politics. In Alaska she sits far from her potential base, only accessible to them through the hostile filter of the MSM.
Now, freed of Alaska, she can begin to tour flyover America making personal contact with her ethnic-identity base in an endless variety of venues. In many ways her putting Alaska behind her is as fundamentally logical as president Obama's leaving Hawaii was.
If another 900,000 jobs disappear by the end of the year--likely, without unexpected improvement--an entire decade of employment gains will have been wiped out. In January of 2000, there were 130.8 million jobs in the country. "It's not that those jobs weren't needed," says Heidi Shierholz, an economist for the Economic Policy Institute. "The labor force has grown by nearly 13 million people." ForbesDespite the talk of "green shoots", we are facing a jobless recovery that stretches far into the future and this is already causing notable unrest in Sarah Palin's natural constituency. Who knows who a jobless America might be willing to vote for in 2012?
Sarah Palin's only chance for political survival is to become the "Joan of Arc" of America's white, working poor. And liberals had better pray that she is successful in her endeavor, because, the way things are going, Barack Obama's only chance for reelection may be a split on class lines in the GOP, with Sarah Palin as the Perot-like spoiler.
Advertisement
I think she sees that there is more money to be made, "running for Prez" than being the Governor of Alaska.
A Daily Dish reader puts it well:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/palin-the-right-and-money.html
July 7, 2009 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might be right. There is no calculation that would realistically put her in a better position having "cut and run" rather than serving her full term, and any reasonable aides would note this. Some former supporters, perhaps even a significant number, are sure to be gone from the quitter. Ultimately, though, there probably remain enough of them for Palin to be able to successfully peddle whatever outside of politics.
Occam says that some type of scandal/blackmail is still the likeliest cause of her resignation, but it is definitely within the realm of possibility that she just could not face criticism of her actions and purposely extracted herself to a completely friendly audience where she will get adoration and money, and enjoy a fairly substantial shield from media criticism because she is not a government figure and does not need to answer to anyone, so to speak.
July 7, 2009 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect poor little Sarah has never been held responsible for her actions in her entire life. So when she was confronted with a mountain of legal challenges ($500,000 so far in legal expenses), mostly filed within the last 12 months via the Alaska Ethics Board she's scrambling for cover. Seems everything she does nowadays results in an ethnics complaint against her. So her only solution was to resign to cut her financial losses. I sure she took it to heart when Bu$h's legal beagles said if the President says it's okay, it's not illegal. She probably felt anything she did that was for the good of Alaska in her mind was legal regardless what someone thought or what the law said.
July 7, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So little Sarah was pure as gold on ethics until 12 months ago? What happened?
You need a time line -- did the ethics act just kick in then or was she being fly-specked for ordinary political trimming because she had become a target in national politics?
Not vouching for her ethics but wondering if they differed markedly from other Alaskan pols.
July 7, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, pay attention. Troopergate started in July of last year and since then the ethics complaints being lodged started to roll in.
July 7, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You betcha! :-) No mystery there to me, I don't see how everyone doesn't see it is obvious. She has star power; like her or hate her, she's got "it." Look at how many reader bloggers here like to write about her, and how many got interested in her personal life during the election. Her "constituency" as a celebrity is much much bigger than her constituency in politics. I heard her P.R. person being interviewed on the phone after the announcement, she said "the world is her oyster."
If she decides to do mostly political celeb things, to market to the conservative "base," she'll make Anne Coulter look like a tired old boring harridan.
But she can also try for a much bigger market (once again, see how she has appeal in the liberal blogosphere, they love to hate her.) She could easily be a "family values" version of Phil Donahue, Rosie O'Donnell or even reach for the monetary heights of Oprah Winfrey. Her possible market goes way beyond the trailer trash and alienated white working class crowd, and she clearly knows quite well how to do that. There was great personal style there in appearance and presentation before the McCain handlers got a hold of her, she's far savvier on that front than most beauty queens. as far as how she looks and presents herself, she could compete with any downtown Manattanite. The whole family situation makes me think going more in the Oprah direction--the Down's syndrome child, the teen pregnancy, things like that make people think she understands other's problems. I can easily visualize her having a much livelier, funnier more interesting conversation with Dr. Phil than Oprah does. As a celeb, she's much more attractive as a chirpy talker than she is trying to do serious political stuff. Ask Tina Fey (or any drag queen making a living doing Liza or Streisand) those with star power and strong personas and style are the ones that make for great parody material.
As to those who predict she is "finished" in politics by doing any of those things or what she has done so far, I would point out that we have a new Senator from Minnesota who was formerly a quite outrageous comedian whose career included lots of silliness like the persona Stuart Smalley.
P.S. I note with interest how Joe the Plumber still seems quite reluctant to go back to plumbing--anything to keep his name out there and bringing in a few shekels. I'd do the same in his position, if a few people want to pay to see me, I'll go rather than work.
July 7, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another thought, for those who pooh-pooh the power of celebrity. Who has more power to affect lives in large numbers--a state governor or Oprah Winfrey? (Certainly the monetary renumeration does not compare, hah.)
July 7, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your basically calling her the Anna Kournikova of politics. Howevever, while Anna is easy on the eyes, she never had a tournament win. Her star has pretty much faded, too. Sarah doesn't have Oprah appeal. For one thing, Oprah reads.
July 7, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conversely, I think you vastly overestimate her appeal. Just as vast as the difference between the skillset of getting people to laugh with you and having people laugh at you.
July 7, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Karl ol' boy, has Sarah changed your avatar?
July 7, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, although I suspect you should know where it comes from, being probably very close to its origin on the elitist side of the Atlantic.
July 7, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The relatively few who find Palin attractive get lost in that and vastly overestimate not only her appeal but also her attractiveness.
She is not actually that attractive of a woman. And that's not even getting, yet, to the profound vapidity, the bottomless lack of substance, behind the limitless ambition wrapped up in the winking bafflegabbing confuse-'em-with-bullshit airhead bimbo.
She had no problem dishing out the racist and otherwise hatefulness; her problem was in assuming she should be exempt from treatment in kind. Begin to criticize her irresponsible conduct and she takes her imaginary ball of superiority and stomps out of the room in a huff.
July 7, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
A country that could elect Ronald Reagan president is quite capable of anything.
The only thing that could ever propel her to the White House IMHO is more lower middle class hardship... which is certainly possible, n'est pas?
July 7, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only was Ronald Reagan elected twice, there is genuine sadness that he is not still president!!!!
July 7, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zombie or no ...
July 7, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see, all we ever needed in a President was for him to be a good actor. That is, until things started getting complicated.
July 7, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. All you need is a puppet that woos the crowd while others work in the background, under cover pulling the strings of government and steering it to a new direction while everyone is distracted. Worked for Reagan ad worked for Bu$h II.
July 7, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
you forget 1 important thing, palin is not intelligent.
yea yea i know..bla bla
she cant hide her intelligence this long and why would she be trying??
there is no secret to this woman.
she is a master at manipulation and actually believes she can fool enough people all the time.
and guess what?
she had up untill she got exposed by mccain.
since then its been all downhill for her and it will continue to go down.
because there are much smarter people around doing the same thing.......
July 7, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a master manipulator, Sarah Palin is probably using very much the same thing for brains as George W. Bush did: both were clumsy with the language, incurious, lacking in a grasp of fact but able to present themselves as trustworthy regular folk. When a Presidential race is run on who you'd like to have a beer with they are exceedingly dangerous, bright or not.
July 7, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say I thought she could run for president and win. I didn't even say I thought she could unify the GOP. I said she had strong star celebrity qualities.
Oprah Winfrey often acts like she's dumber than she is on a lot of stuff, even though she's smart. I think that's part of her popularity, she tries to act "common." I also happen to think she did quite a bit to help the current president win the presidential primary, you can call it wielding power if you want.
As to Palin killing any chance of returning to exercise political power by chasing the star route, though, once again: a comedian just became Senator of Minnesota. Minnesota also had a professsional wrestler as governor for a while. Neither of those people previously held any prior serious political offices, they didn't have the *experience* she has if you want to call it that.
And people are correct to point out that both Ronald Reagan and George Bush are similar in that they had a single-minded focus on simplistic ideologies. Reagan used his name recognition from acting to climb the activist and then political ladder, Bush used his family name to skip the work part. The Reagan comparison is also fruitful in that he instinctively understood selling his persona and he was ruthlessly ambitious while appearing dumb and friendly. Neither Reagan nor Bush needed to be weighed down with detailed learnin' stuff because they believed their ideologies told them most of what they needed to know. Actually, where Palin may fall down in the higher executive office department is that she doesn't appear to like to try to manage or work with people. I guess that's one of the reasons she appears to me to be destined for some kind of celebrity position in our society rather than an executive one.
July 8, 2009 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
my point was she does not wear well.
regardless of any reason a politician succeeds he/she must be liked by the people .
palin does not improve the more you see her.
she gets worse.
July 8, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderestimate us. We didn't go out and seek info on the Witch from Wasilla, we were bombarded with it. Besides, Palin made sure the public was keenly aware of her in her political posturing to make herself visible.
July 7, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is such a bogus excuse in this day and age. I can see with my own eyes what the liberal political junkie audience is interested in.
Elsewhere on TPM Recommended Reader Blogs right now:
In this day and age of "viral," I think that if the liberal blogosphere wanted, they could, at bare minimum, make the Olberman show drop all coverage of Sarah Palin. For an example of how it's done, if 75% of the liberal blogosphere did a post on the Chinese Uighur situation today, they'd give half the show over to it tomorrow (with half still Michael Jackson for the rest of the viewing public, of course, hah.)
"
Liberals love to take her on and make fun of her (a few wacko ones with websites are even still "investigating" baby Trip.) That's money in the bank for her and for those producing stories on her. You don't appear to understand celebrity mystique, it's not always just about adoration.
July 8, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it ironic that the elitist urbanite "misunderestimates" the"fly-over" people in a treatise about how elitist urbanites "misunderestimate" the "fly-over" people?
July 7, 2009 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Before I ever left for Spain I was bi-cultural. We lived in a university town on Chicago's North Shore about four blocks from the lake in a big Victorian house, on either side of us lived full professors, but through all my childhood, I spent at least a month, often three in my grandmother's village downstate in west-central Illinois, about a half hour's drive from Tom Sawyer's, Hannibal Missouri. I challenge anyone to come up with a more "deep-American" pedigree. Since I was a tot I learned to move between the white wine and ruccola crowd to where boys went duck hunting with their dads, I learned not to offend the cultural sensitivities of either group and to speak their dialects. The Sarah Palins of this world were my summer playmates. The destruction of the old Middle West causes me much distress
July 7, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me, I have always been elitist.
July 7, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Vanguard of the proletariat" or just an ordinary and garden variety snob?
July 7, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I was young, pretty much all my clothing was made from feed bags. To those of you who think I went around looking like a bum, I will explain:
It was the 50's. Our eggs and milk were delivered to our door by the "egg man," who drove a converted school bus. He obviously had chickens, and the chicken-feed came to him in bags made from 100% cotton with a variety of patters: pillow ticking, flowers, plain yellows and blues; really pretty fabric, and not thick or course, either. Once the bags were empty of feed, he (or probably Mrs. EggMan) would pull one string, and the seams would come undone. Then they would launder the fabric (which was as I recall, about 2 yards long and 36" wide), dry it, fold it up, and put it in his bus.
When my mother was ready to sew something for us, we would go out to the bus and pick out the design we wanted. I think she paid $.50 or a dollar for each swath of fabric. Then she would either use a pattern, or improvise, get the old Singer out, and in a couple of days we had pretty dresses, skirts, or blouses for almost nothing, and there was an excellent use of resources.
Did I mention that this re-use of stuff was in the 50's?
I know this has nothing to do with Sarah, but the "feed-bags" image brought back memories that I thought I'd like to share.
July 7, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just goes to show how much we have lost. We traded modernism and instant gratification for common sense and community.
This is what I think most of America is trying to recover in the wake of this latest collapse. We tend to come together in this situations and any leader who doesn't speak to that will be doomed from the get go. Palin (as well as most "conservatives" in "leadership" positions) do not represent that sort of thinking, which I why I am convinced they are a dying breed rather than one that will somehow rise from the ashes of their own fiery demise.
I suspect David is being a bit optimistic regarding Palin's potential constituency in the US.
July 7, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think she has the capacity to excite a large minority of American people who are bearing the brunt of globalization and the crisis. I think she is basically a niche politician, but of a very big niche... a spoiler.
July 7, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
And she's taking that to the bank.
July 7, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. I see the trends going to opposite way, even for the most disaffected. A small minority niche is meaningless if the trend of greater involvement by the majority continues.
July 7, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
A spoiler is a very meaningful role. It directs the destiny of a nation.
July 7, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think all a spoiler does is keep us from establishing a true governing majority because it sets up a false dichotomy. I would prefer republicans who look like Obama or Time Kaine and democrats who look like Wellstone or Kucinich. That would make a "spoiler" like Palin come across as merely rotten.
July 7, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What David Seaton is worrying about is whether or not Palin can win a plurality in a ReThuglican primary at a time when the economy is such that too many people are voting anybody but Obama.
Agreed as to what the parties should look like.
July 7, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we will see how it plays out. I don't think an anybody but Obama paradigm leads us directly to an extremist alternative. Perhaps it just means a more authentically progressive and populist candidate takes him out in the primary. Kind of a reverse of 1980.
July 7, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point most frightening is while she may have a huge voting block behind her, she hasn't the slightest clue how to govern, isn't conversant with the subtleties of national and global politics and completely clueless on military power, structure and when and how to use it. She would rely too heavily on boosterism and patriotism in an attempt to sway the public for their support. It didn't work for her in Alaska so I wonder why she thinks it would work on a national scale?
July 7, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
We traded modernism and instant gratification for common sense and community.
Well, there's another side to the story. It may have been a real great time for some men.
My mom was one of six girls, the children of immigrants from Poland, they lived on a farm within the city limits and her father worked full time in a foundry. I think of all my aunts and I don't think a single one of them would want to go back to the 50's where you had to scrimp and save and make your kids clothes out of feed bags you buy from the egg man. Yes, they thought of the scrimping and saving life they had as young mothers as an improvement over their life as children, but I know to a one that they wanted to see their own daughters have a different life where they could sew their own clothes out of choice.
Also there's another side to the scrimp and save thing. My mom didn't sew our clothes, for me she bought cotton dresses that sound like the same fabrics that C'Ville describes from one of the few discount stores available then. Let me tell you, it wasn't fun competing in grade school wearing those clothes when all the cool kids were wearing wool sweaters and plaid skirts from the department stores. Yeah, I know, it makes you stronger--bwwaaaah.
People always glamorize the good old days and forget the bad parts. It's good people are not bitter about the bad side, but when it comes to big picture comparing past and present, it's a good idea to drop the romanticism if you want to deal with realities. Old people, like my aunts, will tell you charming stories about their life growing up, but if you ask them if they would go back to it, they say no, it's better now.
July 7, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I wouldn't want to go back necessarily, but I did learn to sew; to this day I could make anything on a sewing machine! I taught my friend to sew, but my daughter, who is in the fashion industry is not interested in learning!
July 7, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Art,
The thing that was really "good" about the 50s was the kind of jobs that were around that allowed people to raise and educate a family with only father working, even a father with only a high school education. This was even true for black people... the men had jobs and the kids had fathers.
Families spent a lot of time together and there was much less stress. From a human values point of view, better times, even if there was less stuff to buy.
July 7, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And children played outside! We didn't even have a phone until I was in the 4th grade! (and we were middle class, I might add -- my father had a law degree and worked for the US Post Office handling claims)
He also built our house out of cinderblock! (Hey, this is fun; I haven't thought about this stuff in years!
July 7, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And children played outside!
Interestingly, they still do in my neighborhood in the Bronx. There aren't huge packs of them running around playing tag like we did, but they are out on their scooters, playing on the city handball courts, etc., even after dark in the summer. Apparently lots of immigrant parents (from many different countries, so I am not making any kind of ethnocultural statement) don't seem to think of their children as precious china objects, go figure. It's not like there's not danger of losing control, as here they could hop on the subway to Manhattan and get into all kinds of trouble, but they don't (I know I would have done that if I had the opportunity as a kid, hah.) I know it's rare these days elsewhere, that's why I mention it.
July 8, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The 50s wasn't the only period with this sort of underlying paradigm. It was like this up through my early childhood in the 70s and 80s.
American disassociation with each other at the individual level seems a relatively recent disease - one fueled by a hyper-partisan political environment, massive amounts of personal and public debt, a terribly unhealthy diet and deteriorating public schools.
It was your remembrances that I was alluding to in my comment as being something that many Americans seem to be missing more and more lately.
July 7, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeed. A disease.
July 7, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "magnificent" 50's also saw the rise of the military industrial complex into the behemoth it is today, a MAJOR reason why we, as a people, no longer control our destiny!
July 7, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 50s (like everything else) carried the seeds of its own destruction.
July 8, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not like Ike didn't warn us though, we just decided to not pay attention. Four years after he left office, all Americans finally got the right to vote and since then almost none of us actually have in any meaningful or strategic fashion. We have been missing opportunities for meaningful and sustainable growth in this country since before the ink was dry on the Preamble.
July 8, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is always another side to the story and no age has a lock on The Good Old days, but we have killed an essential part of this country's spirit in the pursuit of 52" TVs and McMansions.
We didn't need to sacrifice the good in order to change the bad, but like most things we do in this country it is either one extreme or the other, but rarely anything in between where common sense might be found.
Your point is well taken, if adjacent to my recognizing an underlying simplicity to life that we seemed to have discarded with too much haste.
July 7, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were good jobs for simple people. Now even people with big qualifications have lousy jobs.
July 7, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear.
Things are better now than they were then. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
July 7, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't an Either-Or situation. Some things are better. Some are worse.
July 7, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the memory.
July 7, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, we had an egg man, too! I thought he was a unique thing! Charlie, The Egg Man, he was a farmer and he wore striped overalls, and he'd knock on the door and yell "Charlie the egg man." He reminded me of Captain Kangaroo. I don't remember him having feed bags, but at the end of summer he had sweet corn. It was on the south side of Milwaukee (we lived on a block that at the time of one census, had more children than any other in the city, and lots of moms who didn't have a car while the husband was at work--or at the tavern--so I can understand why he targeted our neighborhood.) Maybe it was something Midwest farmers learned to do by word of mouth? There was always a weekly farmer's market in Milwaukee going way back if they wanted to go that route, but the Charlie's chose to come directly to their customers, apparently.
July 7, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a great story.
Jerry Lieber, who wrote the lyrics to "I'm a Woman," grew up in a poor mixed neighborhood in Baltimore. He often tells stories about the pinched circumstances of his youth and how his mother struggled to get by.
I wonder if his reference to feed bags in the song is the same as yours. Since he's a good friend (was best man at my wedding and actually introduced me to my wife) I'll ask him next time I see him.
July 7, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are on to something with your comments about Sarah Palin. I don't think she CURRENTLY has enough electoral firepower to actually go all the way, but she projects SOMETHING that is a powerful net asset to her core supporters. This 'something' is as completely natural, unique, and mysterious as Mozart's musical talent, and it drives her more studious, conventional, derivative rivals to equal distraction. She continues to break every established rule, but those don't seem to be the rules she is playing by - she has made-up her own, and up until now at least, she has largely gotten away with it. (Look no farther than the volume of commentary on this site, and no farther than the career-path of our CURRENT President, to see what can be done with a comparatively light conventional resume').
Don't take me wrong, I don't entirely get it myself: She seems incapable of carrying a train of thought to a logical conclusion, and (to my ear, at least) talks mostly in a sort of randomly-connected scattershot of buzz-words and hot-button cliches'. She is less a 'liar' than she is simply INDIFFERENT to the objective, linear truth.
All that said, SOMEONE 'gets' it - not nearly enough just yet(Thank God), but potentially a powerful force, given time and a little luck.
July 7, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we could get Tina Fey to run against her.
July 7, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her type of speech is called Word Salad, add your own dressing.
July 7, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible she just can't take the political heat and is going for fame and money via her own show on t.v.? Then she has the adoring fans she craves w/o the responsibility of actually governing?
July 7, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Following the comment above that Sarah is indiferent to the truth, I am indifferent to her fate. If she is smart, and there is little real evidence of her being smart, she will go the TV route, but she appears to be mesmerized by church leaders who may encourage her to push harder into politics. She is their horse in the race, and like any race horse, they will use and abuse her until she comes up lame. Then she will be put out to pasture, although they will wish they could shoot her. Thank PETA for small miracles.
Sarah cannot entice the intellectual branch of the party to her side. She lacks the capacity to develop a campaign on the national level that could win, IMHO. But when her people believe God is going to bring them a miracle, they will stick to her because they cannot let go their faith. While everything crashes and burns around her, they cannot abandon her or else they will lose their faith. That is the tragedy. They will have misdirected their faith in God to faith in Sarah Palin. The threat of shame wil keep her crew in line, and prevent them from supporting anyone else. She will be the spoiler and we can all thank God for that.
July 7, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The important thing for any "out of left field" candidate in 2012 will be unemployment. Just like with Obama, people are looking for a "lottery ticket" to change their luck. It could be her.
July 7, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desperate people will try anything. I don't see where she's ever created a job, but with God on her side, anything can happen! LOL
July 7, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise in the national angle, David---the question is rather, why so poorly planned and so apparently precipitous?
Sarah would have been a perfect candidate for Nixon's Orthogonian Club in school, set against the privileged Franklin Club members. The technique was and is to pick up the ignorant and those with frustrations that can be blamed somehow on the opposition. However, Nixon did not ever leave on office to run, while Sarah has quit two. Her record in Alaska will be an albatross.
July 7, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
I think she is a niche politician (a white Al Sharpton?). I don't see her as prez (things haven't gone that far yet, but who knows) I see her as a Ross Perot type spoiler. She's good for Obama, who probably will be smelling like old fish by 2012.
July 7, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah has shown, by her actions as a mayor, that she is in it for the money above all else. She used her office as mayor to score a 3400 square foot house on the shore of a beautiful lake, something she could never have afforded any other way.
Now, she is governor, and a whole barrel of money is just out of reach - money to make speeches, money to host a TV show, money to endorse commercial stuff, to lend her name to various written stuff, etc. Considered in that light, it is easy to see how lame a duck she considered herself as governor.
Perhaps she just desires to follow the path that "trailer trash" women are reputed to always look for - an easy path to riches. This time the simple explanation seems to be the real explanation.
You know, an old fashioned method for stopping your kid from smoking was to force him to smoke a whole pack of cigarettes at once. That extreme immersion in the habit cured many a kid. Well, I think this extreme immersion in Sarah is curing me too!
July 7, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 7, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting to think she could afford the house, although it is the husband who made it possible. We forget to think of his contributions to their family. Consider this. He holds a salmon fishing permit in Bristol Bay. In 1988, that might have earned him a million dollars, if it was his at the time and he did well. I know this from my experience fishing slamon at the time. Some deckhands on a seiner boat in Kodiak, Alaska, were making $100K. We busted our gear too often to make much money, but it was a year of unimagined potential. Also, the First Dude works on the North Slope. That's a big money, union job. If he did have friends to put up the house, he may very well have had the means.
The big unanswered question is, where DID they get those windows? A lot is made of the fact they came from Spenard Builders Supply. Big deal, they are about the only game in town in Alaska. Everyone gets their stuff from the company store. I don't think we will ever know the answer to that. But I'm not above suspecting them of corruption just the same.
July 7, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . urban-based commentators are "misunderestimating" this woman, for in reality the reaction she produces in them is the mirror image of the the reaction she produces in the masses of people these commentators by turns patronize or despise. David Seaton
Are you referring to our own Todd Gitlin?
July 7, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure he's part of it.
The question is if everybody who isn't cool is mad for Sarah, she is going places, because there are always going to be more people that are uncool than cool. Do the math.
July 7, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
are you equating cool with gullible?
July 7, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyhow,
The bigger Sarah Palin gets, the better for Obama, because she will divide the GOP on class lines, which could save his patooty in 2012.
July 7, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anotehr thought. If she goes hyper-Christian in 2012, will Huckabee feel the need to challenge her and thus split the Christian-Fascist vote? If so, then the contender after the primaries will be neither, although it is possible the CF will be so resentful of their loss they will stay home. Eithe scenario will be good for us, so I'm not really disagreeing, just proposing a scenario to consider.
July 7, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a scenario worth considering. Palin's presence could all but assure a convention fight.
July 7, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the description of what she could do is essentially doing a sex change and giving a Bible to the ghost of Huey Long and running on behalf of the "Hicks" against them, which means either those that have way too much or another down trodden group which seems to be getting a little too much of the way too little that was available. This is also the old Pitchfork Pat Buchanan Pitch and also along the lines of Ross Perot who did very well in Alaska. Bottom line was while it made a lot of noise it didn't ever produce a President.
July 7, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 7, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the interesting things about this thread has been that talking about Sarah Palin has somehow got people talking about the 1950s and the America of yore. If, in fact, she somehow symbolizes some of that, the lady for all of it is going to be somebody to reckon with.
July 7, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it was Palin who brought those ideas to fore. The reference of a simpler time was kind of a non sequitur to the blog.
July 7, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of her hook is that she evokes mythic rural America and the nostalgia that produces in many.
Actually we have little idea who this lady really is. The truth is that she is very sinister in many ways. If we ever have an American Hitler, it would probably be a woman like her.
July 8, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part of her hook is that she evokes mythic rural America and the nostalgia that produces in many
I think you are on off the wrong track with this. What she evokes is libertarianism. Snowmobiliers are not exactly lovers of mythic rural America. She dresses quite urban, she's the lady that can both bring home the bacon (moose?) and fry it up in a pan, sign some bills in the morning and be a hockey mom in the afternoon, give birth in the evening.
I won't evoke Godwin's law but your second statement just is further proof to me of how you often you way misinterpret certain kinds of populism in the current U.S.; you seem to judge it by sound bites from European talking heads. Central government taxes are even less popular here than elsewhere, ok? The country happened to be founded on that little quirk. That's what runs deep. (Even liberals--how many blogs do you see here saying what a wonderful Democratic Congress we have, they are well worth the money we spend on them?) Hitler would have gotten nowhere with a bunch of independent minded people who wanted as little to do as possible with central government.
July 8, 2009 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And geez, talk about talking about a mythic America, you did it yourself upthread. That's a crock, it was a minority that did well, I grew up hearing about the fights of couples like that, guys with blue collar jobs and the wives at home, they fought over money all the time, money, money, money, the women tearing their hair out because they couldn't think straight with 5 kids stuffed in two bedrooms in a small apartment and the baby's crib in their room, the washing machine broken again, the kids need school shoes and you spent the money at the tavern again, we're never going to afford a down payment on a house, what if you get laid off again, you promised me a better life, etc. Ever see "The Honeymooners"? Just as many were like Ralph and Alice as your version of 50's families.
It's ironic, you're the one talking Phyllis Schafly one-salary happy family myths that were actually only reality for a minority, while Palin is past that, she's of the GOP variety that has co-opted feminism.
July 8, 2009 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops: link.
July 8, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Art,
I talk about "mythic" rural America, not "real" rural America. And as to "independent", I think most Americans simply are fed so much bullshit from morning to night 24X7, since the day they are born that they can't think straight.
However, truly lucid Americans, say, Goldman Sachs, for example, have no problem at all with big government
July 8, 2009 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose she has that veneer, but most republicans aren't fooled by it. That a small, rabid minority might think she is their Joan of Arc for now will only last as long as she actually gets something done. Her incompetence will be her undoing.
July 8, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You what is really funny about her being associated with the 1950s? She was born in 1964!!! Her fantasies re about a time prior to her conception. Even if we agree her life began in the womb, she's still at leasts four years late for that decade.
July 9, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was CVille's feedbag story that caused that to happen, not the topic of Sarah Palin. CVille even says I know this has nothing to do with Sarah, but the "feed-bags" image brought back memories that I thought I'd like to share.
Come to think of it, she doesn't much play that related old favorite of many pols of stories of her parents scrimping and saving to give their children a better life. She pushes the hockey mom thing much more, the persona that she understands the difficulties of juggling priorities in current middle class life. Where's it's populist is that it's not about meritocracy, anti-intellectualism, "regular people's problems." That's mainly why I see the Oprah comparison. Lots of people don't translate that into conservative libertarianism, they want the government to help with some things. That's why I feel many more could relate to her as a celebrity, but fewer agree with her on political solutions. A person does not have to be smart to be a celebrity of interest to many, for example, some want "folk wisdom" in their celebs. Rosie O'Donnell maybe would be a better comparison, she became popular being outspoken and talking about "regular people" things, too, popular even with people who never thought they would be interested in what a lesbian had to say and with those who didn't share her liberal views on everything.
July 8, 2009 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Sarah Palin is "aspirational" for working class people. They feel that she is one of them, that has gone where they would like to go, but hasn't forgotten them.
It's an emotional bond, not a logical, reasoned one.
July 8, 2009 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Sarah Palin has become a victim of the same malaise that Bill Clinton was subject to during his second term, that is, the use of basically baseless allegations of impropriety by one's political opponents to trash one's image and run up one's legal bills, all as a means of political revenge.
She got out because she didn't feel like ending up like Bill Clinton. At least if she isn't Governor, her political enemies can't use state resources to attack her and call it "investigation".
What do we know? Nothing. Maybe there's something to the charges rattling around the blogosphere. But that isn't why Sarah Palin was hit with them. The assaults on her character and governance are politics, pure and simple, and the basis for the charges couldn't be less relevant.
I'll never vote for the lady, she's not on my sid of the class war (so to speak), but I respect her for caring enough about her family to get out until the heat dies down a bit.
July 7, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
if that stuff your smoking ever becomes legal let me know.
i need to live in fantasy land too.
July 7, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
i agree with your understanding of why peple are attrcted to palin.
i have often made the same case.
but, i dont see her going anywhere.
in fact she is a bigger headache to the republicans then obama ever could be.
she devides the party.
palin can never change what she is and that is not appealing to anyone outside of her base.
so she cant make much headway nationally.
in fact she will not receive any support from the party and i would bet she only realized that shortly after her silly resignation.
so they are stuck with someone who appeals to the worse in people at the same time they need to attract new voters.
it cant be done.
July 7, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
My observation is that the people who find her fascinating and a symbol of hope are of a general type with these characteristics: Lazy; willing to blame others for their failures or troubles; unable to self-reflect or self-monitor; reactive, rather than thoughtful; a sense of entitlement based on being white; choosing to work at jobs beneath their skill sets and intelligence and claiming that they can't get ahead because of illegal immigrants, liberal policies, and affirmative action.
I base my observation on nothing more than noting these characteristics in the roughly two dozen people with whom I am acquainted who voted for the McCain/Palin ticket, and who voiced (and continue to voice) admiration for Palin.
July 7, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
based on the people I know who voted for her ticket and who talk about their admiration for her, I completely concur with you.
July 7, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 8, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin is uneducated and unread. She has no curiosity FOR THE TRUTH OF THINGS WHATSOEVER.
I hope she fails at every goddamnable thing she attempts. She has NO HUMANITY IN HER HEART. And she never will.
July 7, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post, Mr. Seaton. Although I dislike Sarah Palin beyond words, I do see the reasons for her strong appeal among the GOP base. However the thing that causes me the most concern is that her incredible naivete regarding the nuts and bolts workings of modern American politics and how her simplistic, polarizing attitude towards anyone outside her "tribe" is easily overshadowed by her "star power" and that's a dangerous combination these days.
She may talk tough when in the spotlight, but I believe she could easily be overpowered or duped and led right by the nose by the powerful banks, business lobbyists and all the rest that live to feed at the government trough despite all their prattling about a "free market".
Does anybody really see her even attempting to stand up to the kind of Wall Street shenanigans that have plunged the world economy into the ditch? All they would have to do is pitch her all these patriotic, free market bumper sticker slogans and the next thing we'd have is zero capital gains taxes, zero regulation of financial markets and no income taxes paid on income over 500K. Just what we need.
She does not yet realize that the political calculus and realities of a state like Alaska is nothing at all like what's needed in the lower 48. Nothing. She and her base haven't yet figured out that the stuff her campaign speeches are made of has been tried, corrupted beyond recognition and is used against working class Americans by the wealthy and is now the reason for the current mess we're in.
July 7, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin splitting the GOP vote? Doubtful.
The only thing that will come out of Sarah Palin gaining more of a voice over the next 3.5 years is 1) legitimizing the twisted anger of the GOP base, and 2) quite possibly the worst political violence we've seen here since the 1960's.
She is a cancer to America.
July 7, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
but I respect her for caring enough about her family to get out until the heat dies down a bit.
Then the ex-Gov. can begin putting together things along the lines of the People cover story for Bristol (dressed in Grad garb,holding infant). Lot's of opportunities for revenge.
July 7, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's worth reminding ourselves that palin was an obscure governor until mccain made her his veep pick on a gamble (nice John, way to put country first!!!!!!). Once the HUGE spot-light that accompanies veep picks was pointed at her, she wilted and we saw exactly what she was made of, i.e. very little. Had she not been picked by mccain, we wouldn't be having this "debate". Now I know that sounds obvious but think about it for a minute. Her position in the limelight is primarily based, not on the fact that she ran a successful primary campaign, but that she was CHOSEN. And that this choice was made by a candidate who needed to "shake up the race" because he trailed badly.
All of this recent talk of "she just needs to go and study and then come back ready to campaign for president", what the fuck is that? Politics isn't a friggin' exam you study for. You suck at it but you can study and get better? Bullshit. It's on the job training AND natural instincts. It's surrounding yourself with trustworthy allies and using them you feel like doing something crazy!
"Palin's move is the only logical one open to her." This is true IF she sees out her first term and decided against running for re-election. But how can quitting during her first term be considered the "only logical move". Nonsense.
I know this may sound like an oxymoron but I would like intelligent Republican candidates so that, in case they win, we don't have another chimpanzee at the wheel like we did from 2001 to 2008.
July 7, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paulie,
In many ways you are right, and in a country that made much sense that would be the end of the argument.... But Sarah Palin has "star quality" and America's thirst for that is unquenchable.
July 8, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
artappraiser wins the award for Least-Blinkered Prediction of Sarah Palin's Future. Congratulations!
Meanwhile, Sarah Haters will propel her to greater heights than her fan base is capable of on its own. Congratulations, Progressives!
While y'all are busy yammering about Sarah, health care industry lobbyists are spending $1.4 million A DAY lobbying Congress! Don't you people EVER get it? You think you're smarter than Sarah, yet she succeeds in getting you to take your eye off the ball EVERY TIME! Do you think that's an accident?
July 8, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink