The current Palin frenzy on the Wingnut side carries eerie and ominous echoes of Spiro Agnew and his attack-dog tactics. Those who minimize Palin's potential influence on American politics do so at their peril.
Remember when the term "liberal" was a perfectly respectable descriptor of one's politics, not a dirty word? How did this transformation take place? In my opinion it began about forty years ago with Spiro Agnew referring to any opponent of the Trickster regime as a "radical liberal". He did this so often and indiscriminately that some commentators on network news actually made fun of him. But the term caught on with the Wingers of the time, and spread via the Winger press (very prominently by Agnew's speechwriter William Safire on the op-ed page of the NYT). The rest, as they say, is History.
Recall Safire's speeches, delivered by Agnew. The "vocal minority", repressing the "silent majority", was "encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs". What a line! Even after all this time, one cannot help but admire the messages conveyed to the resentful by these few words. The leaders of the "vocal minority" were "effete"; they had delicate mannerisms, probably queer (excuse the term of the times, used here for effect). They belonged to a "corps"; they were organized, even marched in lockstep. They were "impudent"; dismissive of the ideas and values of the silent majority. They were "snobs"; you would never be able to get into their universities, country clubs, or cocktail parties.
Modify a few of these terms slightly, and you have Palin and her movement. One key difference is, Palin has a committed base that Agnew never had - yet even so, over the decades Agnew left an effective legacy. Another difference is that, at the moment, Palin has not found her Safire. If she does - Katy, bar the door! Fortunately the Effete Corps has resources - the internet and email campaigns - to fight back at the individual level that were lacking in 1970.