Hurricane Palin Returns

Post-4th there’s been a lot of cyber-blood spilled over soon to be ex-governor Sarah Palin largely because of Ross Douthat’s column, Palin and Her Enemies. Now it seems pretty clear that Ross’ column is as much about Sarah Palin as it is about her popularity and our reactions to her. Of course the rather critical secondary part of that equation is missed because whenever one mentions Sarah Palin it must be to either laud her or demonize her. If not, commentors and responders will certainly take it down that road.

Anyway, I think it’s perfectly fine to say that while she may have been constitutionally eligible to be Vice-President, she certainly wouldn’t have been qualified to assume the Presdiency should anything have happened to John McCain if he had won. Not enough experience, poor communicative abilities, no coherent political or governing philosophy, and a questionable record as both Mayor and Governor are all fine. I think you could hold such things against any candidate, elite, not elite, rich, middle class, working class, poor, black, white, male, female, straight, gay, etc…

However, I also think the condemnation, dismissiveness, and insults hurled her way were incredibly outsized. Conor makes the point that other pols have faced similar criticisms, but I would add that talking about Sarah Palin is more topical than exceptional.

That she was a bad candidate and is/was unfairly treated by the media (and not the media, I would add), as Radley Balko notes, isn’t a mutually exclusive proposition.

It’s about the reactions to her, that I’d like to address, however.

Looking at her supporters, particularly, those who view her as the patron politician of the non-elite, I have to point to the fact that she goes aerial wolf hunting. When was the last time a nice lower middle class family decided to go hunting in a helicopter? Isn’t that like the Alaskan equivalent of John Kerry windsurfing? The fact that they are not reconciling the reality of who she is now with the person they’d like her to be and what she represents. Which brings me to Noah Millman’s point #2, which I agree with entirely,

Point #2: The column, and Ross’ writing about Palin generally, treats her not so much as an actual person so much as a symbol, a personification of a certain type of person. There’s an expression for that: identity politics. It’s a kind of politics that, purportedly, the American right is against, and while I never think that was truly the case (indeed, I’d argue that identity politics are unavoidable, because so much of the motivation for engagement in politics comes from questions of identity), I’m surprised by the degree to which movement conservative politics in this country have become entirely the politics of identity, and the Palin phenomenon is the best evidence thereof. I think Ross should be against this trend, and if he isn’t I’d like to understand better why he isn’t. It strikes me that it is problematic to say the least, both practically and in terms of principle, for the American right to so openly embrace the politics of identity.

At her detractors, I have a somewhat tougher line, probably because there are more of them, I suspect. First, how many of you honestly thought John McCain would win in November? Not could, if, should, or might, but would.

Second, considering that he didn’t win eight months ago, Sarah Palin has been governor of a state that chances are you don’t live in, could care less about, almost certainly don’t know the current time in (without aid), and are most likely to visit either flying to Asia or cruising by and admiring the glaciers.  So…why does she matter? Do you even know who the governor of South Dakota is? Or Idaho? Or Nebraska? Do you care? So why spend the energy on Palin? I’ll admit she’s sought the spotlight as much as Paris Hilton does but I’m willing to bet real money that you spend more time thinking, talking about, and scorning Sarah Palin than you do Paris Hilton.

Third, if I were to accept your premises about who she is, what’s her worst crime? That she’s a devout Christian who worships at a church that maybe tried exorcisms and to de-program gays. Oh and she’s a hypocritical idiot who can’t string together a sentence with proper subject-verb agreement.

(I’m letting that settle…)

And your response is to mock her, despise her, sneer at her, and go further by putting down her family?  You justify that, presumably, because she – like most Republicans – lacks compassion for the struggles of women and real families.

~ by Kyle on July 8, 2009.