First, her post, which you should read in full (I only have a small bit here):
Alan left a comment that Palin's an attractive female Republican, and that's not to be allowed (since women are presumed to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party). I think that's right, but I'd go further in explaining the PDS on display (my comment):I’ve always liked Sarah Palin as a politician, though I can understand why others don’t, and I’d be concerned about how much negative branding she’s absorbed for the next time she runs for office. But there was palpable contempt and disgust dripping from CW’s voice; she was genuinely angry.
Why?
Alan's right, but I think that the killer is that she's perhaps the country's most effective politician right now. "Effective" meaning able to shape the discussion on her terms. Think "Death Panels" - the howls of outrage over that remark were the strongest sign that she'd hit a nerve, and all that "curve bending" discussion pretty much ended then.What I didn't say in my comment was that the rage really comes from a realization that Palin has considerable political skill combined with what Alan points out. From the point of view of your run of the mill, not too smart Obama voter (this includes most Democrats and just about everyone in the media [redundancy alert]), membership in a "protected group" (minorities or women) is a sort of armor that's supposed to deflect criticism. All of the "you oppose Obama's policies, you must hate him/be a racist" is offered as Exhibit A. In the world of the Leftist, they think that this armor would make her even more formidable.
That she gets under the skin of all the bien pensants shows that they realize that she's effective - otherwise why keep bringing her up (like Obama did last week).
The Internet has destroyed all sorts of business models, and made incredible successes out of nobodies who turned into Google, Amazon, and eBay. What these "nobodies" understood - and what their Old School competitors did NOT - was how to reach into the "Long Tail" of the Internet, to people who were poorly served (or not served at all) by the current players.
Both political parties govern for themselves and their cronies/clients. Both parties hate her guts because they see her reaching out to the unserved voters, and harnessing their energy (and money). They fear her power, and their old top down command and control structures are not nimble enough to keep up with her, so they keep finding themselves dancing to her tune. They hate that perhaps most of all. As John McCain might say, she's on their six.
So the sound you hear is the sound of political business models shattering. People overly comfortable with the old model don't know how to respond, and are reacting not from their cerebral cortex, but from the ancient reptilian brain stem - shock and fear.
As I've said more than a couple of times before, the Dinosaurs smell a change in the air, and roar their defiance.
And so the hate - real hate, real disgust, real fear. Lissa points out all sorts of Wicked Smaht logical reasons why this doesn't make sense, but this is not bubbling up from the Cerebral Cortex. It's visceral, tribal, primitive.
And quite frankly, it's the correct response to a leftie confronting someone who is probably the most formidable opponent to their entire agenda. Their "arguments" are laughably idiotic, but their IFF mechanism is working properly, and they have correctly identified Palin as a Foe.
As I said before (at lamentable length):
When you hear talk of "teabaggers", or how "dumb" Palin is, or how Brown won "because he stood in the cold shaking hands outside Fenway Park", you know that you're talking to one of the people that the Internet is turning into a loser, as their political business model collapses around them. They'll all be gone in ten years.Lissa, if you like CW, you should point out to her that she's talking like a loser. I'd think that it's probably not worth your while. It shouldn't surprise anyone that this Internet phenomenon that has massively disrupted business, overthrown retail and media empires and replaced them with vigorous new young kingdoms would do the same in the sphere of politics. Some people - like Palin - get this. Most others do not. I don't know how this will play out for Gov. Palin, but I'm not worried about her prospects, "negatives" and all.
The sound of PDS is the sound of victory. The Dinosaurs smell a change in the air, and roar their defiance.
UPDATE 23 April 2010 14:26: Welcome visitors from Snarkybytes! As always, thanks for the link Alan. There's quite a lively discussion going on in the comments here, so if you just stopped by, don't miss it.
14 comments:
PDS? Really? I don't think Palin gets anything much. She's really good at spouting common places. Have you watched any of her interviews? She ought to have known that MSM interviewers were out to get her and prepared for that--she obviously didn't. Can't we find someone better (i'm totally fine with another attractive woman btw)? She panders to a lot of people--that doesn't take much talent. She enjoys labeling things socialist (and remember she was governor of state that took oil profits and issued checks to its citizens), and using other buzz words--so what? i'm no lefty at all, so i appreciate how she annoys them, but that alone isn't reason to blindly accept her.
I don't know... anyone who can cause lefties to have that much blind rage gets and gold star in my book, even if I am not sold on her being a major leader. I could see her doing well by just lending her weight to other candidates.
Jason, there's another way to look at the data that leads to different conclusions:
* She's an outsider, who was pushed by the McCain insiders to act like an insider. It wasn't at all a natural fit, and her interviews during the 2008 election were indeed a disaster. I think that she knew that the media was gunning for her, but was pushed into fighting the battle on that ground by the folks working for McCain.
* Sure she panders to lots of people - she's a politician. I actually don't see any difference here: she's neither better nor worse than the rest of the lot in this area.
* She has a point about socialism. Remember all the media articles last year - most notoriously the Newsweak "We are all Socialists now" cover story? That wasn't by any means the only one. In the flush of Obama's victory, the MSM let the mask slip, and call it the "ism" that Dare Not Speak Its Name.
My point is not to blindly accept her; rather, it's to point out that she's probably the most effective politician in America today (for good or ill). It comes from this:
1. The understanding that both parties have essentially disenfranchised the majority of the population, through machine politics that pay off favored groups. The public sector unions are perhaps the most visible of these, but the Ivy League intellectuals are perhaps the most dangerous.
2. The understanding that the resentments in the general public come increasingly from being told what to do/what not to do by members of these favored groups. The sense that the Ivy Leaguers don't think that Joe American is up to running his own life without the supervision of a Harvard man.
3. A better understanding than anyone in politics today that the Internet can connect you with these disenfranchised people.
The details of particular policies are irrelevant. The Big Idea that government is too big, too intrusive, and too incompetent is what's important, and is fueling her success.
The howls are coming from the groups that currently benefit from the system - the Ivy League (and intellectuals who aspire to honorary membership in that club), the MSM, machine politicians from both parties.
I think that this idea beats any particular policy, or any particular gaffe. Huge majorities of the population believe these things, and she has what - a million followers on Facebook?
Love her or hate her, she's the most interesting politician at least since Ronald Reagan. He also had a Big Idea, that government was too big, too intrusive, and too incompetent (especially regarding the Soviet Union).
Please don't think that I'm blindly accepting her. I'm just commenting on the political landscape. I find Gov Palin interesting, and believe that most of what you hear about her in the media is both incorrect and malicious. However, I'm not quite sure what is correct about her, other than this "Big Idea". I dare say we'll find out soon enough.
Quelle awesome, Borepatch! I'm flattered if one of my little musings inspired you to elaborate.
I think another facet of the dinosaur rage is that Palin ISN'T DOING WHAT SHE'S SUPPOSED TO. She was the subject of vicious ridicule and hatred, she and McCain lost the election, and she resigned from the Governorship with (IIRC) a clunky, awkward speech. Now she's a multi-million dollar author, media force and political mover-and-shaker. How did THAT happen?
Lissa, quelle awesome back atcha!
To the people in the power structure, she's not playing by the rules.
Fair points, BP. My point about her socialism complaints is that she was governor of a state that's been actively practicing it for awhile. I get what you're saying--I guess I'm just disturbed by people who are blindly accepting her. My complaint with her is similar to my complaint with Obama: all style and very little substance--and we've had enough of that.
Hmmm, Jason, that's a very interesting thought. Obama figured a way to package himself, Palin has as well.
I'm going to do some thinking on this. My gut says that Obama's appeal was primarily to the existing power elite, with some camouflage for the masses, while Palin may be the reverse. But this needs some thinking on ...
So how is the fact that the State of Alaska made a deal to collect a slice of the profits from oil revenues and then instead of funneling it into programs because the government knows better, paid that money to their citizens to spend as they saw fit, socialism?
A few random thoughts:
1) Right now, Sarah Palin is not a politician, and we shouldn't call her one. She's a political activist, which isn't the same thing at all. A politician is somebody who runs for elected office and makes policy, and right now that ain't her. It's my very humble opinion that she'll never run for public office again.
2) Jason, how is Alaska's policy of letting its citizens share in the state's oil income "socialist"?
3) Borepatch, I realize the metaphor of "dinosaurs" as old, tired, worn-out monsters has been around longer than either of us ... but as a confirmed dinophile, I must strongly object to you insulting them by comparing them to Demorat politicians.
Wolfwalker, I'm a Dinophile myself. However, there is indeed a climate change occurring in the political landscape, and not even the MSM will be able to "hide the decline" ...
In all seriousness, the one thing I'd add is that most Republican politicians are in that same class, at least the machine politicians. I'd think that might include most of them. But that will be a post for another day.
I am interested to find that at least one conservative blogger, Laura Woods, after initially defending Sarah Palin after her selection by John McCain, is upon reflection, now not too keen on her; for example:
"Sarah Palin isn't against big government. She isn't anti-abortion in any politically meaningful sense. She isn't a foe of feminist entitlement. And she isn't very bright."
and this:
"This is a disturbing example of what I discussed yesterday, of how women transform politics. Unless they consciously adopt a manly style, they trivialize and Oprah-ize politics, making personality first and foremost. You are exactly right. Bachmann and Palin put a pretty face on feminism. They are duping conservative women."
JohnK, I have to disagree with Laura's assertions in the links you gave. She is, of course, entitled to her opinion, but she didn't present arguments, she presented assertions.
I'm often guilty here of doing that myself, but the whole "Palin is not very bright" meme is meaningless, and is actually demonstrably wrong:
- She took on (and beat) a famously corrupt political machine in her own party. To take it on an lose might suggest she's not very bright; that she won shows that at the very least she's "dumb like a fox" (no double entendre intended).
- She has used Internet outreach to seize and shape the public discussion (there are multiple instances of this, and I've offered at least two here). This is very innovative (which was pretty much one of the points of my post), and "not very bright" does not apply to people who pioneer this sort of thing. Well, it doesn't apply in my book.
I'm certainly willing to listen to reasoned arguments about Palin. However, with all of the vicious (and quite frankly dumb) hit pieces we've gotten, the fastest way to make me roll my eyes is a simple assertion that she's not particularly bright. Your mileage may vary.
I'll grant that she does not impress as an intellectual. Speaking as an intellectual myself, I see that as a net positive. Not because it really annoys the chattering classes (although that's a side benefit), but because most intellectuals don't know how to think these days. The degraded intellectual state of the Universities is a scandal, and the last thing we need is another Obama-style intellectual in charge, even if he/she does have a "perfectly pressed crease" in his/her trousers.
kahr and wolfwalker--the state is taking money from a business and issuing checks to its citizens. wolfwalker, you answered your own question--share in the profits. how is that not socialism? kahr, perhaps the state should leave that money alone. should all states tax natural resources so they can write checks to their residents? if we were talking about any other place/business, you would be up in arms. or is this form of socialism okay? are we going to get our walmart checks soon?
Jason:
If the businesses in question were taking raw materials, especially those that are sourced from outside Alaska, manufacturing finished goods and then had their money taken and redistributed, yes, that would be a form of socialism.
The oil revenues, on the other hand, are a native resource, and therefore belong to the Alaskans.
Calling Palin a socialist makes just about as much sense as calling her stupid. And no, I don't see myself voting for her for anything.
Post a Comment