Published 09.09.08 at Towhnall.com and Crosswalk.com.
I assume it is unnecessary to answer the logically prior question of whether they hate Sarah Palin. The level of vitriol flung at her in the past week and a half by critics in every liberal outlet ranging from the New York Times to Air America is particularly awe-inspiring given that this is all the longer they’ve even known her name. Ordinarily, such hatred takes years to cultivate. The force and acceleration of their vehemence virtually demands psychoanalysis. Since this sport is in vogue, I’ll give my diagnostic skills a shot at the trophy.
Preface: There is a pathology
The natural first reaction of a Palin-hater to this column is to deny the hatred. They will say it’s her politics, her religion, or possibly the whiff of scandal some have managed to ladle upon her. But if they’re honest with themselves, they’ll have to admit three simple facts.
First, the reasons they give aren’t the reasons they hate. If they didn’t have these, they’d manufacture others. There’s an old story about a man asking to borrow his neighbor’s lawn mower and being told, “No, I’m making potato soup.” “What does that have to do with me borrowing your lawn mower?” the incredulous man replies. “Nothing, but if I don’t want to loan you my lawn mower, one excuse is just as good as another.” Likewise, Governor Palin is not hated because of whatever reasons they offer. These are afterthoughts to an animosity which is embarrassed to admit it was born prior to reason. Hence, refuting them will prove futile.
Second, even those who persist in asserting such reasons as their motive will have to admit that all of them put together still can’t justify the disproportionate vigor of their attacks upon her. To use an aging phrase, this is the politics of personal destruction; a nuclear response to what their own arguments admit is a merely conventional threat.
Third, no one can hate this deeply this quickly. Conservatives generally despise certain political figures such as Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, and John Paul Stevens. But it’s taken us years, sometimes decades to detest these people. Similarly for liberals, contempt only begins to describe their feelings toward George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, and Antonin Scalia. But, again, at least such a sentiment has developed over time. It took Sarah Palin less than a week to receive treatment these men have taken years to earn. Such an immediate mauling of someone’s character says far more about the predators than about their prey.
So, what explains this pathology? I have two mutually compatible theories.
Theory 1: The Cult of Personality.
Barack Obama is the left’s Messiah. Their hopes, their dreams, and even their patriotism are at this point invested in him. He cannot be criticized. He cannot be joked at. And he most certainly cannot be mocked. All such response to him (perfectly normal with any other politician) is viewed as blasphemy rather than politics. Not only is the left salvifically invested in him, they fear they have been too rash to the altar call. Calm reflection proves Barack Obama isn’t ready to be President yet, but who can resist the hope beyond hope that he’s more than just a golden voice reading a teleprompter?
So when little Sarah Palin comes along and castigates him with condescending satire, they react as any devastated schoolgirl with a crush would. Her speech stated every major flaw with his candidacy. Not just honestly, but with Reagenesque comedic flair. And since their deepest fear is that everything she said about him is right, the only option to reconsidering their betrothal was to destroy her.
It’s pretty simple. If we disagree, you correct me. If I am silly, you ignore me. But if I articulate your own fears in attacking something you cherish irrationally, you excoriate me…as cover. As Robert Pirsig explained in his lovely novel on motorcycle maintenance, no one jumps up and down screaming that the sun will rise tomorrow. Highly emotional responses indicate fear and uncertainty, not the opposite.
Sarah Palin’s on-target reductio of Barack Obama turned their Messiah into a joke, earning the very predictable treatment a heretic deserves. Disabusing people of a savored fantasy always does.
Theory 2: Her non-feminist feminism.
I used to marvel at the rudeness so often publicly shown to parents with many children. But then I saw how the very existence of such families exposes the guilt and self-doubt others feel about their own decisions to stop having children. The surest way to avoid dealing with these stifled concerns is to assault the character or intelligence of parents who dare to expose them with their large families.
So, too with Sarah Palin and the left. Her very life rebukes them.
She has five children, two of them after the age of forty. When her infant son was diagnosed with Down Syndrome, she chose life. And when her own daughter was discovered pregnant (a hypothetical commonly urged against pro-lifers), she helped her choose life, too. Without ever saying a word about being pro-life (to say it would have been superfluous), she demolished all the common arguments used in favor of abortion and family planning, totemic doctrines of the left.
But it’s more than just doctrine. It’s that so many people on the left have condoned abortions, helped others obtain abortions, or even had abortions themselves in the very same circumstances under which Sarah Palin chose life. Honest people are an affront to liars. Law-abiders are an affront to criminals. And the woman who has made pro-life “choices” is a stinging affront to modern feminism, which has spent decades trying to convince women that pregnancy is a disease and children parasites.
They must demonize her because her choices so clearly condemn their own. Make no mistake, when your example disproves someone else’s deeply internalized rationalizations, they will try to destroy you. After all, the only other option would be to repent.
Conclusion
In “Beyond Good and Evil,” Nietzsche said, “Anyone who has looked deeply into the world may guess how much wisdom lies in the superficiality of men….let nobody doubt that whoever stands that much in need of the cult of surfaces must at some time have reached beneath them with disastrous results.” His critique of religion so perfectly fits probamaism that one is forced to conclude the latter is but a new flavor of the former.
There may be other pathologies at play here, but these explain both the left’s tsunamic response and why it struck last Thursday morning. It was the speech, stupid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
1. While, some of the invective directed at Mrs. Palin is just as silly as "Obama is a Muslim" chain emails that the same people who are championing Palin have been forwarding to their friends, workmates and family, the preponderance of queries are centered on her suitability to be elected to #2 position for leader of the free world. In fact, I'd gauge Obama-hatred to be much more prevalent and the forces behind that more likely to act out in violence (as demonstrated recently with the arrest at DNC of a group plotting assassination of Obama).
2. Regarding "politics of personal destruction", Republicans are the ones that have made this art form. Let's jump back 10 years and see a ruthless campaign, which originated with white supremacists in Arkansas, to wage full scale "politics of personal destruction" on President Clinton and impeached him for a deceiving about an adulterous affair. The persecution was lead by hypocrites all guilty of the same sin, and instead of repenting and reconciliating, they chose to separate with their wives. After George W. Bush took office, millions of dollars and resources were diverted from real security threats (like preventing what happened on 9/11) to look for phantom abuse cases by the previous administration to prosecute. None of which were found. The Republicans really have been the slime leaders here. Not that that justifies mud wringing by the other side, but if one is completely honest in their assessment, they have to acknowledge that the Republicans are the more professional hatchetmen. As for Palin's children, it is a spin-job that this was a manifestation of lefty bloggers — these rumors arose in Alaska, months prior, as the circumstances surrounding Palin's pregnancy were most mysterious — she kept it a secret for nearly 8 months, her daughter was yanked from school and sent to another locale 5 months into Mrs. Palin's pregnancy, and then were the pictures. While her family should not be disprected, she is a public servant, and people are going to question anything outside of the norm.
3. Yes, there is outrage on the Democratic side for Palin's candidacy. Mainly for the deceit by her and the hypocrisy of her supporters. Her convention speech was riddled with lies — the wire service reports even have cataloged them — from the "bridge to nowhere" that she did support, then didn't (but still kept the money) to misrepresenations about her being fiscally responsible — she's "Queen of Pork", hired a lobbyist (who is associated with the convicted Jack Abramoff) to secure earmarks that on a per-capita basis are in the stratosphere compared to any other state. Worse, were the sarcastic stings at Obama that were veiled racist charges — specifically the "community organizer" crack. Look at the audience she was speaking to, though — I believe only 30 black delegates were in attendance, about 1% of total convention crowd — a lilly white, richie rich crowd that bears no resemblence to the diversity of America. And what about the hypocrisy of supporters? John Stewart put together a video clip of right wing talk hosts (like yourself) where they call parents of teenage mothers "pinheads" but when it's it someone that's "one of you", you adopt a completely different tack on the matter. Or imagine if Bristol Palin was black what would be said about her and her boyfriend with the immature, expletive laced MySpace page rantings? Or the completely 180 degree response James Dobson would have for someone in Sarah Palin's scenario if it wasn't Sarah Palin and they were asking for counseling. But you have such cognitive dissonance, and have no awareness of any other perspective than your own prejudice laced one.
4. Obama is NOT the left's messiah. He's not the liberal's messiah either. In fact, most all of the "lefties" I know, believe him to be more of an establishment centrist — otherwise, he would not have gotten to the perch he is at now. For a lot of people, especially younger Americans where he's captured affections, he's a refreshing change to the status quo. You can rattle off your Republican talking points on how he's an elitist celebrity, but his story is emblematic of the American narrative — bringing himself up from the bootstraps (unlike the mediocre child of privilege that Bush and McCain are) and achieving success, even sacrificing financial rewards for public service.
5. It's your opinion as an conservative ideologue that Barack Obama "isn't ready to be president yet"? He's had more experience than Abraham Lincoln (celebrated father of Republican party) when he ran for president and certainly is a more apt than the current office holder, a 'C' student that takes pride in his ignorance. You have to be an ideologue, because there's no way you can compare Palin to Obama — one was president of Harvard Law Review, the other attended 5 colleges in 6 years and served as sports announcer while Obama gained real leadership skills. Yes, I think her governorship is not to be belittled, but it's not even as impressive as George W. Bush's term in Texas, a one-party state just like Texas. She is politically shrewd and can effectively manage the cutthroat politics — just read the Alaska papers to get a glimpse of her acumen in that regard. But to actual governing, she's a big minus. Obama has been preparing for this stage for the past 2-3 years. A few months ago, Palin didn't even know what the responsibilities of a vice-president were. Today she showed complete ignorance on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae debacle, a rather shocking revelation, considering that the economic meltdown in the housing sector is so relevant right now.
6. See, there's a difference in negative campaigning. One is snide, and lowbrow, dependent on identity politics, cultural resentment (they're not like you) or unconscious racism. Republicans have run with this "Southern Strategy" (don't take my word for it, read the words of former Republican campaign strategists who are quite open about it) for years, and it may have another election cycle (or two) before it's all played out. During the RNC, not one single statistic was cited (well, maybe Laura Bush in her speech on Africa and AIDS relief efforts was an exception) — instead, Palin and other speakers resorted to "politics of personal destruction" as you term it — by invoking unconscious racist reference with the "community organizer" remark, and the coded "the One" messiah remarks, which are code words to induce cultural resentment, identity politics and nothing but partisan rancor. The Democrats ran negative too, but at least those were on the issues and on the track record of the party in power for the last 8 years.
7. She's demonized because a lot of Americans are concerned about her extremist faith views. Or what they perceive as whacky, fundamentalist "end times" theology. It would help if she would clarify this, but in order to spare Dan Quayle moments, the campaign has shuffled her away to seclusion from answering to media and public queries. This is not totally unexpectant behavior — the George W. Bush presidential terms also have followed such a strategy, speaking only to their supporters and when they dictate. And we have seen how well that's been working.
"If I don't want to loan you my lawnmower, any excuse will do."
1. Which came first, the animosity or the explanations given for it?
2. Is the animosity proportional to the reasons given for it?
3. Why so much animosity so quickly?
Everything else is distraction and bluster until these simple questions are answered. Either show that the response has been consistent with rationality in these ways or else admit there is a pathology here.
Naum, I fear many readers will not hear some of the worthy points in your post only because your anger and fallacious paraphenalia obscure them. You know as well as I do that lumping me in with other talk hosts or accusing me of linguistic racism or following someone's "talking points" accusations is frustration, not reason talking. Take a more temperate tone, and more people will pay attention.
I, too, think there are genuine questions about Governor Palin, and I think many conservatives, myself included, have been very quick to embrace her. But there is something deeply wrong with far too many on the left, and their response to her speech/candidacy has really revealed this for a lot of observers.
Andrew, you're the ideologue here.
While I support Obama, I am a registered independent and have voted for all parties in recent past elections (and I voted Republican in my district until Bob Stump retired)... ...so please excuse my offense at your notions here which are devoid of factual content, and center on "pathology" of a subjective assessment of "animosity" that you reserve for one side - not coincidentally the side that is playing the "culture war"/"identity politics" "politics of destruction".
I concede that some of the nitpicking over Palin is over the top, but a great deal of outrage is ignited over a candidate that gave a speech that is downright deceitful, and clearly obvious to anyone who has knowledge of political affairs beyond People magazine puff pieces or non-political mainstream television features...
What are the charges of "fallacious parapenalia" exactly?
Palin's speech belitting "community organizers" is a veiled racist charge — it's specifically designed to conjure up us/them polarity (it's in the same vein as Willie Horton 1988 ad). Republicans have trotted out "Southern Strategy" since 1968, and this is not my pronouncement, it's the testimonial those who first crafted the strategy! Just look at the audience at the RNC to see the fruits of such campaign appeals over the years (1% minority delegates)... …some of the other remarks were "code word" dog whistles too...
And again, your article is replete with subjective psychological leanings devoid of reason or facts.
However, I will accomodate your query and attempt to answer your questions, which again, are interested only in framing the debate and not examining whether your assessment is with merit or not...
1. Both came at first and there is equal to or greater animosity from the other side. There was outrage over the hypocrisy and lies. I mean, today Palin is still talking about how she opposed the "bridge to nowhere" today when even the Wall Street Journal (you're not going to call them "liberal" are you?) has even acknowledge that is a whopper.
2. You're making a flaw of judging opposition based on a minority of heated voices. If I made that same judgment of you based what I read on freerepublic.com or hard right white supremacist sources, you'd be equally offended.
3. Again, because it's a slap in the face, and a total elevation of image over substance — speaking out of both sides of the mouth about being bipartisan, attacking the other side over inexperience, then turning around and appointing somebody to the right of the extremist George W. Bush. Also, as I addressed, the double standard, which cognitive dissonance seems to preclude you and other supporters, from grasping — it infuriates people, that there are two sets of rules — one for people that are like you and that you favor, and another set of rules for another people (most typically, those brown people (or "elitist" intellectuals) living in urban cities...
There are also pent up feelings over 8 years, over a stolen election (and possibly a stolen 2004 election if some credible voices are to be believed), over the squandering of our spiritual capital, illegal immoral wars to fatten defense contractors, total unprofessionalism and crony aristrocracy in the government, letting 2000+ people in New Orleans drown, etc....
There are legitimate questions to be asked about Palin, Obama, Biden and McCain all... ...and I stated that some of the things being said are silly as the feces flung at Obama....
Here is a final point - earlier, Obama was the focus where for 8 days straight mainstream media ran a prejudicial clip, out of context, of Reverend Wright (and he's charged as racist but everytime I ask what did he say that was racist, or that was untrue, my hardened conservative friends are unable to answer...)... ...by contrast, Palin, who got up on stage and said some things (of which I may say that I don't find objectionable, maybe a bit wierd the focus, but I not bothered by it) that will freak a great number of Americans out -- how much has that tape of her and her pastor (which I know for sure, a sizable majority of Americans will find "out there") played on MSM outlets? So please, it makes your screed look sanctimonious...
One more note...
I believe there is a great deal of angst amongst Democratic supporters of Obama that see election after election, how the public agrees with them on the issues (just about every major issue except capital punishment), yet they lose the election because they "play nice and respectful" where the Republicans, using Rovian tactics of voter suppression, negative character assassinations, "image over substance", playing the fear card, Southern strategy, etc... are much more cutthroat in their campaignning...
Part of that is because Democrats listen to focus groups that say Americans don't like negative ads. And that's true - we dislike negative ads. But there's a difference in negative campaign appeals — one centered on the record of how the incumbent party has governed, or empirical data on what they have done, or the crimes and ethical lapses they have committed vs. nebulous character assassinations, veiled racist undertones, tugging at unconscious prejudices, etc...
Democrats watched as Kerry cowered under Swift Boat scandalous, scurrilous charges based on hearsay and slander (yes, I read their book) which was elevated to front page of TV/newspapers and Kerry ignored the charges, and worse, indirectly gave creedence to the vile attacks by not answering or questioning integrity of Bush^H^H^H^HRove campaign that sanctioned such attacks... ...so people voted for the 'C' student that went AWOL on his National Guard duty over the war hero (not that that should be the primary criteria for evaluating presidency)...
I was stunned by the comments I read (and continue to read) in the New York Times and the LA Times. Air America was hysterical, and not in the funny way, which doesn't surprise me. I thought Mona Charen's piece http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/is_trig_at_the_heart_of_medias.html) on the treatment of Palin gave several good other examples.
How about this. There are people who are really worked up over Sarah Palin. Those people are proving more about themselves than about her most of the time. That's the point of the article. People who are vile about Obama likewise expose only themselves.
Certainly you've never heard me engage in outlandish personal attacks on Obama, right? In fact, I find the vitriol that exists against him to be noxious myself. But I've not seen the slanders used against him in mainstream publications, just bizarre recirculated emails, the senders of which I normally rebuke for doing so.
I've listened to the entire sermon by Jeremiah Wright, and it was far more shocking than that clip actually showed.
What is the difference, in your opinion, between screed and satire?
I'm pretty sure I grasp cognitive dissonance.
I laughed at the community organizers line because it was funny, not because it hid some code race-baiting. Stop reading everyone's reactions as the worst possible ones. Christian charity demands at least that much.
The one thing I'm glad to hear you say is that so much of the left is tremendously frustrated. I agree. The fury this generates and the continued nurturance of it by reiterating of the reasons for it are themselves psychologically worrisome.
I know you personally love Jesus. Why is fury so important to you?
Lost my post, retyping...
1. What exactly did you find racist or untruthful in the Reverend Wright sermon you viewed?
2. The community organizer line, whether you noted it or not, was indeed a veiled racist charge and intended to strike at unconscious racism... ...perhaps you didn't view it that way, but again, see cognitive dissonance -- and it's a big reason why you look at the audience at the RNC and see very little diversity...
3. Fury is not important to me. I admit, injustice does make me anger, and I've seen 8 years of Republican injustice, hateful politics of division based on identity politics, Southern Strategy, then the ethical and criminal lapses of the party in power....
4. You and Mona (and others) make a huge leap (extrapolating this out to be an issue with Palin's kid(s)...) and it doesn't become an intelligent person to engage in what is nothing but psychobabble and wayward speculations about root factors of dislike for Palin... ...especially when you seem oblivious to the blatant hypocrisy on your own side...
Oh one thing that I forgot in retyping...
5. Your remark about comments equally applies to the same sources (and the right wing and left wing blogs/sites) with hate filled invective on supporters on that side. I can go to any of those sites you mentioned and pluck out hateful examples from Republican partisans -- or even "brain dead" ones that smack of ignorance and racism...
In fact, I read quite a bit (I'm blessed to be a speed reader) and while there are no absolutes on this and each side is guilty of some rather disprectful and hate filled rhetoric, on the conservative side, it sure seems that there is a black/white relucatance to even examine a point from the other side whereas most of the liberal blogs encourage dissent, are rather open minded, willing to listen to counter arguments and gauge them on their merit instead of replying with bromides and platitudes devoid of reason...
Oh BTW, lest this not be recognized, I love Palin... ...I think it was a genius choice by McCain (as far as political strategy goes), invigorating his campaign, taking back the western U.S. and now taking white women majority (in polls, for now)...
As a person, I initially liked her, until all the deceitful (and reports of her abusing her position surfaced, which I still will give her the benefit of the doubt, including her asking a librarian how she felt if she asked her to censor books) claims.
If the deceit were not an issue, there still would be an issue of her qualification -- I love my Mom too and she's really nice, but I wouldn't vote for her for vice-president... ...we're not electing a bar buddy (they told us we elected Bush because Americans would "rather have a beer with him" basis), we're electing leaders of the free world. If I need surgery, I'm not going to go to my beer buddy, I will seek someone qualified....
This post nails it...
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/gov-palin-and-t.html
So Palin's line in that initial national speech wasn't true, but it went over well with the crowd. So she stuck with it. She's used some variation of that "Thanks, but no thanks" falsehood just about every time she's spoken in public over the past week and a half. She's even begun to embellish the story.
What I find most interesting about this particular lie is that Sarah Palin is, famously, an evangelical Christian. Evangelical Christians aren't supposed to tell lies.
I'm of course not suggesting that we live up to this standard all or even most of the time. But the existence of that standard is undeniable. Nor am I suggesting that this particular moral rule is in any way unique to evangelical Christians. It's pretty universal, actually. Everyone agrees, in principle, that Good People tell the truth and that telling lies leads to becoming a Bad Person.
Yet we evangelical Christians are a famously moralistic bunch. We're the "values voters," don't you know, putting individual morality front and center at every opportunity. So it's a bit odd to be introduced to a new national figure and to learn, simultaneously, that she is both proudly evangelical and, just as proudly, a habitual liar.
Gov. Palin is also, of course, a parent. As an evangelical Christian parent she is no doubt familiar with Veggie Tales. The predicament she has created for herself over the past two weeks reminds me of that classic Veggie Tales episode, "Larry-Boy and the Fib from Outer Space."
In that story, you'll recall, Junior Asparagus tells a small lie about breaking his father's plate. The small lie begins to grow, as small lies tend to do. The longer Junior Asparagus refuses to tell the truth, the stronger and larger the lie becomes, until finally it turns into the gigantic Fib from Outer Space, stomping through Bumblyburg like Godzilla.
That's pretty much the situation Palin has put herself in. She created this lie in her first speech and she's been feeding it ever since and now it's out of control. I doubt even Larry-Boy could save her at this point.
Yet the really interesting thing about Palin's predicament is that she doesn't seem to think that it is a predicament. She doesn't seem to think that the transparent lies she keeps repeating about her record are in any way wrong.
What's more, her biggest supporters -- evangelical Christian voters -- don't seem to have a problem with this either. They'll half-heartedly pretend that she isn't lying, pointing fingers at the hostile "media" and claiming that Lenny broke the plate. But they don't really seem to care whether this duplicitous defense of duplicity holds water because they don't really care whether or not Palin is lying. Not as long as the lie works.
These voters don't care that Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere. And they don't care if she's lying now when she says she didn't. This election, for them, isn't about earmarks, or fiscal responsibility, or political reform, or Iraq, terror, taxes, torture, corruption, education, gas prices, health care or the environment. It's about abortion. And winning that fight is, to them, worth swallowing a thousand lies.
Post a Comment