There’s Something About Sarah
July 3, 2009
How do you solve a problem like Sarah Palin?
Let’s face it, the Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate is the Michelle Obama of the right—a woman loved by those who share her ideology and detested by those on the other side of the political spectrum. The very sight of Palin irritates progressives to no end. Why is that?
The latest assault on Palin comes from the house organ of cultural progressivism, Vanity Fair. In a 9,000-word article entitled “It Came from Wasilla,” national editor Todd S. Purdum shamelessly demonizes Palin, characterizing her as a de facto dictator and doofus who had no business becoming a governor, much less a potential Vice President. “Palin is at once the sexiest and the riskiest brand in the Republican Party,” Purdum sneers. “Her appeal to people in the party (and in the country) who share her convictions and resentments is profound… Whatever her political future, the emergence of Sarah Palin raises questions that will not soon go away. What does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics—with a fine appreciation of life’s injustices and absurdities, a love for the sweep of history, and an overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor—ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his?”
The article says more about Purdum—and the target audience for this piece—than it does about Palin. With what can only be described as a spirit of hate, Purdum smears Palin as the most foolish figure ever to enter Republican politics, a mystery woman who seems to fear the mainstream media. “Palin is a cipher by choice,” Purdum spits. “When she chooses to reveal herself, what she reveals is not always the same thing as the truth. Her singular refusal to have in-depth conversations with the national media—even Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney, among the most saturnine political figures in modern American history, each submitted to countless detailed interviews over the years—has compounded the challenge of understanding who she really is.” Of course, Purdum seems to understand who she really is: a woman with a “deep ignorance about most aspects of foreign and domestic policy” who “has captivated people who would never have given someone with Palin’s record a second glance if Palin had looked like Susan Boyle.”
It’s hard to determine why Purdum and his ideological ilk find Palin so antagonizing. Fred Barnes, a Palin supporter and executive editor of the Weekly Standard, asserted on the July 1 edition of Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” that “…liberal elites, and the media, which is a big part of the whole liberal elite class, and even some Republican elites hate Sarah Palin. They loathe her. And it’s not really political. Liberals don’t think she is a serious challenger for the presidency, but they hate her anyway. It’s cultural. She’s everything they don’t like — [a] middle class, working class woman who is pro-life and is a serious Christian. Culturally they hate her, and they take every chance to pound her.” I’m not necessarily sure this is the case: it may be that the left sees Palin as someone who is being promoted by the same “right-wingers” who gave us George W. Bush. Considering how Bush performed as President, their concerns about Palin are somewhat understandable. However, their hatred is not.
As Barnes suggested in passing, the Vanity Fair piece has exposed some deep fault lines within the Republican Party regarding Palin. It’s virtually impossible to be neutral about Palin if you’re a conservative or a Republican: either you secretly share the left’s contempt for her, or you’re a Palin cheerleader.
Is it possible to be neither? I consider myself a Palin skeptic. I respect her accomplishments and understand why she has captured the imagination of the GOP’s conservative base, but I do wish she had Jeane Kirkpatrick’s vast knowledge to go along with Ronald Reagan’s charisma. Palin’s understanding of world affairs is not at the “beginner” level, as Purdum suggests, but it’s clearly at the “intermediate” stage—and “intermediate” isn’t good enough in this day and age.
I do believe there are times when Palin-mania gets out of control: on such prominent conservative websites as Hot Air, it’s practically forbidden to say anything even mildly critical about her. I also resent the belief in some conservative quarters that one is not a “real” conservative pundit if one does not rhetorically gratify Palin in columns and media appearances: I felt like giving Charles Krauthammer a mental high-five for his fair criticism of Palin on the July 1 “Special Report” broadcast, because Krauthammer is one of the few right-leaning pundits who can raise questions about Palin without running the risk of being stripped of his conservative street cred.
Palin deserves neither extreme hate nor extreme love. She is neither devil nor deity, just a flesh-and-blood woman who’s accomplished a lot for her age and background. She will likely never become President, but many great men and women will never become President. However, unless she is scarred by scandal, she will be a player in Republican and conservative circles for the next two decades.
The mainstream media should leave Palin alone. If she is really a deviant demagogue, she will collapse and fail like the demagogues of days past. Beating up on her is irresponsible and irrational—and after all, it’s not nice to hit someone with glasses on.
