Palin, Powell and Polarizing Politics

Welcome to your daily alliteration. Colin Powell said on CNN that Sarah Palin was polarizing. Thank you, General Obvious. (I was going to say "Captain Obvious" but I don't feel right demoting him before I've even had my coffee).

I think she had something of a polarizing effect when she talked about small town values are good. Well, most of us don't live in small towns. I was raised in the South Bronx and there's nothing wrong with my value system from the South Bronx. And when they came to Virginia and said, you know, the southern part of Virginia is good but the northern part of Virginia is bad. The only problem with that is there are more votes in the northern part of Virginia than there are in the southern part of Virginia so that doesn't work. But it was that attempt on the part of the party to use polarization for political advantage that I think backfired. And I think the party has to take a hard look at itself. There's nothing wrong with being conservative, there's nothing wrong with having socially conservative views, I don't object to that. But if that party wants to have a future in this country, it has to face some realities. In another 20 years, the majority in this country will be the minority...

Powell hit the nail on the head in one way, and totally missed it in the way that counts.

Palin's obliviousness to how her words are perceived by others didn't make its first appearance in the divisive language of small town vs. big town, and "real Virginia" vs. the other Virginia. Remember when she mocked community organizers? Or when she accused Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists"? Palin relies on division, and has much to learn about diplomacy. She may solidify a "base," but that base shrinks every time she opens her mouth, and this is what Powell has recognized.

And while Powell rightly tells his own party to take a hard look at itself, and while he rightly accuses Sarah Palin of engaging in a strategy of backfire, he's missing the big picture.

According to Powell, the reason that the divisive politics of "real Virginia" was in need of reexamination, was because there were more people in Northern Virginia. "The only problem with that, is there are more votes in northern Virginia" he concluded, and that problem, he argues, was a strategy mistake of alienating the majority. If there had only been more people in "real Virginia," then using Powell's reasoning, the strategy of division would have been perfectly fine.

And according to Powell, there's "nothing wrong with having socially conservative views." While it sounds awfully nice and inclusive to say that, in many ways those views are part of the problem. There are some major land mines in social conservatism. Freedom to marry comes to mind. One could substitute the word "marriage" for the word "Virginia" and produce the same effect of alienating and demeaning an entire group of people. "Real marriage" is fine. "Other" marriage....well, that's just plain wrong, even though it denies an entire group of people the freedoms, rights, benefits and privileges that the rest of us "real" married people enjoy. There are more straight people than gay people, so using Powell's logic, that's OK. It will "work" because it will win. There's no problem.

I can't fault Powell for being a strategist. It's who he is, and what he does. He's paid to think about winning strategies. And he's absolutely right that the politics of division is wearing thin on the American people, and certainly had a part in losing the election for the Republicans. But let's acknowledge that it's wrong on principle, and not just a strategic mistake that kept one party from winning. We need to "win" from the bottom up. And that's not going to happen when we decide that the right strategy is to only employ the politics of division if you're appealing to the majority group, whoever that may be.

Powell tells his party to reexamine their strategy. Let's hope they reexamine their principles.

Follow AKMuckraker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Mudflats

Comments

[luziannagirl]

I used to think the question of gay marriage was silly---that nature dictates that because only a male and female create children, marriage had to be between a man and woman.

Well, a long marriage, lots of pro & am nature observation & study, and 2 kids later, I've changed my mind.

!) Marriage among humans serves many more essential, survival purposes than producing children.

2) Only SOME male-female couple unions ever produce children, that's usually only for a discreet period the maximum length of which is about 20 years

3) Children are routinely produced and raised partially or completely outside a marriage of the 2 biological entities which came together (however briefly) to create them.

4) Gay couples have been raising children for millenia, whether it be the biological child of one of the couple, a child of a close relative, or an orphaned child from a stranger.

5) Marriage is both a legal union and a religious ritual. Leave the religious part to the various churches, and let them exclude gay marriage if they want. We only care about the legal part.

6) Those who consider gayness to be a dangerous perversion and some kind of disease are ignoring numerous scientific studies showing homosexuality to be a natural gender variant, and homosexual humans to be no more likely to commit pedophilia or sexual crimes than the average heterosexual human.

I can see no real reason to deny the benefits of marriage to gays.

[Milrepa]

I felt so sorry for Colin Powell when Harry Belafonte called him the ultimate insult, and publicly. The bell tolled for Me, we are each, "a piece of the maine." Condaleeza Rice is also marginalized as insignificant.
Constantly equating Sarah Palin with racism and stupidity is as narrow, cruel and illogical as calling Gay people immoral. I ask you, do we actually want political leaders to learn to become thick skinned and inured to bigoted and persistant personal attacks and allegations? Do we not hope for more human qualities from our leaders than to invite, consequently, only Darth Vadar look-alikes to the podium?
It is not "anti Gay" to disagree with Gay marriage, it's a valid opinion. This is MY society too, not just a Gay few. Gay marriage advocates make more hateful and bigoted comments than any Conservative I have ever met. Good god, who in their right mind would want two mothers. One is a handful. But then who cares about children, this is all about a few selfish adults, is that it?

[Lolly]

False equivalence alert!

Denying people rights is not a "valid opinion"--not at all equivalent to disliking people who want to deny rights.

If I were to say people of whatever religion or race you are do not have the right to marry, or drink out of a water fountain, because I just flat don't agree with your religion or don't like your race, is that a "valid opinion?" And if you were to disagree with my "opinion," would that make you hateful and bigoted?

And, for the record, 2 mothers might be kinda nice. What do you mean "one is a handful?" What have you got against mothers?

If they're so bad, then should people have 2 fathers instead?

Really now. Where ARE you coming from?

[negogato]

Here's the thing you can do.
If you object to Gay marriage don't do it.
If it is not for you it is not for you. I respect that.
If you keep kosher it is your kitchen. But let me have my vegan OK? Let me have my bacon my curry and my rice and beans, my gumbo, fruit only Tuesdays and fish on Fridays. OK?
It is not going to hurt your kosher.

And if I keep kosher,
you need not worry about it. You are safe.

OK? my decision does not harm yours.
You're safe.

And you know what? There are gay people in my building.
One flight down.
They have a boxer; and I have a Labrador.

[luziannagirl]

For a real-world lesson on where the politics of division ultimately leads, one has only to look at the Rwandan genocide.

First, for their own imperial reasons, the Dutch used the "divide and conquer" strategy to keep indigenous peoples under control, somewhat capriciously separating the population into the castes of Hutu and Tutsi. Later, radio "hate jocks" used airwaves to spew partisan venom, and were key contributors to what became one of the darkest chapters in human history.

So, unless we like the idea of neighbors and friends hacking each other to death, I suggest our media moguls, political party leaders and elected officials employ different tactics.

How about finding common denominators and going from there, instead of dwelling on differences?

For an excellent how-to primer, I suggest giving a listen to Garland Robinette's "Think Tank", 870 A.M., WWL, New Orleans. It's available streaming on the internet.

[dwt]

The "politics of division" espoused by the Sarah Palins in this country has one common source: fundamentalist Christianity.

Religion reduced to the level of a comic book.

The fallacy that 'there is only one truth, and we own it" - which legitimizes, division, discrimination, marginalization, prejudice, and ultimately genocide.

The simplistic notion that the mysteries and complexities of life and the entire universe can be resolved by one interpretation of one religion in one tiny corner of the world - to the exclusion of all the others, let alone reason, logic, and science.

The absurdity of "cheap grace": that by simply believing in "a get out of jail for free" creed - but not absorbing the message in one's deeds and actions - that one is "saved."

The dangerous delusion that there will be an Armageddon in this lifetime, and that only fundamentalist Christians will be saved, whisked off the planet in the Rapture. Which justifies hastening the end of the world by fomenting war between Jews and Muslims in Palestine.

The only difference between radical Christianists in the USA and radical Islamists in the Middle East is the level of violence they use against those who don't drink their cool aid.

The war the rest of us are fighting is not against "Terrorism" which, after all, is a tactic, not an entity. It is against intolerant fundamentalism of ANY group which claims exclusive possession of the truth and justifies any tactic - including terrorism - in advancing its agenda.

[theoriginalfeminazi]

Bravo! I for one have been saying something like this for years. I could never figure out why we had the gall to actually go to WAR against religious fundamentalists of OTHER religions, but then embrace the ones in our own country into the heart of our political system.

Well said!

[CyrusBeaucephus]

Thank you so much. You hit the nail on the head. Its a good thing that Fundamentalism is slowly declining due to education and an interconnected world. Its getting harder and harder to get young people to believe in the outright lies that religion has always used to control thought

[luziannagirl]

dwt,

A position of absolute authority conveniently leaves no room for dissent, even loyal dissent. If it did, then quite a few Evangelical Christian fundamentalists would be aware of the fact that the Bible offers far more words of criticism for gluttony and greed than it does homosexuality.

The Bible frequently mentions slavery, but rarely (ever?) speaks against it.

The Bible also frequently mentions/condones plural marriage, extramarital sex and childbearing, and features at least one passage (actually a rant) AGAINST marriage and in favor of lifelong bachelorhood and celibacy!

Popular Bible Heroes and men of God have not set great child-raising and marital examples, either. One nearly stabbed to death his firstborn son because he heard a voice thought to be that of God telling him to do it, another took hundreds of wives, one of whom he acquired only after arranging the murder of her husband, and yet another had sex and bore a child with his wife's slave. And then cast them both out to wander and likely die in the desert.

Fundamentalists claim they go straight by the Bible, but we can be thankful they don't.

At least, not that we know of.

[patrizia160]

Palin ... intelligent???? I don't think so! I hope we've seen the last of her! The Republicans ought to stop bringing up Palin as a future leader for our country. Since she's doing so well in Alaska, let's applaud her for that. Basta!

[jerzyjc16]

Despite Powell's carrying Cheney and Bush's water to the U.N. in the mistaken notion that he could at least do some good if he still had access to them, his comments in support of Obama helped to turn hundreds of thousand's of Republican voters away from McCain/Palin. This is a decent man who, by his comments and actions in the campaign helped put a nail in the coffin of Rove/Palin/Hannity politics.

There's nothing wrong with social conservatism that is not racist or anti-gay. People who believe in personal responsibility, accountabilty and hard work were the very people who rejected the many examples of the lack of those qualities in the Bush/Cheney administration. Responsible, reasonable Republicans (few though they may be right now) ought not to be pilloried and demonized as long as they remain so. Let the vicious haters like Palin et. al. appeal to the aged, uneducated, the racist and homophobic--they can't win. Demographics alone doom them to failure. An elevated politics, with reasonable discussion and principled disagreements is what we must have. It's what Obama's campaign was and is about.

[negogato]

Jerzy
Yours is the voice that should be heard. We thank you for your post.
It is exactly correct that Colin Powell speaking when he did made a profound difference in the presidential. Dare I say it was presidential of him.

Obama ran a campaign that was unified from top to grassroots. What he said was the message. The take away from Colin Powell for the GOP most likely will be to run a more careful DUAL campaign. The message at the top of the ticket will be designed to be acceptable to a broad spectrum of Americans while the message at the bottom of the ticket will be one of division, division crafted differently from state to state upstate down state city to suburbs farm to factory.

To cite a recent extreme: A dual campaign was the take away that the KKK chose in David Duke. He looked ok, spoke in boiler plate platitudes about values and those who knew - knew.
Democracy is choice and in a two party structure, be sure that the Gop will rebuild itself.
This is the phantom of the two party system. The GOP will rise again.
Expect a fine looking candidate and the sewage of division running in the veins.

[negogato]

jerzyjc16
Yours is the voice that should be heard. We thank you for your post.
It is exactly correct that Colin Powell speaking when he did made a profound difference in the presidential race. Dare I say it was presidential of Colin Powell to speak as he did and timed at that key moment in the race?

Obama ran a campaign that was unified from top to grassroots. What he said was the message. The take away from Colin Powell for the GOP most likely will be to run a more careful DUAL campaign. The message at the top of the ticket will be designed to be acceptable to a broad spectrum of Americans while the message at the bottom of the ticket will be one of division, division crafted differently from state to state upstate down state city to suburbs farm to factory.

To cite a recent extreme: A dual campaign was the take away that the KKK chose in David Duke. He looked ok, was ‘one of us’, spoke in boiler plate platitudes about values and those who knew - knew, It would be Jim Crow and KKK in action once in office. Again it is two things. Be Elected, keep different promises.
Democracy is choice and in a two party structure, be sure that the GOP will rebuild itself.
This is the phantom of the two party systems. The GOP will rise again.
Expect a fine looking candidate and the sewage of division running in the veins.

[jmpurser]

Why would anyone listen to Colin Powell on ANY topic? The man has spent the last 8 years proving he has no principle beyond self interest and no integrity to boot.

[RedDogBear]

The last 8 years? What has he done in the last 4 years to prove he has no principal and no integrity? I'm not aware of anything. Of course his performance at the UN was a disgrace, and I'm usually not one to make excuses for anyone in the criminal Bush WH, but if you read books by Woodward and others that describe the internal workings of that WH it seems pretty clear that Powell was set up by the Neocons, specifically to take advantage of his credibility and to make him powerless as he was one of the few in the WH who put up any resistance (all behind the scene unfortunately) to the Iraq war. I agree he should have done more. However, his recent behavior has shown him to be a man of integrity and I hope Obama finds a way to use him in the future. I think he would make an excellent Secretary of Defense. His "Powell Doctrine" is an excellent set of principles to keep us out of pointless wars (see Richard Clarke's recent book for a great description).

[OneTop]

Actually he has spent a lot more time than that.
However, for some reason no one seems to care ?
http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id803/pg1/

[negogato]

Bush spent Powell's credibility and discarded him. He was set up by the weasel crew that ran the Bush neo con war of choice. They used him in a most cynical manner and finished his career as a credible person.
Witness the comments here.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

'...attemp­t of part of the party to use polarization for political advantage that I think backfired'

is powell lamenting the use of polarization tactics, or is he just lamenting that they backfired?

he mentions later that 'the party has to stop shouting' and 'has to stop relying on slogans and labeling.'

the fact is that the republicans have been doing this for decades, and powell's statements of late seem to suggest that he turned a blind eye to it while it was successful but now that it isn't he can speak up about it. seems to me that he is thinking about his legacy and doesn't want to get lumped in with the legacy of the party and is trying to distance himself. sorry powell, you were a shill for too long.

[bronceye]

The repubes have no principles.

[lovable]

i am just waiting for some real reporter (since there arent many today) to call or go to palins office and ask her does she agree with colin powell and will she apoligize for her rhetoric. this is the secound time that powell has said this and no one has asked palin for a response. when she was doing her media tour she was only asked about the 150k of clothes . !!!!!!!!!this is the enquires job to do smut and gossip not the media . WHERE IS PALIN S COMMENT ON THIS ?????????. AND IF PALIN SAYS SHE DID NOT HEAR IT BE PREPARED TO PLAY IT FOR HER. !!!!!!SOMEBODY DO UR JOB.

[Pat15]

Oh she will lie & then talk about God & how she says what God tells her ...also God is opening doors for her ..she will go right thru it ...also she will do anything to serve the people if so they choose ...what a hypocrite but then Republicans are hypocrite to the core & liars to boot...Ame­n

[08politicaljunkie]

She could truly have a profound belief in God and still allow her weakness(es) and/or sickness(es) to prevent her from following His will. It's just like a terminally ill person who doesn't want to endure pain any longer and seeks to end his own life. Like a person addicted to drugs, once physically beautiful and influential, yet disgraces himself performing the most undignified acts to get his next "fix."

If she is truly a belieiver, it's wonderful that she acknowledges God opening doors for her. Hopefully soon, she'll realize that she must walk through those doors on His terms (with preparation and Grace) or he'll prevent her from entering.

[Seldon]

Thank you. It is time we start recognizing that social conservatism IS a problem.

[Freesia2]

I'm sorry. But I think you're hitting Powell a little hard by focusing on the wrong part of the statement. He could have phrased the section about "the only problem with that is" better, sure.

But he preceded it with " Well, most of us don't live in small towns. I was raised in the South Bronx and there's nothing wrong with my value system from the South Bronx." What followed was not intended I don't think as a defense of Palin's strategy. Having said the small town part where he's defending the patriotism of Americans who don't live in "Mayberry" (and slapping the cheap moves of Polarizin' Palin) I doubt he would logically intend to imply "but hey if you can work it to appeal to a majority - then heck throw anyone who isn't Aunt Bea and Opie under the bus. Chuck 'em. Whatever works!".

I just think you're honed in on the poor choice of words in one part of the sentence AKMuckraker, and losing the real meaning of what he was saying.

[SamEllison]

Colon Powell hasn't come clean yet about his role in the Bush admin.
We shouldn't even be talking about him.
Are we just going to give him a buy?
Oh it's okay or what?

[Freesia2]

I have no idea what all his role in the Bush administration was Sam. I do know that he got out. I do know that he seems shaken and is speaking out where he can to make people aware of what they're dealing with with the bad players in the Republican party. Because at one point he dealt with them..... But I can't say what his role was, because I don't know. I do know this though - I have always had an admiration for people who fell in with a bad crowd and then do everything they can to put up warning signs and flares to alert others to danger. I sense this about him - but I have no proof.

The comments he made and AKM's reaction is all I was addressing. In that I thought he/she was not hearing what his comment meant. So I said so. That's all.

[pangursperson]

I disagree, I thought those comments AKM pointed out dulled his original statement considerably.

[Freesia2]

I wish someone would just have him clarify the remarks.

[SeanGardner]

Absolutely. I don't know why AKMuckraker doesn't see that. You post pretty much somes up my feelings on the matter. Colin Powell, despite that one highlighted sentence, hit a grand slam. Everyone, including AKMuckraker, knew what he was saying.

[MizFlagPin]

AKM, there's no way Powell overlooked the examples of divisiveness you provided. He just chose more discreet examples of Palin's coo-coo-ness. ;-0

[kdn25]

I can't believe all these staffers who have thrown Sarah Palin under the bus! She was the only reason the popular race wasn't as big of a landslide as the electoral! Maybe politicos don't believe in her, but the American people do! And that is just what we need, someone who makes Washington scared! Come on Sarah lets shake things up!! Every day I look at my Sarah Palin calendar and I am inspired to fight! She will make it to the White House! (the calendar by the way, is on amazon, and is GORGEOUS!! it also makes a great gift!!) SARAH PALIN 2012!!

[liriope]

This is funny...yo­u sound a bit stalkerish (looking at a Palin calendar every day and being inspired to fight). Did you really listen to her? Surely you are being facetious here. Good sense of humor. If you really think Sarah can help this country, God help us all. And the American people do NOT believe in her (in case you were not kidding).

[joesnuffy]

Sarah may have indeed excited a large percentage of people. By definition, 50% of the population has an IQ below 100. These people tend to be drawn to those they identify with. So it's not surprising that many people like Sarah Palin. She is as dumb as they are. I appear to fall into that category as well.

[unite4change]

The only people believing in Palin are the folks on the far right. As for her being the reason the race was not a landslide, the media has a name for the folks that like her, poor white uneducated, blue collar workers. I look for someone intelligent, not divisive. Plus, it's a new day, just belittling your opponent will not get you elected POTUS but I guess you haven't figured it out, yet. Let's see how she looks in 2012. And, as I sure you are aware, beauty is in eyes of the beholder. Obvious, I am not seeing what you see.

[Freesia2]

I am not a "politico". I AM an American. So don't ever take it upon yourself to announce who I believe in. Speak for yourself - though you really shouldn't.

And you are spending waaay too much quality time with your pretty calendar.

[StillIRise]

"Maybe politicos don't believe in her, but the American people do!"

Is that why the American people voted overwhelmingly for Obama/Biden? Or why solid conservatives, American conservatives at that, abandoned McCain as soon as he announced that Sarah was his running mate? Palin may do well as a calendar pin-up, but the Sarah Palin that was introduced to the American electorate will never make it to the White House. There aren't enough racists and idiots in America to elect her, and that's about all she has left in her base of support!

[menorah7]

I am not going to quote anything Powell said as it mostly another attempt to justify his endorsement of Obama.

Powell owes his rise to power to the Republican party as well as his son who President Bush named as the Chairman of the FCC. What an ungrateful and unappreciative person.

In my personal opinion Powell is a racist because he only voted for Obama because he is black (50% white and 50% Arab-African American).

So Mr. Powell, the Republican party and Governor Palin does not want or needs your advice. You can enjoy your time in retirement practicing your favorite hobby, "stabbing your friends in the back."

[Lemeritus]

Oh my!

[unite4change]

I believe it was a job, and Powell got paid for doing it. Therefore, he owes the Bushes nothing. If anything, they owe him for tarnishing his name. Because, Bush and company knew, if a white man had delivered the speech Powell gave on WMD's, no country would have believe it. So Powell was used.

Why is it so hard to believe Powell voted for Obama because he was the better candidate of the two? It just shows you have a narrow mind. McCain is almost a hundred, with Palin standing in the wings to take over should something have happened to McCain. Any intelligent person would have a problem with than senario.

[ESerafina42]

Evidently you've never read or heard his endorsement, or if you did, you weren't paying attention. I haven't had much respect for him in the past, but he gave very detailed and thoughtful reasons for it, which one of the newscasters said the next day echoed what he had been hearing from moderate (white) Repubs for quite some time. However, if you want to believe that it was only race, just run along and play in your little fantasy world with your little friends Sean and Rush. You're not going to get far in the real world.

[notb observer]

The fact that you think Powell is a racist because he voted for Obama because he's black tells us 2 things. You are completely uninformed, and you are a racist yourself.
Powell was used by Cheney in the lead up to the war. He was lied to and manipulated, but so far has been a good soldier and kept his mouth shut, despite the harm his silence has brought to his character. I expect that when Shrub is out of the way and some time has passed, we will finally hear some truth from Powell on what really happened.
Lastly, Powell does not owe "his rise to power" to the Republican party... He was a competent officer, and if anything his color was exploited by the Republicans.
Powell spoke very eloquently about the state of electoral politics and of his reasons for supporting Obama. He was one of the few Republicans who did so, and deserves credit for saying publicly what many were saying privately.
You live in a distorted little world without nuance or curiosity, capable only of blaming others for the failures of your Neo-Con masters.

[StillIRise]

Powell owes his rise to power to his military record, which he accomplished on his own merit. The Republican Party merely USED him.

Apparently, you don't know or understand the definition of a racist. However, Powell stated quite clearly why he endorsed Obama, and his reasons reflected the same reasons that most Americans, black and white, also supported and voted for Obama.

Although I don't believe that Sarah Palin is capable of learning from anyone, the Republican Party would do well to listen to General Powell, and to others within the GOP who are saying the same thing Powell is saying. Their party of exclusion and obstructionism has become dysfunctional and increasingly irrelevant to our national discourse, as is evidenced by your post.