T'Aint "Elitist" to Be Anti-Palin
I HATE TO pull rank here. But it seems I am almost the only Republican still standing who can criticize Sarah Palin without being accused by my fellow conservatives of suffering from an "elite education. "
Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker and [my husband] David Frum have all had their heads put on pikes by the self-appointed rulers of Conservatism. As Rush Limbaugh said:
These are the people who are embarrassed by Sarah Palin 'cause she's not an intellectual and she didn't go to Harvard or have a college degree from approved universities and she drops her g's from words like morning and says mornin'. She's embarrassing, and I think something else really bothering these people is that they believe that she may become one of the key leaders of the conservative movement beyond 2008 if she and McCain lose this.
Those with degrees from approved universities are capable of mounting their own defense. But what about those of us who did not go to Harvard -- and yet whose eyes still bug out at the prospect of a Palin vice presidency, let alone the prospect of her as a "key leader"in the future?
In fact, not only did I NOT go to Harvard, I have no education to speak of. Not beyond high school anyway (and it was one of those large, urban high schools from which many of the most successful graduates went on to become garage mechanics). To paraphrase Melville, a tabloid newspaper was my Yale and my Harvard (and yes, it is possible to have read Melville without attending Yale and Harvard. It's Sarah Palin's kind of story, too: lots of huntin' and guttin' ).
My lack of post-secondary education isn't something I'm proud of. Certainly I've never been moved to boast about it in public. Honestly, if I'd had more sense at eighteen, I would have gone to college -- preferably, an elite one. But I grew up in a newspaper family and was eager to join the business. So instead of spending my early twenties engaged in discussions of Keynes and Friedman, I found myself knocking on the metal doors of public housing developments, asking residents for recent photos of their murdered children. I never said "Get me rewrite" because, more often than not, I WAS rewrite. And like Palin, I was raised to disdain anyone who thought himself too clever or above everyone else (usually a reporter from the competing broadsheet). In my world, an elite degree marked you as someone with permanently retarded judgment, a reader of The New Yorker -- the sort of person of whom Orwell would write, "Only an intellectual could say something so stupid."
Maybe it's because of my background that I've been wary of Palin from the get-go -- and more than taken aback by those who insist the only reason a conservative could oppose her would be because of intellectual snobbery.
Don't get me wrong: I love the idea of Sarah Palin. She conforms to an early American (and pre-feminist) ideal of womanhood: rifle on one hip, baby on the other. I love her modern incarnation of this ideal, complete with Sex-in-the-Tundra wardrobe and kick-ass Jimmy Choos (even if they are paid for by the RNC). I love the idea she represents "common sense" over fancy-pants theorizing. I love -- and certainly identify with -- her real world, "out there" experience over her opponents' closed-off years in Washington. Truly, there are few women I'd rather share a beer with.
The problem is that the reality of Sarah Palin does not match the idea of Sarah Palin. It's as plain as day -- glaringly obvious! -- that she's unfit for the job she's running for. We wouldn't expect the best darn regional car saleswoman to be appointed the next vice president of General Motors. We wouldn't fly in a commercial plane piloted by someone with a Cessna license because we trusted her gut. We wouldn't follow a woman into battle because she's a crack shot at moose hunting. Why is it unreasonable -- or snobbish! -- to have expected a better choice from our party for the next potential leader of the free world?
And please don't reply with, "The other side doesn't have experience either!" That's an argument you can make without having graduated from elementary school.
Those of us who came of age as Reagan Republicans expected more from ourselves. Leave the left to its demagoguery and name-calling. We'll make the case using facts, reason - -and yes, common sense.
Now it seems my side are the ones circling the wagons, shouting abuse at dissenters -- determined to lose rather than ask ourselves why we aren't winning.
As Orwell once might have said...
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Opps. Sorry, Here is the link
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-27/sarah-palins-a-brainiac/2/
I just read a story by a former editor of Ms. Magazine talking about how intelligent Sarah Palin is. Yet in reading the article, I saw no examples of her intelligence, just the writer's claim that Palin has a photographic memory and is a "quick study." Please read this and tell me what I am missing.
These articles, designed to show us how smart people like Palin, or Bush, or Quayle are always fail to explain why these supposedly intellectual giants keeps saying dumb things in public, over and over and over again.
I just don't think that "quick study" and grasping of facts and repeating by rote is an indicator of great intelligence. Obviously, someone who can be a quick study by repeating back facts and/or concepts have a gift that some others do not have, but it does not mean that such a person can analyze these facts and come to conclusions on their own, or recognize concepts in the future on their own. Great intelligence is often found in institutions of higher learning, but sometimes, the most intelligent or "brainy" can get lost in their thoughts and lose touch with the real world, or, at least, can not communicate their theories effectively. Sarah Palin has a common touch and can deliver a speech and, in some cases, her own toughts, with effective cadence. I don't see a humble bone in her body though, at least, not right now. No humility. That's a flaw for me that needs to be corrected before she can truly be a good public servant.
Maybe she needs to use that "photographic memory" to take a snapshot of the Constitution.
What took her sooooo long. Any of us who have had our eyes wide open knew from the minute they rolled her out that this women was not qualified for the VP position. Now that your eyes are open lets HOPE they stay that way..
Not to sound sexist, but if I see any woman with a gun in one hand and a baby in the other I'm crossing the road. Peace
That would definitely be smart.
The are many, many reasons that Sarah Palin was a poor choice. But the problem is that is was John McCann's choice. For whatever reason (to energize the base, to show his maverick side, to throw a Hail Mary), none of them are appropriate. We live in TOO dangerous a time for gimmicks - plain and simple. There is nothing wrong with being conservative - there is something wrong with being divisive, demeaning, and ignorant...... Reagan was upbeat and uplifting.... He believed his ideas were better than the other guys - not that the other guy was a Bad person or un-American or un-Patriotic. This whole campaign about William Ayers, Socialism, Marxism, Real American -- is not just wrong - it's stupid. We have real problems that need real solutions which require real ideas... and before someone can have an idea, they have to have a brain in which to formulate it!
If Sarah Palin is the voice of the Republican Party, it will be a long time before the Grand Old Party is Grand again...
I have never agreed with Danielle Crittenden, but I do agree with her central argument here. It is not a matter of left of right to consider experience, in all it's forms, when deciding if a candidate is qualified. Gov. Palin's dismissal of Senator Obama's experience, while touting her own, shows a lack of understanding of that fact.
In any case, I hope this discussion will be over next week.
Obama/Biden 08 :)
"We'll make the case using facts, reason - -and yes, common sense."
,...and from what splintering plank of the USS GOP wrecked on the shoals of its' own hubris do you hope to wrest such neccesities after eight looooooooooooooong years of ideological incoherence,...and how then do you intend return any semblance of respect for, or belief in the power of "facts, reason -- and yes common sense."
by claiming
?,....mistakes were made?"
"Weapons of mass destruction"
"Axis of evil"
"Free market economy"
"Trickle down"
"Old Europe"
'"Heckuva job"
"Economy is sound"
"Republican dynasty"
"I don't recall"
"Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Using Planes as Weapons"
"Not a Bailout"
The appeal of Sarah and the challenge to the integrity of the GOP is that Sarah immediately separates the mob from the head that created the monster in the first place. The visceral delusions produced by consistently presenting comfortable lies instead of confronting uncomfortable realties is a drug many MANY "Republicans" (or whatever they really are now) will now double down on. The consequences from eIght years of politcial malfeasance won't spin on the turn of a phrase.
Previewing Your Comment
This comment has not yet been posted
Well said.
This thought gives me a little hope that when people like Ed Rollins point to Palin as the future of the GOP, we can count on the conservative intelligensia splintering off and (dare I hope?) voicing their criticism loudly from the sidelines. That leaves Palin at the head of a low-information mob whose inherent ugliness and baseness will not have much appeal for thinking voters.
Whatever the case, the damage in the GOP isn't going to heal over soon, especially now that an infection in the person of Sarah Palin has set in.
However it plays out, it seems like there's a lot of room in the center for an uprising. I think Barack Obama and the democrats who may be about to sweep the house and senate would do well to consider that -- before November 2010!
Why did it take you so long to realize that she had nothing to offer us as a VP. I have only a High School Education also, but I could tell from the first day they rolled her out that this women was not at all qualified to be the VP...But you repubs did the same thing with Bush ,you pushed him on this country for 8 years and now look at what we have ...so no ofense to you but I don't really care for your judgment.Although you may be thinking clearly now how do I trust you and tha repubs in the furure. I think we all know the answer to that!!!
"We'll make the case using facts, reason..."
_______________________________________________________
Careful Danielle...following that path might lead, however inadvertently, to some "fancy-pants theorizing". I can't imagine Sarah would approve.
As to leaving "the left to its demagoguery and name-calling"...have you been attending to Palin's campaign rhetoric? At all?
Ms. Crittenden:
You only *now* noticed that the Republican Party has been winning elections based upon a strategy of stirring up anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-science, anti-reason, anti-cityfolk, anti-liberal and anti-diversity sentiments?
Nixon attacked the "liberal media" and those intellectuals in their colleges, and that self-identification that Republicans proudly wave in the air, of being a "common-sense-type who doesn't cotton to no fancy long-haired book-learnin' ", has been stinking up the country for the past 30 years.
The fact that, apparently, it no longer works as well is no justification for claiming distance from it now.
The Palin pick solidified the support of the older, white, Christian, non-college-educated and rural voter. Unfortunately (for Republicans) these are all shrinking demographic groups.
As a lot of thoughtful conservative pundits are pointing out that the Republican Party has no future unless it broadens its base and starts to provide real solutions to real (rather than contrived) problems. (See, for example, the reviews of David Frum's "Comeback: Conservatism that can Win Again.")
LisaLisa1234
}}}}}
I've seen some of your posts
{{{{{{
I am prolific, to be sure.... :D
{{{{{
(I love your writing, btw)
{{{{{
WOW.. Now ya gone and done it.. My heads gonna be swelled for at least a week! :D
Thanx :D ...
}}}}}
and it surprises me to see that you're voting for Obama.
{{{{{
It usually does surprise anyone whose ever read a couple of my posts..
But it's not as contradictory as if appears.. With a few exceptions (4 to be exact) I am one of the most liberal people around. I completely support gay marriage, fully support a woman's right to choose what she does with her body (with common sense limits) and I believe wholeheartedly that the government should stay out of our bedrooms. Again, within common sense limits
The 4 exceptions to my "liberalness" are National Security, Self Defense, Law Enforcement and Climate Change.. As you can see those are "big ticket" issues so when one sees me post about those, it's easy to simply write me off as a fanatical right-wing wingnut..
I am very critical of many of Obama's stances, but nothing I have seen to date is a "deal breaker" in my intention to vote for him.
As much as it pains me to admit, I am of the same opinion that DNC Chairman Howard Dean has.
"The Republicans have had 8 years and they messed it all up.. Now it's the Democrat's turn"
Time will tell....
Michale.....
As a real Republican what you should be really worried about is the fact that Barney Frank is starting to talk about cutting the military by 25% and that the UN is out there telling everyone what a great president Obama would make.
So Barney has adopted Donald Rumsfelds talking points circa 2000. What's the big deal the military spending is one of the most wasteful areas. Are you old enough or honest enough to say you remember $600 toilet seats and $900 hammers that the pentagon ordered?
I am educated, but I am not an intellectual. I register Green Party, and have voted in the past for Ralph Nader. This election I was going to vote for a democrat no matter what. The first time I heard Obama speak, I was no longer ambivalent about a democratic candidate. He thinks before he speaks, and he has ideals. He is inclusive, rather than exclusive. And, to me, he seems down to earth and non elitist, even though he is obviously highly intelligent.
Just because a gal drops her g's in morning to ya doesn't mean they aren't economic elitists pandering to the extremely wealthy simultaneously dressing it up for the lower middle class, or the crumbling middle class. Or the unemployed in rural Tennessee.
Some of ain't as stupid as we would appear :) Proud of ya!
To me, neocons like Bill Crystal who back Palin show a very condescending and elitist attitude. Anyone with common sense, whether this person has a Ph.D. or a high school diploma, can see that Palin is not qualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. It makes you wonder whether Republican operatives who like her really admire and respect her or whether they see her as someone they can control. I see her as unqualified, prone to illogical thinking, and a potential loose cannon. It is reassuring that Crittenden, Brooks, Will, Buckley, Frum and many other of the more clear-headed conservatives are speaking out against her. She could really be bad news for our country and the world.
For some odd reason, most Americans are not finding, as Barnes wrote, that Palin "exudes a kind of middle-class magnetism." Instead they find her out of her depth and exuding an unfathomable -- not to mention unearned -- self-confidence.
she is an empty suit. sarah plain operates as if she were a celebrity and not someone whose judgement and character and intelligence would be required to govern. she is shallow and without substance. she wants to give msirky answers to real questions.
Wasilla, you get her back in a week. Thank God for that.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
