Palin-tology (Unearthing What She Means)

As much as the Obama phenomenon exposed a fault line in the American body politic, with Obama struggling to heal this divide, its opposite, the Palin phenomenon, confounded these efforts, working instead to deepen the rift. These days, the gap is wide, with the two sides looking across the chasm incredulously, appearing, at times, to speak different languages.

This election could have been different -- but a change in McCain's strategic approach to the campaign, and the addition of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to the ticket, has altered the dynamic of the contest. In the week that followed the Republican convention, many sat in awe as swelling crowds screamed in delight as Palin, the self-proclaimed hockey-mom, repeated her well-rehearsed and tele-prompted lines.

Republicans once worried about the ability of their standard bearer, a maverick and aged war hero, to galvanize the party's base and expand its appeal into the broader white working class. McCain had appeal, to be sure, but generated no excitement. Now, with Palin at his side, the anemic Republican campaign seems revitalized. But why?

Only paid party operatives were bold enough to look straight-faced into TV cameras and, in an effort to explain Palin, mouth talking points like: "she is experienced as an executive" (boasting of her two years as mayor of a town of 7,000 and less than 20 months as Governor of one of the U.S.'s least populous states); "she is a proven reformer" (in the face of growing evidence of earmark abuse, petty corruption and a bit of nepotism to boot); "she has foreign policy experience" (noting that Alaska sits across the Bering Straits from the most desolate parts of Russia); or, finally, "she is a proponent of family values."

One can argue all of these matters, but none is sufficient. The explanation behind the emotional outpouring generated by Palin lies elsewhere. In part, like its mirror image in the Obama phenomenon, it is evidence of the profound alienation that has gripped the electorate, but with a difference.

Americans, today, feel adrift in a world seemingly out of control. Cultural, social and economic transformations are exacting a weighty toll. Obama understood the resultant angst, and inspired hope. He created silence in his crowds, urging them to think and act, and to empower themselves to become the agents of change. Confronting the same angst, McCain and Palin affirm the rightness of what people already believe and dismiss those who question these beliefs as "out of touch."

Obama challenges America to ask questions and assume personal responsibility. Palin, much like McCain, preaches certainty. And while Obama speaks to "the angels of our better selves," Palin uses sarcasm and anger at "them" -- the "elites" and others who have abandoned "us" and threatened "our" way of life.

In this regard, Palin adds emphasis and punctuation to the approach already taken by her standard bearer, John McCain. For weeks now, I have been brooding over the message McCain projects in an effort to understand the subtext of his appeal. I listened carefully to both McCain and Obama in the interviews they gave at Saddleback Church, and was struck by their extraordinarily divergent approaches. Because it was a church and the focus was on faith in action, commentators examined "the religious dimension" of the discourse. One instant analysis presented the number of times each used the word God (Obama 5, McCain 1), but this missed the point.

But something else occurred to me, and so, doing my own word count, here's what I found: Obama, I discovered, used the expression "I think" 60 times in his responses, while McCain used that same expression only 8 times. McCain, on the other hand, used the phrase "my friends" -- which he often employs before uttering what, to him, is self-evident truth -- 14 times. On more than a dozen occasions McCain used another rhetorical device, i.e., repeating a punch line for emphasis, as in "my friends, that is the truth, the truth." There, in a nutshell, was the difference: a reflective intellect asking challenging questions versus glib and condescending certainty.

It is this same desire for affirmation that the sarcastic self-confidence of Sarah Palin satisfies. She may not know much, but she knows enough; and what she knows, she knows with certainty. After her appearance at a rally in Virginia, one Palin devotee declared, "She justifies what we do every day." Said another, "She's a courageous woman, and what she doesn't know she can learn quickly. Let's face it, no president knows all the issues." A third noted, "I know people who have experience who are totally incompetent."

Add to this the "commonness" of Sarah Palin, and her appeal becomes even clearer. At the same Virginia rally, a woman noted, "She's just as flawed as we are, and let me tell you, there are more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than there are American parents with Harvard grads. Added another, "She's more like us than Obama." These are the angry white voters to whom Hillary Clinton appealed, with pointed references to Obama as an "elitist" and "different" -- and this is the same appeal that Palin now exploits.

This is not new, of course. It was Richard Nixon and his feisty vice president, Spiro Agnew, who expanded the Republican base by striking out at elites and directing anger at "them." And it was George W. Bush who, on both maternal and paternal sides was the grandson of patrician wealth, broadened that base once again by posing as the common man, complete with an affected drawl. With Palin, both themes come together, the anger and the elevation of the common. And for Republicans, these are necessary ingredients for victory. In the face of widespread dissatisfaction with the Republican president and his handling of the economy, foreign affairs and more, the GOP would have difficulty winning their case on the merits. To get working class voters to vote against their interests, they needed, as they have in the past, to change the debate. This is what Palin has helped them to do.

What has emerged out of all of this are two distinct groups, seeing different things, speaking different languages, and because they are roughly equal in size this election will remain close. We are a deeply fractured nation, and this election, which one hoped would help to heal the divide, may in the end, only deepen it.

Comments

[wandering girl]

"To get working class voters to vote against their interests"

this is it in a nutshell, to me. the Republican Party has packaged sawdust and peddled it as flour. those who are duped into buying it will find themselves with full bellies, but they will be starving to death. unfortunately, should the goods be bought, they will be distributed to all, and we all shall suffer alongside.

[hudsuckerproxy]

"With Palin, both themes come together, the anger and the elevation of the common."

So Palin = Nixon/Agnew + George W. Bush.

It's hard to imagine a more toxic brew.

[Plowboy]

As we know, in some people there is a resentment of excellence. I won't bother to characterize that kind of person, but I will say that we have a lot of them in America.
They hate intelligent people. But they should love McCain and Palin.
His academic rank was 894th out of 899, or in the bottom one percent of his class.
Hers we don't know, but we do know that it took her 6 years and 5 colleges to get a 4 year degree that qualified her for sports broadcasting.
And the Republican Party, which gave us the brilliant Bush, is now offering us these two.
Is it obvious to you that they are meant to be only puppets? Are they qualified to bed anything else?

[syllepsis]

This goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson vs. J.Q. Adams.
Adams believed the only reason to fire an official was incompetence, Jackson created a spoils system for his friends.
Jackson, though he was censured several times by Congress and precipitated a financial crisis because he rashly closed the Federal Bank, is on our $20 bill and Adams is on nothing.
The Executive officer, as many warned at the time the Constitution was drafted, possessed too much power and was too unchecked by a Congress that itself did not sufficiently represent the common people.
Lacking real representation, it seems the Executive has become a medium for the fantasies of the common people, not an agent for its interests. Whereas limited monarchies like Britain are able to, at times, separate the fantasy from the reality by having a monarch of only symbolic power, we cannot do so, which makes our politics increasingly plutocratic and reflective of the "American Dream" in its most debased state.

[PumaAnn]

There's always been a divide between rural and city voters.

[Capncuster]

The fervor that Palin has unleashed among the Republican fundamentalist Christian base has a very simple source. They have never had one of their own at the top of the ticket. They are convinced that if they get McCain elected this time, the fundamentalist Palin will head the ticket in 2012. So, instead of taking whatever scraps the Wall Street and neo-con blocs decide to toss them, they will finally get to drive the bus.

Will the last real American please remember to fold the flag on your way out of Washington.

[ranchosx]

as Peter Griffin said "look the two symbols of the Republican Party. An elephant and a big fat white guy whose threatened by change"

[Yermammy]

Then it seems to me if the McCain campaign wants to distance themselves from this administration, then they would join with the Democrats and impeach this criminal duo in office right now. But, since that's not how it REALLY is, nothing will be done. The DLC is complicit if they don't pursue this. Plain and simple.

[Mojane]

Also, the very notion, the word "CHANGE" scares a vast number of people in this country. Change is threatening to them. When these folks have a man and woman standing in front of them and they look and sound like "THE SAME" (as us, as what we know and like, as what is right) they can sleep at night, happy that their world will not change and they will all be safe from the demons of the unknown that the NEW represents. They realize too that when McCain misuses the word "change" that he's just kidding, he doesn't really mean it and he knows they know.

This concept is beautifully explained in "What's the Matter With Kansas". It's what Obama was speaking of about folks clinging to their religion, their guns, etc." He actually does understand them, but because the media either doesn't get it or chooses not to talk about it , the chatter goes on, misconstruing the out-of-context comment.

[Mojane]

I don't want a President or VP like me, or any of my friends or family. We're pretty ordinary folks. We work hard, don't make much money, and pay taxes for things we don't want to pay for (defense (war) contractor/profiteers). Some in my family have traveled to different countries in Europe, have gone to Canada and Mexico, even S. America. 3 out of 7 of us went to college.

I want a President and VP to be smarter than I am, more educated, way more knowledgable about the world, different cultures, others' histories as well as ours, and way more intelligent than my family, my friends, and me. Someone who has emotional and intellectual depth. And also someone who can control their temper better than I can.

Neither Palin or McCain measure up to collectively to those standards I just listed. They are mediocrity itself.

[shothot]

Bravo, and well said Mojane! My exact sentiments. Such insight gives me hope there are millions who feel as you do. A 17 year old high schooler expressed your sentiments as well. Sadly, we're in this mess because people are looking for their mirror image. No matter how dumb or uninformed. And for President. Unbeleivable!!!
How are they convinced these filthy rich people are like them?

[ObserverinVancouver]

Another example of Gov. Palin's deficiencies.

From:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5713866&page=1

"After taking over as Mayor of the small town of Wasilla, Palin fired the longtime local police chief. The former police chief, Irl Stambaugh says he was fired because he stepped on the toes of Palin's campaign contributors, including bar owners and the National Rifle Association.

Stambaugh's lawyer, William Jermain, says the chief tried to move up the closing hours of local bars from 5 a.m. to two a.m. after a spurt of drunk driving accidents and arrests.

"His crackdown on that practice by the bars was not appreciated by her and that was one reason she terminated Irl," said Jermain. "

In an interview before being named VP, from upcoming New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/22/080922fa_fact_gourevitch?printable=true

"She said that one of her goals had been to combat alcohol abuse in rural Alaska, and she blamed Commissioner Monegan for failing to address the problem. That, she said, was a big reason that she"d let him go"only, by her account, she didn"t fire him, exactly. Rather, she asked him to drop everything else and single-mindedly take on the state"s drinking problem, as the director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. "It was a job that was open, commensurate in salary pretty much"ten thousand dollars less""but, she added, Monegan hadn"t wanted the job, so he left state service; he quit."

[KateinAZ]

Who are the "elites" that McPalin talk about all the time? This is a very scary time for our country. Stoke up the ovens the "elites" are coming!

[schatsie]

Elitists are the ones who shoot wolves from AIRPLANES.
Elitists are the ones who build Hockey Rinks.
Elitists are the ons who want Rape Victims to pay 500 -1200 for rape kits.. (I do not know why this is so expensive) Does anyone know what Blue Cross would reimburse for this? Does she own a share in the rape kit company?

[Dru Jeanis]

Sorry James, I think you missed the elephant in the room.

The attraction of Palin and McCain (yes, in that order) which prompts the visceral connection to many of us if far more simple: Neither of them look or sound like lawyers.

Obama and Biden could easily be members of O.J. Simpson's "Dream Team" or Enron defense attorneys.

Palin was sincerely believable in the Gibson interview when she spoke of being "humbled" by the opportunity of the office.

Obama came off as supercilious when he referenced his "great humility" during his acceptance speech. Watch the video of it. Obama himself gives the phrase no weight or emotion at all, just reads right through the line -- as if he is saying it because it is an expected component of anyone's speech in accepting any honor.

The Democrats themselves have sensed Obama's inability to relate to ordinary people. They are the ones who felt he needed a grand and ostentatious backdrop from which to speak, and then spent millions on the effort. It was an attempt at either compensation or assertion and either way it failed to solve the inherent problem of the candidate.

Palin's acceptance speech at the GOP convention has stuck with her audience and is still being quoted and referenced on television, talk radio, blogs and in newspapers and dinner conversations.

Does anyone remember any specifics from Obama's Invesco speech?

C'mon, admit it. You don't.

And the truth is: If you don't, he really didn't speak to you.

[shothot]

Are you looking for someone that speaks to you or someone who going to try and solve the mess we're in. I can only surmise those peple who want to be spoken to, don't have a clue about the disaster this country faces. The economy, high fuel prices, joblessness, education, billions of american dollars spent on two wars and the catastrophic loss of lives, And you're concerned about being "spoken to". You're distracted.
What sad person you are.

[Dru Jeanis]

Shothot-
I made no personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone in this forum, yet you chose to refer to me as a "sad person." Hmmm. I guess this leaves the high road to me.
The topic of James Zogby's article and my earlier post is NOT today's laundry list of "disasters" facing the country. The topic is the Perception of the Candidates and the Palin and Obama Phenomenons.
If the subject were Bill Clinton, I would have to admit that he had a genuine ability to connect to the voters -- so much so that they were willing to forgive his myriad failings throughout his career.
Obama has no such faculty. Obama never got much above 50% support from Democrats in the primaries. (Remember the floor vote that was suspended during the Democrats' convention?)
Your post itself is an overt admission that Obama does not speak or relate to you. Please tell me how Obama is going to win the election by NOT relating or speaking to the voters.

[dsgeorge]

My son teaches English in Japan and has lived overseas 6 years and taken the brunt of people wondering what in the world is wrong with Americans that they would "elect" Bush twice and now why they "won't vote for Obama" - what I am afraid of is what he said to me is what many of the young new voters will do if Obama does not win -- My son said if Obama doesn't win then he will never vote again and that democrats might as well give it up. If they cannot win this year, this time, with this country in such decline than there is no reason to think Americans will ever wise up and vote democrat - He cannot understand how the country cannot stand Rove but allow his tactics and minyons to overtake McPalin and turn this into a nasty race baited campaign. Terribly sad.

[schatsie]

I respect your son... am trying to make my own plans... and I thought Bush was bad, Palin is so much worse...Gosh I am glad they don't execute people in Alaska.

[BadDog]

As Bill Maher said last night, this country was founded by people with big-city values. Men of reason, science, and intellect.

Approval of McCain/Palin betrays everything American principle.

The real question: if they fix the election once again, will real Patriots have the courage to take up arms against the Traitors?