Posts
Events are against him: the economic trouble, his own inexperience. He may have come to power too soon. But to be honest, Barack Obama has in him what makes a great president.
He is a great communicator. A great speaker, and, if he indeed wrote his own books, a great writer.
Many different types of people become president, but surely the most successful presidents have been those who shared this talent. Without it, being president hardly matters. Only with it can one really make a difference.
Reagan, of course, with his experience as an actor and, before and after it, as a journalist, was known as “The Great Communicator.” This also made him “the Teflon President.” FDR, with his fireside chats, was another. So was Lincoln—witness the Gettysburg Address.
In Canada, Ralph Klein is a classic example. He was virtually invicible politically, thanks to his journalistic talents. So was Rene Levesque, another former journalist. In Britain, both Disraeli and Churchill were also trained communicators, distinguished authors apart from politics.
That is what it takes.
McCain was a fine candidate, but he arguably lost to Obama in the end because he did less well at communicating a vision, a theme, to Americans. Obama had “Real Change.” McCain had “end pork barrel spending”; or, more charitably, “Country First.” It sounds worthy, but it doesn't have the same ring, invoke the same images of a better future, as, say, “The Square Deal,” “The New Frontier,” or “Compassionate Conservatism.” McCain was a great communicator in town hall meetings or at the back of the bus, but not directly to the general public: not on TV or in set speeches. He inspired by his deeds, but not his words.
So who on the right has the right stuff for 2012?
Fred Thompson is talented. When he's on his game, he rolls like thunder. But he apparently, to his credit, lacks the desire. And he will be a bit old to be a candidate by 2012—though not as old as McCain today. He spends too much time clearing his throat.
And there's Mike Huckabee. Preaching also teaches one to communicate, and certainly to inspire. Obama's own rhetoric owes a lot to a pracher's cadences. William Jennings Bryan, Tommy Douglas, Martin Luther King, Bible Bill Aberhart, and many more rose to political prominence from this training. Now Huckabee is also learning the ropes as a TV journalist. He should be in devastating form by the time 2012 rolls around. There is one concern, however: the preacherly tone seems to lead more often to prominence in opposition than to power. We honour prophets; but the role of prophet is very different from, and generally runs in counterpoint, to that of king.
Who's left? Surprise—Sarah Palin. It seems to have escaped general notice that her academic training is in journalism. She was a TV reporter before she went into politics. That's why she knows how to project through that screen. Give her a few more years of executive experience, and she may be not just political dynamite, as she is now, but a political hydrogen bomb.
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Friday, November 07, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Sarah Palin's Great-Great-Grandfather Was Born in...
...Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Same as mine.
I always thought there was something in her terribly reminiscent of the folks I grew up with. But then again, I gather most Americans feel the same way.
She really is the girl next door.
Same as mine.
I always thought there was something in her terribly reminiscent of the folks I grew up with. But then again, I gather most Americans feel the same way.
She really is the girl next door.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Why McCain Will Win
I am not saying I told you so. I did say McCain should nominate Mitt Romney for VP, and he chose Sarah Palin instead. I said he should choose Romney, in part, because there was quite likely to be more economic turmoil in the runup to Election Day, and, given the other side's lack of economic expertise, the inclusion of someone with Romney's financial background could be a game winner.
Would McCain be further ahead today with Romney instead of Palin on the ticket? Perhaps.
But I also think he may have been wise for chosing Palin.
Even without Romney, McCain should have the best of this economic issue. He does not yet; but that may change as things sink in. It takes, in my experience, about two weeks for public reactions to events to fully form. Since neither Obama nor Biden have any particular economic expertise, McCain should still be the winner on this issue, on the plain value, at a time of turmoil, of an experienced hand at the tiller.
Meanwhile, there is another reason why Palin still looks very good. She is getting hammered right now in the press, but there may be a snap-back effect; what counts is how she connects with the average voter.
On this, I present an insight from Canadian literary criticism.
I hate Margaret Atwood's politics, and I think she has gotten further than she deserved to solely on the grounds of being a woman. But she once wrote an excellent book of literary criticism in which she argued that all Canadian literature reflects a single informing motif: that of survival.
At the same time, she pointed out different motifs distinguishing British and American literature. British literature is all about “the island”; American literature always returns to “the frontier.”
It works—it is true. And here is an interesting way in which it works. At least since the 1940s, whichever presidential candidate can most clearly identify himself with “the frontier” has a big advantage in the election. It makes sense; a president is a symbol of the nation. It matters if his own life story intersects with the nation's central narrative.
Let's parse past races on this basis:
George W. Bush—with his cowboy manner, his cowboy walk, his cowboy talk, and his Texas roots, he has an unusually strong connection with the frontier. This enabled him to beat Kerry, who had none; and Al Gore, who had little. Tennessee was frontier enough for Andrew Jackson; but some years have passed.
Bill Clinton—Arkansas is not particularly frontiersy, but it is as good as Kansas (Bob Dole) or George H.W. Bush's essentially Northeastern roots, even with a bit of Texas added. Clinton managed a draw on frontiersmanship with his main opponents, and won on other factors (specifically, thanks to Ross Perot).
George H.W. Bush--was able to out-frontier Michael Dukakis, a fellow Northeasterner, but one who looked awkward in a tank. The point of that, in the end, was how un-frontiersy Dukakis seemed. Entirely a man of salons, offices, and elevators. Bush had at least some claim to Texas connections, and his war record, and he had his link with the Reagan legacy.
Ronald Reagan—may not have been a real cowboy, but he played one in the movies and on TV. His frontier associations easily trumped Mondale's or Carter's.
Jimmy Carter—probably a wash against Gerald Ford, Michigan versus Georgia. The VPs were also a wash—Kansas versus Minnesota. Other factors prevailed. But Carter's backstory of being a “plain peanut farmer” from a small town surely helped. That's more frontiersy than a professional life spent in Washington.
Richard Nixon—Orange County, California, is not that frontiersy, and South Dakota, home of George McGovern, is, but here, Vietnam was more important. Marshall McLuhan saw the Vietnam War at the time as an extention of the old frontier across the Pacific. Nixon represented persisting in that drive—and his opening to China was the opening of another sort of frontier. George McGovern and, to a lesser extent, Hubert Humphrey, represented pulling back from that distant Asian frontier.
Lyndon Johnson—against Goldwater, the frontier issue was a wash. Both had strong frontier associations. Other factors prevailed.
John Kennedy—in his race with Nixon, he deliberately evoked the frontier image: he called his vision the “New Frontier.” Neither Kennedy nor Nixon had personal frontier connections. Given that, it was enough.
Dwight Eisenhower—against Adlai Stevenson the intellectual, Ike from Kansas was plainly the frontiersman. All else being equal, being a professional cavalryman is a suitably frontiersy occupation.
Harry Truman—Mark Twain's Missouri trumps New York (Dewey). Truman's plain-spoken, common-man image was pretty frontiersy quite apart from where he came from.
In theory, FDR should have been vulnerable, being from New York. He was aided by overwhelming historical events—the Great Depression, WWII—which took precedence. Even so, some of his opponents were no more frontiersy than he: Wendell Willkie was a Wall Street lawyer, and Tom Dewey was also from New York. In normal times, perhaps Landon should have beaten him, and Hoover, on sheer frontier.
Enough; but to note that a connection to the frontier was important for Lincoln, too—famously born in a log cabin; for Teddy Roosevelt; for Andrew Jackson; and many other presidents, especially those best remembered.
This is what Palin brings to the ticket: the frontier. Even without Palin, McCain has much of the frontier about him: the maverick, the Arizonan, the military man, the lone pilot.
If urban, urbane Obama beats him, it will be a historical surprise, regardless of what the polls show.
Would McCain be further ahead today with Romney instead of Palin on the ticket? Perhaps.
But I also think he may have been wise for chosing Palin.
Even without Romney, McCain should have the best of this economic issue. He does not yet; but that may change as things sink in. It takes, in my experience, about two weeks for public reactions to events to fully form. Since neither Obama nor Biden have any particular economic expertise, McCain should still be the winner on this issue, on the plain value, at a time of turmoil, of an experienced hand at the tiller.
Meanwhile, there is another reason why Palin still looks very good. She is getting hammered right now in the press, but there may be a snap-back effect; what counts is how she connects with the average voter.
On this, I present an insight from Canadian literary criticism.
I hate Margaret Atwood's politics, and I think she has gotten further than she deserved to solely on the grounds of being a woman. But she once wrote an excellent book of literary criticism in which she argued that all Canadian literature reflects a single informing motif: that of survival.
At the same time, she pointed out different motifs distinguishing British and American literature. British literature is all about “the island”; American literature always returns to “the frontier.”
It works—it is true. And here is an interesting way in which it works. At least since the 1940s, whichever presidential candidate can most clearly identify himself with “the frontier” has a big advantage in the election. It makes sense; a president is a symbol of the nation. It matters if his own life story intersects with the nation's central narrative.
Let's parse past races on this basis:
George W. Bush—with his cowboy manner, his cowboy walk, his cowboy talk, and his Texas roots, he has an unusually strong connection with the frontier. This enabled him to beat Kerry, who had none; and Al Gore, who had little. Tennessee was frontier enough for Andrew Jackson; but some years have passed.
Bill Clinton—Arkansas is not particularly frontiersy, but it is as good as Kansas (Bob Dole) or George H.W. Bush's essentially Northeastern roots, even with a bit of Texas added. Clinton managed a draw on frontiersmanship with his main opponents, and won on other factors (specifically, thanks to Ross Perot).
George H.W. Bush--was able to out-frontier Michael Dukakis, a fellow Northeasterner, but one who looked awkward in a tank. The point of that, in the end, was how un-frontiersy Dukakis seemed. Entirely a man of salons, offices, and elevators. Bush had at least some claim to Texas connections, and his war record, and he had his link with the Reagan legacy.
Ronald Reagan—may not have been a real cowboy, but he played one in the movies and on TV. His frontier associations easily trumped Mondale's or Carter's.
Jimmy Carter—probably a wash against Gerald Ford, Michigan versus Georgia. The VPs were also a wash—Kansas versus Minnesota. Other factors prevailed. But Carter's backstory of being a “plain peanut farmer” from a small town surely helped. That's more frontiersy than a professional life spent in Washington.
Richard Nixon—Orange County, California, is not that frontiersy, and South Dakota, home of George McGovern, is, but here, Vietnam was more important. Marshall McLuhan saw the Vietnam War at the time as an extention of the old frontier across the Pacific. Nixon represented persisting in that drive—and his opening to China was the opening of another sort of frontier. George McGovern and, to a lesser extent, Hubert Humphrey, represented pulling back from that distant Asian frontier.
Lyndon Johnson—against Goldwater, the frontier issue was a wash. Both had strong frontier associations. Other factors prevailed.
John Kennedy—in his race with Nixon, he deliberately evoked the frontier image: he called his vision the “New Frontier.” Neither Kennedy nor Nixon had personal frontier connections. Given that, it was enough.
Dwight Eisenhower—against Adlai Stevenson the intellectual, Ike from Kansas was plainly the frontiersman. All else being equal, being a professional cavalryman is a suitably frontiersy occupation.
Harry Truman—Mark Twain's Missouri trumps New York (Dewey). Truman's plain-spoken, common-man image was pretty frontiersy quite apart from where he came from.
In theory, FDR should have been vulnerable, being from New York. He was aided by overwhelming historical events—the Great Depression, WWII—which took precedence. Even so, some of his opponents were no more frontiersy than he: Wendell Willkie was a Wall Street lawyer, and Tom Dewey was also from New York. In normal times, perhaps Landon should have beaten him, and Hoover, on sheer frontier.
Enough; but to note that a connection to the frontier was important for Lincoln, too—famously born in a log cabin; for Teddy Roosevelt; for Andrew Jackson; and many other presidents, especially those best remembered.
This is what Palin brings to the ticket: the frontier. Even without Palin, McCain has much of the frontier about him: the maverick, the Arizonan, the military man, the lone pilot.
If urban, urbane Obama beats him, it will be a historical surprise, regardless of what the polls show.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Read My Lipstick!
Now it looks as though the Obama campaign is getting a knack for making horrible blunders. That's the risk when you must try anything. Following the “lipstick on a pig” bit, they've now put out an ad claiming John McCain is out of touch because he cannot send an email.
Bad move. It turns out he cannot use a keyboard because of the results of torture.
It's probably not good politics to mock someone for his war injuries. Fellow Canadians might recall the fallout from Kim Campbell's ads mocking Jean Chretien for his partial facial paralysis.
By the way, the McCain campaign should put out a version of those ubiquitous arty posters of Obama with lipstick added to his lips, and the tag line “lipstick on a (male chauvinist) pig.” Or just “Sweetie!”
Above are my own humble attempts, courtesy of the free GIMP software.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Who Ran for the Democrats in 2008?
I'm glad I'm not Obama's campaign manager.
This commentator has taken the trouble to try to rank all US presidents, plus the current contenders, for relevant experience.
John McCain would, by his calculation, be the second-most-experienced president in US history, after John Quincy Adams and just ahed of George Washington. Obama would rank 37 out of 44—notably underqualified. He would still be ahead of Sarah Palin, who would be less qualified than all but two presidents, Chester A. Arthur and Grover Cleveland. But she in turn is still ahead of Hillary Clinton.
Either Obama's or Palin's election would plainly be a case of affirmative action. Palin is where she is because she is a woman. Obama is where he is because he is black.
I fear that Palin's inexperience came through in her recent interview with Charles Gibson, and it was slightly sobering. Still, she is running for VP, not president.
Obama's campaign is saddled with a plainly unqualified candidate. He was a one-trick pony, and the Republicans learned the trick. “Change” was all he had. As a theme, that is too easily trumped. It was inevitably beaten by a fresher face than Obama's. Obama is now yesterday's fad, and suddenly boring.
Now what does the Democratic campaign have left? No surprise if they are thrashing about. They have tried to attack the Republican ticket for inexperience, or for corruption, or for flip-flopping, or for extremism, or for being “out of touch with ordinary Americans”—but this cannot work. Obama is probably more vulnerable than McCain on any of those points, and raising any of them is against his interests.
The latest idea the Obama campaign has come up with is that McCain-Palin would not be “real change,” because they are still, like the incumbent president, Republicans. Hence the infamous “lipstick on a pig” comment.
Two problems:
1.Ideological change is not the change the public really wants. Republicans probably score better than Democrats on the issues, and most people actually vote, quite reasonably, not on issues or ideology, but on personalities.
2.Obama is more vulnerable than McCain on that charge, too—of being cosmetic rather than real change. What evidence can Obama offer that he will deliver real change? What change has he ever delivered? Only his choice of running mate. On the one big opportuinity, Obama chose continuity over change. McCain's choice of Palin throws that fact into stark relief.
What can Obama's campaign come back with? Darned if I know.
The one thing that might still happen is a serious gaffe by the inexperienced Palin. The Gibson interview reminds me of that possibility. But who cares? Even if it did happen, would it hurt McCain? Or would it remind us all that Obama, too, is terribly inexperienced to be president? All Palin needs to do is to show that she can learn quickly.
It looks like game, set, and match. It looks like it is the Obama campaign that is stuck trying to put lipstick on a pig. It looks like Obama who is fit now for nothing but wrapping fish.
He is yesterday's news.
This commentator has taken the trouble to try to rank all US presidents, plus the current contenders, for relevant experience.
John McCain would, by his calculation, be the second-most-experienced president in US history, after John Quincy Adams and just ahed of George Washington. Obama would rank 37 out of 44—notably underqualified. He would still be ahead of Sarah Palin, who would be less qualified than all but two presidents, Chester A. Arthur and Grover Cleveland. But she in turn is still ahead of Hillary Clinton.
Either Obama's or Palin's election would plainly be a case of affirmative action. Palin is where she is because she is a woman. Obama is where he is because he is black.
I fear that Palin's inexperience came through in her recent interview with Charles Gibson, and it was slightly sobering. Still, she is running for VP, not president.
Obama's campaign is saddled with a plainly unqualified candidate. He was a one-trick pony, and the Republicans learned the trick. “Change” was all he had. As a theme, that is too easily trumped. It was inevitably beaten by a fresher face than Obama's. Obama is now yesterday's fad, and suddenly boring.
Now what does the Democratic campaign have left? No surprise if they are thrashing about. They have tried to attack the Republican ticket for inexperience, or for corruption, or for flip-flopping, or for extremism, or for being “out of touch with ordinary Americans”—but this cannot work. Obama is probably more vulnerable than McCain on any of those points, and raising any of them is against his interests.
The latest idea the Obama campaign has come up with is that McCain-Palin would not be “real change,” because they are still, like the incumbent president, Republicans. Hence the infamous “lipstick on a pig” comment.
Two problems:
1.Ideological change is not the change the public really wants. Republicans probably score better than Democrats on the issues, and most people actually vote, quite reasonably, not on issues or ideology, but on personalities.
2.Obama is more vulnerable than McCain on that charge, too—of being cosmetic rather than real change. What evidence can Obama offer that he will deliver real change? What change has he ever delivered? Only his choice of running mate. On the one big opportuinity, Obama chose continuity over change. McCain's choice of Palin throws that fact into stark relief.
What can Obama's campaign come back with? Darned if I know.
The one thing that might still happen is a serious gaffe by the inexperienced Palin. The Gibson interview reminds me of that possibility. But who cares? Even if it did happen, would it hurt McCain? Or would it remind us all that Obama, too, is terribly inexperienced to be president? All Palin needs to do is to show that she can learn quickly.
It looks like game, set, and match. It looks like it is the Obama campaign that is stuck trying to put lipstick on a pig. It looks like Obama who is fit now for nothing but wrapping fish.
He is yesterday's news.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Quotes of the Day
"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."
--line from an item of legislation voted for by Barack Obama.
“The hags of the Hamptons speak as one on this issue. Snow White Palin must be stopped. Anybody got a poisoned apple?”
- Howie Carr, Boston Herald.
--line from an item of legislation voted for by Barack Obama.
“The hags of the Hamptons speak as one on this issue. Snow White Palin must be stopped. Anybody got a poisoned apple?”
- Howie Carr, Boston Herald.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Madonna Barracuda
Jim Geraghty of the National Review finds it “very strange” that Catholic voters are flocking to the McCain-Palin ticket ever since Palin was chosen VP candidate. After all, Palin isn’t Catholic. Biden is.
I have noted before one reason why Catholics are less inclined to warm to Obama: his speaking cadences are those of a Protestant preacher. Nothing wrong with that, to a Catholic ear, but it is bound to resonate more strongly with Protestants.
This does not, however, explain the present phenomenon. This has something to do with Palin, not Obama—because it happened once Palin was added to the ticket.
Or rather, it has something to do with women—because before Obama took the nomination, Catholic Democrats also strongly favoured Hillary Clinton. Who is also not Catholic.
The key, I think, has to be that Catholics are more inclined to vote for female candidates than are Protestants.
And this makes perfect sense. Women hold a much more honoured place in the Catholic than in the Protestant world view. For Catholics, The ultimate image of the feminine is Mary. For Protestants, it is Eve.
Accordingly, Catholic countries have had no problem, historically, with women taking positions of authority outside the family—as nuns. Protestant nations until recently allowed no such outlet.
Any woman probably has an advantage with Catholic voters. But, with five children, including a babe in arms, Sarah Palin in particular plays a very good Madonna. Why wouldn’t Catholics warm to her?
A tip to the McCain campaign: make sure her campaign wardrobe favours blue.
I have noted before one reason why Catholics are less inclined to warm to Obama: his speaking cadences are those of a Protestant preacher. Nothing wrong with that, to a Catholic ear, but it is bound to resonate more strongly with Protestants.
This does not, however, explain the present phenomenon. This has something to do with Palin, not Obama—because it happened once Palin was added to the ticket.
Or rather, it has something to do with women—because before Obama took the nomination, Catholic Democrats also strongly favoured Hillary Clinton. Who is also not Catholic.
The key, I think, has to be that Catholics are more inclined to vote for female candidates than are Protestants.
And this makes perfect sense. Women hold a much more honoured place in the Catholic than in the Protestant world view. For Catholics, The ultimate image of the feminine is Mary. For Protestants, it is Eve.
Accordingly, Catholic countries have had no problem, historically, with women taking positions of authority outside the family—as nuns. Protestant nations until recently allowed no such outlet.
Any woman probably has an advantage with Catholic voters. But, with five children, including a babe in arms, Sarah Palin in particular plays a very good Madonna. Why wouldn’t Catholics warm to her?
A tip to the McCain campaign: make sure her campaign wardrobe favours blue.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
It's Over
Frankly, I don't think this US presidential election is even going to be close.
Bottom line: people vote for candidates they warm to personally—at least, the voters who swing elections do. Who do you want appearing on your TV screens for the next four years? That's what really matters, and it is reasonable that it should—in the US system, a president is a symbol of the nation, and his primary power is the “bully pulpit.”
In the likeability stakes, Obama looked good at first, but he does not seem to wear well. “Where's the beef?” applies more aptly to him than it ever did to Gary Hart. He has now run out of interesting things to say. Biden was never there—amiable in a way, but audibly full of helium.
McCain is hard not to like. Because of his ability to improvise, used so effectively in town hall meetings, he remains interesting to listen to more or less indefinitely. Television is, in the end, an intimate medium, and this works better for him than for a set-piece orator like Obama.
And Palin? Sorry, but every magazine editor knows that both men and women would rather look at an attractive woman than any man. Not any woman, perhaps, but a babe, certainly. Who isn't going to want to see her on their TV screens for the next four years? Sexist, perhaps, but true, and it will work for her. At this point, everybody wants to see more Palin.
Bottom line: people vote for candidates they warm to personally—at least, the voters who swing elections do. Who do you want appearing on your TV screens for the next four years? That's what really matters, and it is reasonable that it should—in the US system, a president is a symbol of the nation, and his primary power is the “bully pulpit.”
In the likeability stakes, Obama looked good at first, but he does not seem to wear well. “Where's the beef?” applies more aptly to him than it ever did to Gary Hart. He has now run out of interesting things to say. Biden was never there—amiable in a way, but audibly full of helium.
McCain is hard not to like. Because of his ability to improvise, used so effectively in town hall meetings, he remains interesting to listen to more or less indefinitely. Television is, in the end, an intimate medium, and this works better for him than for a set-piece orator like Obama.
And Palin? Sorry, but every magazine editor knows that both men and women would rather look at an attractive woman than any man. Not any woman, perhaps, but a babe, certainly. Who isn't going to want to see her on their TV screens for the next four years? Sexist, perhaps, but true, and it will work for her. At this point, everybody wants to see more Palin.
One More Historic First
This just occurred to me: on top of all its other firsts, this year's Republican ticket, if it wins, will mean the first Pentecostal in the White House—Sarah Palin.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
The MSM's Palindrone
Even Peggy Noonan now apparently believes that the media attack on Sarah Palin and her family has been over the top. The mainstream media as a body now risk having their credibility destroyed, just as Dan Rather’s was last cycle.
Why? Why do they feel the need to act so recklessly?
It can only be taken as a measure of just how dangerous Sarah Palin is to the left. She is too perfect: young, intelligent, honest, principled, beautiful—and conservative. She is not a role model they want hanging around for the next generation or two. She could change everything, in the way Margaret Thatcher, or Ronald Reagan, or Teddy Roosevelt, did.
This ism ultimately, because Sarah Palin looks a lot like America; or at least, like America’s best self. She is a self-made woman; not the descendant of some great family. A small-town girl next door, born as far away as she could be from the centres of power. She did not go to the right schools, did not attend the right parties (that’s probably what they partly mean by calling her “inexperienced.” What that really means—and they sometimes say as much--is “we don’t know her. She is not one of us.”). She got no help from the old boys’ and girls’ network on her way up; instead, she challenged the party establishment. She is, in sum, the personification of American democracy, as it is supposed to work.
She is also a woman of the frontier; Margaret Atwood has argued, convincingly, that the frontier is the central image of American culture.
She is from a small town. Most Americans no longer live in small towns, but it is still where “American” culture runs most true and most distinct. Ask Walt Disney, who made “Main Street, USA” the centerpiece of his theme parks. The soul of France is in Paris; the soul of America has always been in Peoria.
As Peggy Noonan says, the left’s only hope is to kill her, and kill her quickly. Hence their illogical, self-defeating attacks: that she is “too inexperienced” (not a concept Obama supporters should want to highlight); that she is neglecting her family (not a concept feminists should want to promote), that she is a “hypocrite” because of the actions of her daughter (essentially opposite to the meaning of the term).
We will see if they succeed. My gut says they won’t.
Why? Why do they feel the need to act so recklessly?
It can only be taken as a measure of just how dangerous Sarah Palin is to the left. She is too perfect: young, intelligent, honest, principled, beautiful—and conservative. She is not a role model they want hanging around for the next generation or two. She could change everything, in the way Margaret Thatcher, or Ronald Reagan, or Teddy Roosevelt, did.
This ism ultimately, because Sarah Palin looks a lot like America; or at least, like America’s best self. She is a self-made woman; not the descendant of some great family. A small-town girl next door, born as far away as she could be from the centres of power. She did not go to the right schools, did not attend the right parties (that’s probably what they partly mean by calling her “inexperienced.” What that really means—and they sometimes say as much--is “we don’t know her. She is not one of us.”). She got no help from the old boys’ and girls’ network on her way up; instead, she challenged the party establishment. She is, in sum, the personification of American democracy, as it is supposed to work.
She is also a woman of the frontier; Margaret Atwood has argued, convincingly, that the frontier is the central image of American culture.
She is from a small town. Most Americans no longer live in small towns, but it is still where “American” culture runs most true and most distinct. Ask Walt Disney, who made “Main Street, USA” the centerpiece of his theme parks. The soul of France is in Paris; the soul of America has always been in Peoria.
As Peggy Noonan says, the left’s only hope is to kill her, and kill her quickly. Hence their illogical, self-defeating attacks: that she is “too inexperienced” (not a concept Obama supporters should want to highlight); that she is neglecting her family (not a concept feminists should want to promote), that she is a “hypocrite” because of the actions of her daughter (essentially opposite to the meaning of the term).
We will see if they succeed. My gut says they won’t.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
A Historic Ticket
Much has been made of the current Democratic ticket being historic—since Barack Obama, although raised by a white mother and white grandparents, would be the first American president of part-African heritage.
Real change: a historic ticket.
But in fact, electing the Republican ticket would involve a good deal more historic firsts. Most obviously, the oldest president at time of election, and the first woman vice president. But also the first president from Arizona, the first president or vice president from outside the continental USA, the first president or vice president from Alaska, the first person in the White House of Eskimo ancestry (Todd Palin), the first of South Asian ancestry (the McCains' adopted daughter Bridget), the first Vietnam vet in the White House, and one of the few presidential tickets not including a lawyer.
And just to kick the last slats out from under the “historic” Democratic ticket, some historians argue seriously that Barack Obama would not be the first president to claim African ancestry.
The argument is simple: in America's youth, there were often more men than women. Many of these men owned African slaves. Slaveowners were ultimately free to have sex with their female slaves—only personal morality could stand in the way. But social pressures and self-interest required families not to acknowledge any resulting African blood.
Odds are fairly good, therefore, that Warren G. Harding, of West Indian ancestry, president from 1921 to 1923, was part black—on both sides, more than can be said for Barack Obama. This was a common rumour in his day, and Harding himself said only that he did not know.
Cases can be made for at least four other presidents having some African blood: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Calvin Coolidge.
Real change: a historic ticket.
But in fact, electing the Republican ticket would involve a good deal more historic firsts. Most obviously, the oldest president at time of election, and the first woman vice president. But also the first president from Arizona, the first president or vice president from outside the continental USA, the first president or vice president from Alaska, the first person in the White House of Eskimo ancestry (Todd Palin), the first of South Asian ancestry (the McCains' adopted daughter Bridget), the first Vietnam vet in the White House, and one of the few presidential tickets not including a lawyer.
And just to kick the last slats out from under the “historic” Democratic ticket, some historians argue seriously that Barack Obama would not be the first president to claim African ancestry.
The argument is simple: in America's youth, there were often more men than women. Many of these men owned African slaves. Slaveowners were ultimately free to have sex with their female slaves—only personal morality could stand in the way. But social pressures and self-interest required families not to acknowledge any resulting African blood.
Odds are fairly good, therefore, that Warren G. Harding, of West Indian ancestry, president from 1921 to 1923, was part black—on both sides, more than can be said for Barack Obama. This was a common rumour in his day, and Harding himself said only that he did not know.
Cases can be made for at least four other presidents having some African blood: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Calvin Coolidge.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Feminist Hypocrisy
The feminists are howling that Sarah Palin doesn't count as a woman, because she holds the wrong political views.
This is revealing—as I have always argued, feminism is not pro-women, but anti-women. Sally Quinn and Susan Reimer, for example, argue that picking Sarah Palin is actually an “insult to women,” because she is, unlike, say, Hillary Clinton, not actually qualified for the job. Reimer writes, “He [McCain] seems to think that my girlfriends and I are so disappointed that an utterly qualified woman is not going to be president that we will jump at the chance to vote for an utterly unqualified woman for vice president.”
Right. Let's compare Sarah Palin's experience with that of Hillary Clinton, remembering here too that Palin is auditioning for understudy, Clinton for lead role:
Sarah Palin – born 1964
1992 - first elected to public office—Wasilla City Council.
Since then, she has run for office seven times, counting her VP run, winning five of these elections, with a sixth still to be determined.
Eight years' executive experience.
Hillary Clinton – born 1947
2000 - first elected to public office—US Senate.
Since then, she has run for office twice, counting her presidential run, and won once.
No executive experience.
In fact, Palin has eight years more political experience than Clinton; and eight years more executive experience. People keep confusing Hillary Clinton with her husband--obviously helping her political career. Palin did it all on her own.
But let's not stop there. We have already seen that Palin has more experience than Barack Obama too. How about the last major Democratic presidential contender, good old John Edwards?
John Edwards – born 1953
Six years in public office (US Senate).
Since then, he has run for office three times, counting his presidential run—and lost every time.
He has no executive experience.
Sarah Palin has more qualifications to be Vice President than any of the major Democratic contenders--for President.
Next, the feminists accuse her of hypocrisy because her daughter is pregnant. Let's have a look at what hypocrisy actually would be in this situation: hypocrisy would be pressuring her daughter to have an abortion. Had the Palins done that, in all probability, nobody in the national press would have been the wiser. There would have been no story. Instead, they stuck to their principles—by keeping the child, as they did with their Down's syndrome daughter—despite the very public, and national, embarassment. This is the opposite of hypocrisy. This is living one's principles.
The hypocrites are those who support abortion for themselves, and yet condemn Palin and her young daughter for a decision they would never have had the ethical courage or the selflessness to make.
Now let's recall that Barack Obama was raised by a single mom, who gave birth to him at age 18 (some documents suggest 17). Should he too have been aborted? Is he responsible for what his mother or father did? How about John Edwards? No—let's not even go near John Edwards. And we'd better not mention Jesse Jackson either. Or Ted Kennedy.
Allan Combs suggests that Sarah Palin was irresponsible in continuing her duties as Alaska governor when pregnant with her most recent child, implying that she might have been responsible for the girl's Down's syndrome. With regard to her daughter's pregnancy, Sally Quinn asks “whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother.”
Idiotically enough. Down's syndrome is a genetic condition. It cannot be picked up during pregnancy. And anyone who has either raised or actually ever been a teenager knows that parents are just not responsible for what their teenage children do. The minister's daughter is always the worst behaved; the professor's son is always the worst student. It's called teenage rebellion.
But if Sarah Palin should have been in the kitchen with her shoes off instead of holding a job outside the home, why doesn't the same apply to Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton? Neither put aside their legal careers for motherhood, though they hardly needed the money. For that matter, why doesn't it apply to Joe Biden, who did not after all resign his Senate seat for the five years that he was a single parent to two seriously injured sons?
I wonder—wouldn't it be wonderful if the Palin candidacy ended up killing off feminism altogether, by showing how dishonest it really is?
This is revealing—as I have always argued, feminism is not pro-women, but anti-women. Sally Quinn and Susan Reimer, for example, argue that picking Sarah Palin is actually an “insult to women,” because she is, unlike, say, Hillary Clinton, not actually qualified for the job. Reimer writes, “He [McCain] seems to think that my girlfriends and I are so disappointed that an utterly qualified woman is not going to be president that we will jump at the chance to vote for an utterly unqualified woman for vice president.”
Right. Let's compare Sarah Palin's experience with that of Hillary Clinton, remembering here too that Palin is auditioning for understudy, Clinton for lead role:
Sarah Palin – born 1964
1992 - first elected to public office—Wasilla City Council.
Since then, she has run for office seven times, counting her VP run, winning five of these elections, with a sixth still to be determined.
Eight years' executive experience.
Hillary Clinton – born 1947
2000 - first elected to public office—US Senate.
Since then, she has run for office twice, counting her presidential run, and won once.
No executive experience.
In fact, Palin has eight years more political experience than Clinton; and eight years more executive experience. People keep confusing Hillary Clinton with her husband--obviously helping her political career. Palin did it all on her own.
But let's not stop there. We have already seen that Palin has more experience than Barack Obama too. How about the last major Democratic presidential contender, good old John Edwards?
John Edwards – born 1953
Six years in public office (US Senate).
Since then, he has run for office three times, counting his presidential run—and lost every time.
He has no executive experience.
Sarah Palin has more qualifications to be Vice President than any of the major Democratic contenders--for President.
Next, the feminists accuse her of hypocrisy because her daughter is pregnant. Let's have a look at what hypocrisy actually would be in this situation: hypocrisy would be pressuring her daughter to have an abortion. Had the Palins done that, in all probability, nobody in the national press would have been the wiser. There would have been no story. Instead, they stuck to their principles—by keeping the child, as they did with their Down's syndrome daughter—despite the very public, and national, embarassment. This is the opposite of hypocrisy. This is living one's principles.
The hypocrites are those who support abortion for themselves, and yet condemn Palin and her young daughter for a decision they would never have had the ethical courage or the selflessness to make.
Now let's recall that Barack Obama was raised by a single mom, who gave birth to him at age 18 (some documents suggest 17). Should he too have been aborted? Is he responsible for what his mother or father did? How about John Edwards? No—let's not even go near John Edwards. And we'd better not mention Jesse Jackson either. Or Ted Kennedy.
Allan Combs suggests that Sarah Palin was irresponsible in continuing her duties as Alaska governor when pregnant with her most recent child, implying that she might have been responsible for the girl's Down's syndrome. With regard to her daughter's pregnancy, Sally Quinn asks “whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother.”
Idiotically enough. Down's syndrome is a genetic condition. It cannot be picked up during pregnancy. And anyone who has either raised or actually ever been a teenager knows that parents are just not responsible for what their teenage children do. The minister's daughter is always the worst behaved; the professor's son is always the worst student. It's called teenage rebellion.
But if Sarah Palin should have been in the kitchen with her shoes off instead of holding a job outside the home, why doesn't the same apply to Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton? Neither put aside their legal careers for motherhood, though they hardly needed the money. For that matter, why doesn't it apply to Joe Biden, who did not after all resign his Senate seat for the five years that he was a single parent to two seriously injured sons?
I wonder—wouldn't it be wonderful if the Palin candidacy ended up killing off feminism altogether, by showing how dishonest it really is?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Musings on Sarah Palin
No way the McCain camp has to give up the “inexperienced” jibe because of the selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate. Why not do a commercial comparing Sarah Palin’s resume with Obama’s, with the tagline “He’s Almost Ready. To be Vice President.”
Palin also contrasts nicely to Joe Biden. Biden is likeable, but a likeable rascal. He’s a political huckster, a ward-heeler.
Obama, too, looks to some like smoke and mirrors. He’s been called an “empty suit.” The McCain campaign seems to have hit a nerve by mocking the hype surrounding him.
By comparison, there is something very real about Sarah Palin. She is one of us. She is “Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington.” She is the all-American girl. She has proven her sincerity fighting corruption in Alaska. Just as McCain has proven his sincerity long ago in a Vietnamese POW camp.
Both tickets claim to represent change.
But isn’t it the Republicans who offer change we can believe in?
Palin also contrasts nicely to Joe Biden. Biden is likeable, but a likeable rascal. He’s a political huckster, a ward-heeler.
Obama, too, looks to some like smoke and mirrors. He’s been called an “empty suit.” The McCain campaign seems to have hit a nerve by mocking the hype surrounding him.
By comparison, there is something very real about Sarah Palin. She is one of us. She is “Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington.” She is the all-American girl. She has proven her sincerity fighting corruption in Alaska. Just as McCain has proven his sincerity long ago in a Vietnamese POW camp.
Both tickets claim to represent change.
But isn’t it the Republicans who offer change we can believe in?
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Who Has More Experience?
You decide--remembering too that Barack Obama is auditioning for the lead role, Sarah Palin for understudy:
Sarah Palin – born 1964
1992 -first elected to public office—Wasilla City Council
1996 -after two terms on council, elected mayor of Wasilla. Serves for maximum two terms.
2002 -first statewide campaign. Loses race for lieutenant governor.
2002 -named chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
2004 -resigns from Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to blow whistle on corruption.
2006 -elected Alaska governor, defeating both an incumbent and a former governor.
2008 -named John McCain's running mate as Republican VP candidate.
Barack Obama -born 1961
1996 -first elected to public office—Illinois State Senate
2002 -reelected to state senate, in an uncontested election.
2004 -first statewide campaign. Wins race for Senate, defeating last-minute candidate Alan Keyes.
2006 -unofficially kicks off presidential bid with first visit to New Hampshire.
2008 -secures nomination as Democratic presidential candidate.
Sarah Palin – born 1964
1992 -first elected to public office—Wasilla City Council
1996 -after two terms on council, elected mayor of Wasilla. Serves for maximum two terms.
2002 -first statewide campaign. Loses race for lieutenant governor.
2002 -named chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
2004 -resigns from Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to blow whistle on corruption.
2006 -elected Alaska governor, defeating both an incumbent and a former governor.
2008 -named John McCain's running mate as Republican VP candidate.
Barack Obama -born 1961
1996 -first elected to public office—Illinois State Senate
2002 -reelected to state senate, in an uncontested election.
2004 -first statewide campaign. Wins race for Senate, defeating last-minute candidate Alan Keyes.
2006 -unofficially kicks off presidential bid with first visit to New Hampshire.
2008 -secures nomination as Democratic presidential candidate.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin for Prime Minister?
Okay, so it isn't Romney, it's Palin.
Many are complaining that she is as inexperienced as Obama. But there is a difference. Palin, in her short time in public life, already has an impressive record of accomplishment. Obama does not.
Whether she helps McCain remains to be seen. Conservatives love her; she seems the model woman. But I bet she helps Stephen Harper. Canadians follow American elections intimately, and the fortunes of Canadian conservative parties usually depend on Canadian perceptions of the Republicans in the US.
Sarah Palin is likely to make Republicanism chic. Coming from Alaska, she's practically Canadian. She's a self-described hockey mom. Her favourite food is moose stew. Her husband is one-quarter Inuit.
It's perfect. She'll be all over the newspapers, Internet, and TV, just as Harper was planning to call an election.
Many are complaining that she is as inexperienced as Obama. But there is a difference. Palin, in her short time in public life, already has an impressive record of accomplishment. Obama does not.
Whether she helps McCain remains to be seen. Conservatives love her; she seems the model woman. But I bet she helps Stephen Harper. Canadians follow American elections intimately, and the fortunes of Canadian conservative parties usually depend on Canadian perceptions of the Republicans in the US.
Sarah Palin is likely to make Republicanism chic. Coming from Alaska, she's practically Canadian. She's a self-described hockey mom. Her favourite food is moose stew. Her husband is one-quarter Inuit.
It's perfect. She'll be all over the newspapers, Internet, and TV, just as Harper was planning to call an election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)