Landlocked, King-Making Drama Queen: the World on Sarah Palin
Bjorn | Wednesday, July 28th, 2010 | 17 Comments »
She is a contender for “Most Infuriating American on the Planet”. After George W. Bush’s departure, the world needed a figurehead on which to direct frustrations with the ignorant American. The beauty of the gift that arrived was that not only was she innocent of any real background in world affairs, gun-loving and prone to delightfully unfortunate colloquialisms in her adorable Alaskan accent, she was also incestuously aligned with pro-life evangelicals, the worst of studied, American scientific know-nothings and small town, hell-raising future Tea Partiers. More importantly, she had the most photogenic gossip fodder for family since the Kennedys. The world had found the new American it could love to hate, the very personification of all that was wrong with America. AND she was hot.
Most of the international reaction to Palin was predictable. Her (albeit downplayed) evangelical allegiance was bound to draw sneers from left-leaning journalists the world over. On April 9, 2008, French weekly Le Point called Palin “the fanatic of the American heartland”. Her literalistic approach to religious narrative was enough to push some Europeans over the edge: “Who literally believes that Jonah made his home in a whale’s abdomen? Nobody really, apart from the US president – and the woman who was recently added to the 2008 Republican ticket.” said John Gibbons of the Irish Times in the heat of the 2008 election.
Unlike countless Americans with knickers-a-twist about Bristol Palin’s very obvious pre-marital knocking-up or Palin’s sister’s messy divorce, much of the world barely shrugged at these moral inconsistencies in candidate Palin’s family. A Huffington Post piece on Buenos Aires residents’ reactions to the Palin nomination contained this reaction from architect Augusto Stigol, “I just wouldn’t consider the personal situation of a candidate. That’s related to his or her private life.” This sentiment echoed the views of many continental Europeans that are almost disappointed if their leaders are not at least tangentially implicated in a saucy bedroom romp.
But while many were forgiving of and indeed, grateful for the soap opera drama that Palin et family brought to world political gossip, the less pardonable sin the world community pinned on the Alaskan had to do with one of the reasons she was so popular with much of the red-state electorate: her folksy, small-town, conservative, hopelessly-insular-yet-oh-so-patriotic-straight-shooting. As reassuring as her dialect was to millions of Americans, she was jaw-droppingly alienating to much of the world community.
Take the East Asian commentary that erupted after Palin’s trip to Hong Kong to speak to those gathered for the annual investment forum for the Hong Kong-based investment bank, CLSA. The Asia Sentinel rants that the standing-room-only crowd was treated to “90 minutes of boredom which had half the audience fiddling endlessly with their Blackberries. Ninety percent of her speech could have been – and probably was – written for a domestic US audience receptive to her ‘mom and pop’ populism.” The speech was mostly an assault on US politicians she disagreed with, Obama’s health care overhaul and “the very notion of income redistribution” (Asia Sentinel).
The narrowness of Palin’s heartland rhetoric and her overall lack of world knowledge was annoying but hardly surprising. Palin’s 2008 vice-presidential run had unearthed precious gems such as her infamous claim to knowledge of Russia because you can see it from Alaska. Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron claimed that Palin thought that Africa was a country and she didn’t know which countries were in NAFTA. Her international travel was practically non-existent as she got her first passport ever in 2006.
Yet paired with global amazement at her lack of international savvy was fearful admiration of Palin’s political potential and raw popularity that, in more recent days, have cemented her undeniable status as Republican kingmaker. Conservative candidates are scrambling for her endorsement ahead of mid-term elections in the US.
As blogger Sarah Britten in South Africa’s Thought Leader put it, Palin is “a huntin’, shootin’, fishin’, Creationist, anti-abortion hockey mom who — to make that mouthful even more distasteful to Prius-driving pinko-liberal Obama-supporters — also has sex appeal and the apparent ability to connect with ordinary middle Americans”.
Palin is recognized worldwide as a force to be reckoned with. And there are those that don’t share the left-leaning tendencies of much of world thought leaders. “There are few sights more bloodcurdling than the liberal pack in full cry,” writes Janet Daley in an article titled “Sarah Palin gets the spiteful Margaret Thatcher treatment” in Britain’s Telegraph.
The viciousness of the attacks on Sarah Palin is a testimony to the degree of panic … in Leftist circles… She is a renegade, the gender equivalent of an Uncle Tom…. Like Margaret Thatcher before her, Mrs Palin is coming in for both barrels of Left-wing contempt: misogyny and snobbery. Where Lady Thatcher was dismissed as a “grocer’s daughter” by people who called themselves egalitarian, Mrs Palin is regarded as a small-town nobody by those who claim to represent “ordinary people”.
What the metropolitan sophisticates failed to understand in the 1980s when Thatcher won election after election is even more the case in the US: most (and I do mean most) ordinary people actually believe in the basic decencies, the “small-town values”, of family, marital fidelity, and personal responsibility. They believe in and honour them – even if they do not manage to uphold them.
The life of small-town USA is based on the principles of those Protestant colonial settlers who founded the nation: hard work, self-improvement, personal faith and family devotion. Mrs Palin speaks to and for them in a way that patronising “liberal” elitists find infuriating.
As much as liberal commentators may find comparisons between Palin and Margaret Thatcher laughable, they are not completely unfounded. Before the bulk of the Thatcher/Palin talk – way back in December 2008 – long-time Thatcher Aide, John O’Sullivan wrote a Wall Street Journal article titled Conservative Snobs Are Wrong About Palin / I know Maggie Thatcher. The two women have a lot in common. O’Sullivan speculates about the future:
She has plenty of time, probably eight years, to analyze America’s problems, recruit her own expert advice, and develop conservative solutions to them. She has obvious intelligence, drive, serious moral character, and a Reaganesque likability… she shares with Mrs. Thatcher a very rare charisma. As Ronnie Millar, the latter’s speechwriter and a successful playwright, used to say in theatrical tones: She may be depressed, ill-dressed and having a bad hair day, but when the curtain rises, out onto the stage she steps looking like a billion dollars. That’s the mark of a star, dear boy. They rise to the big occasions.
And that is why this folksy fighter can’t be written off. She may turn off the urban elite along with huge swaths of the blue states. But this scrappy pit bull always comes back, usually connects and never forgets her lipstick. Under the liberal sneer of disdain lies fear and trembling.
Bjorn Karlman
Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.
Bjorn, I do enjoy the sarcasm and I do enjoy occasional partisan hackery, yet, I really think that you along with most of the folks on CNBC and FOX NEWS should seek some therapy.
As your internet friend I can’t help but provide an internet intervention!
Political porn is not really a toy. Sure, we may enjoy reading it from time to time, as long as it is not “homopartisan porn”. We really appreciate the shallowness with which those people on the other side of the “political gender” are slapped around and covered in mud. Sure, it’s entertaining and all, but… seriously?
Do you know where we get the idea of democracy that all of us are aspiring to? It comes from the Athenian idea of sortition… or election through lottery. The luck was to determine who will lead, and the general idea was that on the basic human level, anyone who wants to is capable of leading, granted that there’s some guidance from people who were elected.
We get it all backwards. We elect the people, who then elect those who we should be electing as their advisers. President’s don’t run the country… their cabinet does. How do you think Bush survived 4 years of rubbing shoulders with some of the most educated people on the planet?
So, what would be so terrible if Palin is in fact elected? Can president pass laws? Are we so stupid that we forget that the Constitutional answer is NO? They can yell and scream all they want, but if we have people in Congress with a half of common sense, then president is really there for representation. It’s job of the congress to mold the policies. That’s where the true representation lies. Do I have to remind Americans of their own constitution????
Section 2
Clause 1:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Clause 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Clause 3:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Given her experience in politics, please let me know what is it that Sara Palin is incapable of doing, provided that presidents have not been writing their speeches for a while, their schedule is being set up for them, and that they can only talk the talk, but can’t pass any laws into being?
I see your point Andrey. In Palin’s case it is very comforting that the checks and balances provided by US government would limit the damage she could inflict. But there mere fact that a president can’t do much independently of congress should not excuse the selection of someone as catastrophically off track and clueless.
And a quick point about the tone of the writing in CultureMutt – it is deliberately provocative because I think this makes the material more accessible..
The main power of the land is vested into Congress. They decide on matters of taxation, war, and everything else. Any president that says stuff like … they’ve been saying for the past 50 years is a liar. They don’t have power to reduce taxes, and they don’t have power to declare war.
Congress voted on both wars. Congress approved them. Congress voted on budget and approved it. Congress voted on debt, and approved it.
If Congress was doing its job, then it would not matter who was in White House. It could have been a monkey who can sign a paper at a request… should not have mattered.
It’s too bad that most (I’d say 90%) of the Americans don’t understand, and refuse to understand the constitution, and limited responsibilities given to each branch.
Spoken as a true libertarian…
But again, the wrong leader can do a lot of damage even with these constraints on power…
Like Lassie, SP is an extraordinarily telegenic performer. Yes, she has staying power and is becoming an American institution: glossy, buoyant and frenetic. Until she can demonstrate the intellectual authority that would place her on the same page as Margaret Thatcher, I must refudiate any claim that she is a serious contender for federal government office. Oh wait a minute . . .there was George W. Bush.
Quite… and I definitely appreciated the use of Palin’s addition to the lexicon
I don’t like Palin, but I don’t hate her either. I also don’t think she is any less absurd than Gore, Dean, McCain, or any other American politician. Out of that list, I would say Gore is the worst (in terms of his misstatements).
Palin’s religious views > Obama’s religious views. The average American’s religious beliefs are much closer to Palin’s than Obama’s.
All that said, I really don’t think Palin will run for president or any other office again. She cashed out (similar to Gore). Why would anyone want to go back to politics?
So what do you see as her role? I think she is most useful to conservatives as kingmaker… but how long can she serve in that role before she needs to run for office to stay relevant… there is very real expectation for 2012
She is just a commentator. Newt hasn’t been in office for quite some time. Neither had Gore.
What I really don’t get is that when Obama says he is qualified to be president because he was a community organizer, the liberals ate that up like it was a smart and coherent thing to say. Palin does what governors of every border state do when they are running for president, and say that being governor of a border state exposed them to more international issues than you would typically expect from a governor, and people think that is somehow retarded or dangerous? Wrong. She was exposed to more international issues as governor of Russia than anything Obama ever did before he ran for president.
Not to mention, no matter how qualified or unqualified a person thought Obama was to be president, he sure doesn’t seem to be doing a good job. We are still in a recession, the country is still divided, and terrorists are still attacking us. Nothing has changed other than the amount of debt we have and the health care bill that was passed.
Here’s why I don’t think she is just a commentator…
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0730/Sarah-Palin-anoints-a-new-mama-grizzly-Does-it-make-a-difference?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fpolitics+%28Christian+Science+Monitor+|+Politics%29
she very clearly has clout that exceeds that of a mere commentator.
The whole line about Obama seeking the presidency based merely on his community organizer experience is a direct lift from Palin’s 2008 RNC speech: “”I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a `community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.” … good rhetoric but hardly fair to Obama’s experience in state and senate politics.
I realize that her comment about being able to see Russia is not an indictment taken in isolation but if you take it in context of her absolutely abysmal grasp on international affairs (put on dramatic display throughout her performances during the 2008 election season), you can see why people thought it was so funny.
As for Obama’s performance so far, of course things are still difficult, the recession, polarizing issues and terrorism aren’t exactly things that change over night… to expect them to change fundamentally in two years is the height of naiveté. And yes, he will take a beating in November. His successes have been big enough to pick a fight with conservatives but not big enough to deal their pettiness a death blow…
I agree, it is naivete…which is why he should have never been elected in the first place. Change was his mantra when he was elected, and he hasn’t done anything he said he would do. Even his so-called universal health care bill (which is the one big issue where he did kind of do what he said he would) broke several of his own promises.
I agree with David. I think Palin found her niche. I don’t know if I’d compare her to Margret Thatcher, but despite the way her political foes attempt to caricature her (most of) the things she says make about as much sense as anybody in the public spotlight.
“(most of) the things she says make about as much sense as anybody in the public spotlight.”
I was tempted to dip into the abundance of Palinisms to respond to this one but that wouldn’t be fair… you could always respond with Bidenisms or some wild Michael Moore claim… she has found a niche. She is very resourceful. And as annoying as I find her, she is a useful counterweight to the current administration and she is very worth tracking.
My main thing is that she needs more depth.. if she truly wants to be Thatcher or Reagan, it will take more than “you betcha s”, winking and glib pseudo-patriotic babble to make a positive difference… I am not saying she doesn’t have the potential to be a real player… I just think that she has a long way to go…
Or Gorisms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrxC-qEHb8
I would consider this statement to be significantly dumber than thinking Africa is a country (which I don’t believe actually happened).
The leader of the green movement on the left is about as incoherent as any person on the planet and has similar reports of borderline retardedness…as well as the recent sexual assault allegations. And if one is willing to believe accusations of retardedism, why not accusations of sexual depravity, especially considering all the time Gore spent with BJ Clinton in the White House and the fact that his marriage seemed to just fall apart over night.
Liberals did say the same type of stuff about Reagan…that he was dumb and that his foreign policy was retarded.
And coming from a guy who supported a candidate that didn’t go into much detail during his campaign other than “hope and change”, the need for more depth is a little puzzling in my opinion. Obama has proven, as far as I am concerned, that he has no depth whatsoever. Although, I am willing to give him a break since he has to work with Pelosi and Reid who have less than no depth.
Hard to argue that Gore did not make an ass of himself with those comments… and lack of depth and marital indiscretions are hardly limited to conservatives..
And if all you want out of Palin is the role of commentator than I hope she never learns anything new about the rest of the world… it’ll make for better TV. But God help us if she runs for prez
If McCain/Palin had been elected, can you think of any way that we would be worse off today? The only thing that would be different from what I could see is the health care bill would have been different and we probably would have such a big deficit. Hardly a recipe for disaster…oh yeah, and McCain still isn’t dead.
Wow buttons being pushed left and right! Get it? Anyway, I just want to say that I do not want a president who could kill a beautiful elk! Call me what you will, it is just a little weird, Teddy Roosevelt style!