Sarah Palin's resignation

If people think that resigning from the governorship hurt Palin's chances for the presidency in 2012, I agree with them. That was my first thought when I heard about her resignation. If people think that Sarah Palin resigned from the governorship in order to run for president in 2012, however, I think they're nuts. With all the abuse she (and especially her family) has taken in the last year, I don't find it in the least bit remarkable that she would want out of public office. I am disappointed, I admit: she is the most remarkable conservative politician I have ever seen, with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, and I had high hopes for her future. I'm not convinced that she's out of politics forever, but this move certainly puts a future presidential run further into the future. But why assume that that is her goal? Journalists don't seem to understand that Sarah Palin is a person before she is a politician. She hasn't been training for political office since high school; things just happened that pushed (or pulled) her in that direction. I think I would have a hard time turning down a chance at the national political spotlight, but I don't have five children, including one special needs child; and, of course, my family has not been through the hell that hers has.

I wish Sarah Palin the best in whatever she chooses to do, and if that means something other than politics, that's okay with me. My only regret will be the sad lesson that it is possible to drive a normal person out of politics by shameless personal attacks. When people wonder why all politicians are egotists, they should consider what has happened to Sarah Palin and ask themselves: who else but egotists could put up with all of it? It's especially sad for Palin because she didn't ask for it. She wasn't groomed, like Al Gore, for the presidency from the time she was little. She became a hit on the national scene because she connected naturally with voters, not because she had a carefully built-up image to present. It's easy to apply superlatives to the latest thing that has happened, but I don't think I'm guilty of presentism when I say that the venom directed against Sarah Palin was unprecedented in its intensity, and that it has been the saddest display of liberalism in my lifetime. Liberals like to say that conservatives are the party of hate, but they are always having to stretch the evidence to make their point -- it may not sound like hate, but it is if you understand the code -- or even to invent lies (remember the fake story about someone shouting "kill him" at a Palin rally last year?). What liberals did to Palin is a far clearer demonstration of their own hate than anything they could put on conservatives, angry white males, or poor white trash. They are a bitter bunch, liberals, and I can only pray that people will come to recognize their posturing as the apostles of goodness for what it is.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l...
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren...
Read more

My privileged life

I have just read the article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Level , and the comments, and the follow-up and its comments.  The author claims that straight white males (SWM, for short) don't like being told they are "privileged," so he is going to try to explain their advantages in terms they understand.  He then very condescendingly compares their lives to playing a game on the easiest difficulty level, whereas people in other categories have it harder, and black lesbians are playing on the hardest level of all. I understand that this is a metaphor, or an analogy.  I understand that it is not supposed to be a perfect model of reality.  There are, however, several reasons why I think it is a very poor and misleading metaphor. First of all, using the gaming-difficulty metaphor implies that SWMs have an easy life.  No one plays at the easiest level unless he is a total noob, and only college students with lots of time on their hands play at the hard...
Read more