Why is it, exactly, that so many people hate Sarah Palin? It’s not as if she didn’t pay taxes according to tax laws she herself was responsible for writing, or had extra-marital affairs when her spouse was dying of cancer, or mysteriously didn’t call the police when a car she was driving went off a bridge and her companion drowned.
It’s also not as if she got where she did because she was an important person’s wife, or a member of a powerful and wealthy family. She’s not an Ivy League blue blood, she wasn’t born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and she doesn’t keep mistresses or paramours or prostitutes on the side.
Don’t say that she isn’t very intelligent. She obviously is, especially when compared to the average run of politician. Don’t say she doesn’t have enough experience to be on the biggest of political stages. She has more executive-level experience than our current president had. Don’t say it’s because she is a media hound. Which of our leading politicians, or leading-politician wannabes, is not?
Is it because of her religion, about which she is unapologetic? Is it because she is pro-life and then acted on that belief by not aborting her child with Down Syndrome? Is it because she seems to be able to manage a robust family life as well as a robust career as a public figure? Is it because she is physically attractive? Because she hunts? Because she knows how to handle a gun? Because she inspires so many people?
Is it because she is all these things . . . and a woman?
I find it hard not to appreciate her accomplishments. She rose, after all, from humble beginnings to become a city council member and then mayor; she then became the first female governor of Alaska; and she was the first female vice-presidential nominee on the Republican ticket and only the second female vice-presidential nominee in American history.
I can understand people disagreeing with her positions on economics or politics. I can understand people thinking she would not be good at managing national fiscal policy or international diplomacy. But much criticism of her does not relate to specifics like that; it seems emotional, visceral, ugly.
I find much of the criticism unseemly. Not supporting her, fine; disagreeing with her, fine; believing she would be a bad or ineffective president, fine; pointing out her mistakes, fine. But relentless ad hominem attacks, derisive mocking, contemptuous condescension, vilification, and grotesque fantasies about violence done to her, her family, or her supporters? That has no place in civilized discourse, and people looking for climates of hate to oppose would do well to begin there.
Well said, Mr. Otteson, well said.
Good points here. I myself find I don’t like her much. Part of the reason may have not so much to do with her, though (intelligent as she may be) she doesn’t seem much for ideas. But my aversion seems to stem from the sense of many on the right that she is the savior of the Republic. I can’t see it. I can’t see that, decent a person as she may be, she has any special insight into what is so deeply wrong with government. In that I think she is as much a part of the problem as most anybody else. I don’t know to what extent my impression of her generalizes to those on the left who really despise her.
Nicely done.
Is it possible that the left, when fantasizing about Palin, has a fetish similar in nature to that underlying condition that drove the Spanish Inquisitions?
You’re a dick.
Good to know we can always count on socialists to raise the level of engagement of ideas.
JW’s accusation of fetishism and being like the Spanish Inquisition lowered the level of engagement of ideas to the bottom before socialists entered the discussion.
The promoters of “hate crime” laws should be subject to them.
Lots of the hatred I think is typical people assigning an evil motive to a difference of opinion, but amplified by her stature and personality. I do think it is at least reasonable to question her intelligence, and certainly the level of intelligence she seeks to represent. There seems to be no denying that she excessively caters to the most extreme part of the Republican party, the part that distrusts education, immigration, and people from other nations. She did not go to an Ivy league, but we certainly don’t need to go in the opposite direction of going to no less than four lackluster colleges for communications. I think she plays stupid a lot, because the part of the party that loves her for the most part IS stupid.
An no i don’t think her being a woman has a lot to do with it, i think if she acted more like mitt romney or mitch daniels, the rhetoric against her would calm down. I also dont think that we should overlook the overall media’s bias for conflict. This is not to say that this is most of why she is treated like she is. But when Palin goes on tv you can count on something divisive to be said most of the time, and the media loves that.
Speaking about my personal reaction to her, when I listened to her assault obamas community organizing at the convention, to say he pals around with terrorists, most of all act like the word “expert” is a dirty word and that joe the plumber can run government, that is what makes me dislike her. I don’t get the attractive thing either, it seems people are more likely to vote for attractive candidates than not, but i could be wrong about that.
What evidence do you have that Sarah Palin is very intelligent compared to the ordinary run of politician? And “She agrees with me politically” is not relevant evidence.
What evidence is there that comrade barry is intelligent? Don’t tell me he made law review, because I can introduce you to some very average people who have made law review. The disturbing thing is that leftists love to label Palin as unintelligent on the basis of trivialities such as verbal gaffes, much like they did to Bush, but the level of vitriol and the nature of some of the vitriol seems connected to her gender. Funny that nobody came to the defense of Navy Corpse-men in all 57 states when Obama insulted them. Why does he get a pass?
Immediately changing the subject is good evidence that you don’t have an answer to the question. As for vitriol connected to her gender, as someone who remembers the golden age of conservative attacks on Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, color me unimpressed by the conservative discovery of political correctness.
I think we need to distinguish Palin hatred (which you are right to condemn) with hatred of the idea of Palin as President. I think we can hate ideas without hating people.
With Palin it’s that thing, that undescribable, hard to finger thing, that creep-you-out-in-the-middle-of-the-day thing, that thing screams out when she opens her mouth and says, “This person is not a serious person and is unworthy of being President.” (George W. had that thing, too, though to a lesser degree.) It’s not her intelligence, or looks, or background, or policy beliefs, or religion, or anything that can be easily rationalized or defended. You just know it in your bones. Some might call that prejudice or bias. I call it moral intuition.
As I wrote a few months ago, “To be blunt, nominating Sarah Palin is like nominating a conservative, less-funny version of Tina Fey to be President. The reasons the skits were so funny (and frightening) is that Tina didn’t have to stretch–in appearance or substance.”
Its interesting that you defend Sarah Palin saying you don’t understand why people dislike her so much, personally. I would think it’s rather obvious.
I dislike her for the same reason I dislike people like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck—I feel they promote arguments that are not logically sound, instead appeal to emotion and drag down the level of the conversation. And I can only hope that Palin remains a commentator on Fox News and never makes it past a political primary.
I consider myself rather moderate politically, but I read this blog because I think it’s one of the few conservative voices out there that don’t make me shudder or get filled with rage at how terrible illogical the arguments are. I read things on this blog and whether I agree or disagree at least I can consider the conversation civil and generally well argued (though not always ultimately convincing for me).
Sarah Palin does not fall into that same category. She’s not a person whose thought cause you think and say “well we’ll agree to disagree”, she’s the kind of person who makes statements and you think “why are people listening to her” and consequently tune out.
Is she any different from any other politician on this point? I mean, I agree with you, but if that is the explanation, why is the contempt focused on Palin? And why are the only examples on the Right? Surely you don’t see, say, Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank as models of rational argumentation?
If you want a reason people like me aren’t too fond of Palin, look no further than her comments today on the Egypt situation:
““And nobody yet has, nobody yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak and no, not, not real enthused about what it is that that’s being done on a national level and from D.C. in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt. And, in these areas that are so volatile right now, because obviously it’s not just Egypt but the other countries too where we are seeing uprisings, we know that now more than ever, we need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with. And, we do not have all that information yet.””
I won’t deny that she’s intelligent in some fashion. It isn’t by luck alone that she has such a following. I only wish that she would learn when to be quiet about a situation, and not think that she has to make a comment on every important event. I feel the same way about her comments following the Tucson shooting, where instead of acknowledging that her comments in the past may have been poorly worded, she felt obliged to rebut what she felt as an attack by the “lamestream media” on herself and the tea party. Instead of talking about the event, she talked about herself.
Before someone attacks me for being sexist, know that there are certainly male politicians who I don’t like for similar reasons. Gingrich could learn to stay quiet on occasion, as could Romney, the latter especially regarding the events in Egypt.
I will agree with the post that much of the venom directed at Palin by the progressive left is a bit misguided. She is certainly popular, but I feel like she is more of a fad than someone who is actually driving political discourse.
“Don’t say that she isn’t very intelligent. She obviously is, especially when compared to the average run of politician.”
i call poe’s law.
Just saw this Palin quote on The Hill tonight (or was it a Tina Fey imitation?):
“I’m not real enthused about what it is that that’s being done on a national level and from D.C. in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt,”
OK, tell me that listening to or imagining her say this doesn’t make and ordinary person cringe. People seriously want this person picking up the 3am phone call?
Sven, I take your point. But I think it still misses the point of my post. My argument is not that Palin is the person I’d most want taking that 3am phone call, or even among the top ten. Most of the people who have legitimate presidential aspirations make me worry about that.
My argument instead is that Palin seems to be singled out among this group.
Yes, I think you are correct there. I think it was because she was given a very high profile gig that she clearly wasn’t ready for. She is an easy target by the nature of who she is, but she bacame the target of choice by so many because McCain elevated her to prominence. Isn’t Palin hate much like Dan Quayle hate?
Mitya and Sven,
What’s wrong with that quote? You seriously expect people to talk in grammatical written English all the time? Get real. Ordinary people don’t, which may be one reason why ordinary people like her.
And as for the content of that quote, she’s saying she wants to know where the Administration stands. Need I remind you that the Administration:
1) Said Mubarak is stepping down (and he didn’t)
2) Sent its envoy to tell him to step down
3) the Envoy then announced Mubarak needs to stay
4) the Administration disowned the envoy
5) the Administration then said Mubarak should stay
6) now says maybe there should be negotiations.
And you have a problem with wanting some clarity on where the government stands? Or is it that you’re “enthused” about White House policy towards Egypt? Or maybe you don’t think it’s important to know who would replace Mubarak? Do you have a clue?
Or maybe because it’s Palin your stereotypes kick in and you don’t bother to think seriously about the (very common sense, really) questions she’s asking.
My own specialty is Japanese politics, and this reminds me of former PM Koizumi. The media and elites thought he would never win the primary, but unlike other politicians, he used language that was meaningful to ordinary people. The self-styled elites told them to vote for someone else, they voted for Koizumi.
Another hypothesis that suggests itself is that she is just not a very clear thinker. After all, it’s not like she is simply shooting from the hip. (And if she is, that’s another problem.)
Also, it’s not like you have to be any sort of fan at all of Obama, the Administration, its foreign policy, or its handling of the Egypt situation to be less than impressed with Palin. Sadly, the world has room for not just one person, but many people, who should not be aspiring to make such decisions on behalf of 300 million other people.
I think there are people smart enough to be president and put our nation on the track to recovery. I think it’s much rarer that someone has the fortitude it would take to do so.
Sarah Palin appears to be a natural leader with right principles and the courage needed to fix our country. If she needs more expertise in a certain area, she can hire somebody.
I see noone better at this time. She has my vote.
That’s part of the problem though–Palin doesn’t hire people. There’s a considerable degree of expertise out there in national politics, but Palin is still operating solely out of her inner circle of Wasilla cronies.