Home ›

Andrew Sullivan

Sarah Palin and the Right

Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 23:16
in

Patrick Ruffini says Sarah Palin is "situated similarly" to Howard Dean, and could be the flashpoint for a grassroots revival of the Republican Party.   Andrew Sullivan disagrees.  Underneath the unbecoming hyperbole, he makes a good point. 

The concept of Palin as a marketing tool, as an emblem of pure content-free identity politics, is very powerful. You can see why on paper, Kristol loved her, the way he loved the concept of Iraqi liberation. The only trouble is the actual reality: the fact that she has no record to speak of, that what she has is dreadful, that she has no education, that she is a pathological liar, that she is a vicious hater of those unlike her, that she is a McCarthyite sans communism.

If Ruffini thinks Palin will be the leader of a grassroots revival, then I think he is probably over-optimistic.  As an abstraction, Sarah Palin is a fantastic leader.  She's a genuine outsider, she's stood up to her own party, she's pursued and won major reform fights, she's made difficult cuts in spending, and she's generally in line with the Republican grassroots on policy issues.  And she's a fresh, interesting face for the Republican Party.

But to be the substantive leader of a political movement, she needs three things:

  1. A clear, but sophisticated, political philosophy

  2. A serious governing strategy to move the ball forward on her political philosophy

  3. A support base, including grassroots and elite infrastructure, that can mobilize to defend her and advance her agenda

Howard Dean walked away from the 2004 campaign with a huge mailing list of devoted activists who were very connected (online and offline), and a base of support that was still pissed.  Howard Dean had an army to deploy to fight for his political philosophy and governing agenda, and that army was willing to go to war against their own Party.   Dean's resources fit the fight in which he needed them.

Does Sarah Palin have any of those things?  I haven't seen any evidence that she has the sophisticated political philosophy, or a good governing strategy.   Would Palin walk out of hte '08 campaign with the McCain campaign's mailing list?   Doubtful.  And the McCain campaign's mailing list is not obviously well-aligned with the coalition that would be needed to take back the Republican Party, or that they are sufficiently engaged to be mobilized for such an effort.

I understand why Palin is a compelling idea.  I just haven't seen much evidence that she's got the serious substance behind the marketing abstraction.  At least, not right now.  Remember, Ronald Reagan spent decades writing, speaking and working on difficult political issues, thinking deeply about what he believed and why, before he was taken seriously as a major movement leader.  And even then, he stood upon the shoulders of giants.  The next leaders of the Right will not be riding an emerging Movement into power; they will be building a Movement anew.

Sarah Palin can be a part of that, but the leader of the next Right will have to bring a great deal more to the table than Sarah Palin does right now.

Side Note: The rest of Sullivan's post goes beyond hyperbole and into vulgar, but not particularly insightful, ridicule.  That's unfortunate.  I've admired Andrew Sullivan as a writer and thinker, regardless of his political alignment.  But Andrew Sullivan, Intellectual, seems to be increasingly subsumed to Andrew Sullivan, Head Cheerleader of 2 Minutes Hate.  20 years hence, I suspect Andrew Sullivan will not be proud of this period of his career.

The Racebaiting Media

Submitted by Jon Henke on Sun, 10/05/2008 - 20:33
in

Why are  Douglass K. Daniel, the Associated Press and Andrew Sullivan so eager to race-bait?

I'm not saying they're racists, per se, but it is rather remarkable how often they imagine they're hearing "dog whistles".  It's even more remarkable that they have no problem fomenting racial tension for political gain every time they find a way to infer racism.

On the other hand, perhaps there's no important distinction between "racist" and "willing to casually, intentionally racebait for political gain."

Racism is a genuine problem and Republicans should do more to denounce it when it happens.  This seems like a good opportunity.

An Orgy of Hate

Submitted by Chris Palko on Tue, 09/02/2008 - 21:09
in


<!--[if gte mso 9]>

Normal
0


false
false
false







MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]>


<![endif]-->

<!--[if gte mso 10]>

<![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]>

Normal
0


false
false
false







MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]>


<![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>

<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <![endif]-->

This weekend gave rise to perhaps the worst feeding frenzy that I have seen in my young life.  The whole odyssey of the Sarah Palin pick for Vice President, from her surprise selection, to the indecent internet rumors, to the confirmation that her 17 year-old daughter is pregnant has been the biggest political rollercoaster ride I can remember.  It was one part “West Wing”, one part “Juno”, one part “Northern Exposure”.  While you could view this from the detached perspective of amusement over the soap opera that has developed, I haven’t ever been this disillusioned about the political process.

First, the media was woefully ignorant of the reaction of the religious right to the Bristol Palin pregnancy.  The media believes in the caricature of a social conservative who is harshly judgmental of personal conduct, especially on sexual matters.  Like any caricature, there are some elements of truth to this (I have a hard time thinking the religious right would’ve had the same reaction to a candidate’s teenage daughter getting pregnant in say, 1988).  But what the media thought would be a repeat of 2000’s October surprise (the Bush DUI story, which most likely depressed evangelical turnout) didn’t happen.  Instead, every available conservative Christian leader issued a statement of support.  The media, whose only church exposure is derived from funeral services for politicians, knew nothing about how the religious right would feel about the pregnancy story.

Because of these misplaced hopes, the New York Times ran THREE page one stories on the pregnancy.  This was more than they ever ran on John Edwards and his love child, where in his case he was an adult politician.  But that would require basic fairness.

But the Times were only kid’s stuff compared to what was online.  Daily Kos reached yet another low in its Palin coverage.  One quote illustrates the blackness of their souls:

If health insurance for all, an end to the Iraq War, an end to torture and illegal wiretapping, and a sane energy policy can be obtained at the price of destroying one teenage girl, her family, and the surrendering our self-respect I see that as a cheap trade.

That is straight out of a Dostoyevsky novel.

But you can almost expect these pathetic human beings to be this vicious.  But what was so offensive as to make me question if my computer screen was working properly was the conduct of Andrew Sullivan.  He completed his long decline from original, provocative commentator to Obama tool this weekend.  His breathless reporting of rumors deriving from the bowels of Daily Kos readers was so far over the line for a well known blogger that I can’t see how he wouldn’t be disciplined for it.  The Atlantic needs to come out and condemn his scurrilous posts.  If they don’t, I hope his fellow Atlantic bloggers do.  I hope a President Obama is worth your soul Andrew.

One person who was above this was  Obama himself.  This has been Obama’s most honorable moment in the entire campaign.  He stated in unambiguous terms (a rarity for him) that this topic was “entirely off limits”.  In cynical political terms, Obama was never going to make this an issue.  But there was heart felt sincerity to the comment that didn’t have to be there.  I think that is because Obama was born in nearly the exact same circumstance as this pregnancy.  Joe Biden also reiterated the same stance, so some small measure of thanks should also extend to him.    

So what is this hubbub all about?  It’s quite simple.  The left are running scared because this has been the best moment for conservatism in the past five years.  When was the last time that both Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan raved over a public official?  There is something afoot amongst the right because of the Palin pick.  The massive fundraising boost since the pick (over $10 million since Friday) is a testament to the revival of the conservative base.  The left understands the promise of Sarah Palin and how damaging she could be to their aims.  The goal of the left in this case is the shameful modus operandi of modern day politics: throw everything at the wall and see if something sticks.

Palin is Clarence Thomas part II.  He received his “high-tech lynching” because he was the first prominent black conservative on the national stage.  Palin is receiving the same treatment because she is the first prominent woman conservative on the national stage.  They are so damaging to the left because they undermine the left-wing narrative that only rich white guys are conservative.  If Palin is allowed to succeed, she could in the future bring millions of women into the Republican Party, making left-wing power a nearly unattainable goal.  So she must be destroyed.

After the media hyenas have pretty much determined that the entire Palin family is open to merciless attacks, I have to ask: why would anyone want to run for office these days?  I’m only four years older than Bristol Palin.  I couldn’t imagine being pregnant at 17, and then having the entire country find out.  The real tragedy of the past few days is that I’m pretty sure some future pillars of our society decided they will never run for office after this orgy of hate. 

 
Syndicate content