Conservatives Against Palin

While there is no doubt that Sarah Palin has many fans on the far right, many more serious Republicans are happy to see her go. The Hill reports that “Republicans facing tough elections in 2010 don’t want Sarah Palin campaigning with them.” Peggy Noonan sums up her problems:

She was hungry, loved politics, had charm and energy, loved walking onto the stage, waving and doing the stump speech. All good. But she was not thoughtful. She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why.

In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn’t say what she read because she didn’t read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn’t thoughtful enough to know she wasn’t thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. “I’m not wired that way,” “I’m not a quitter,” “I’m standing up for our values.” I’m, I’m, I’m.

In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying.

Then there’s another view from the far right in an article by Olivia St. John at WorldNetDaily. She warns that “Palin is an avowed feminist”  and urges conservatives not to fall for appearances that she is one of them:

Palin’s history over the past 17 years tells another story. Three years after the birth of the first of her five children, she entered the rough-and-tumble world of Alaska (and eventually national) politics and has never looked back.

Has America become so emasculated that our only hope of getting another Ronald Reagan into the Oval Office is to idolize Palin as a political Madonna? Hardly.

Do we have no men who can match her intelligence, charisma and leadership skills? To the contrary, we have better.

Have conservatives become so desperate for a passionate leader that they forsake their most basic values of home and hearth? Yes, but it’s more than that.

Sarah Palin represents the empirical self of millions of women working outside the home. They live vicariously through her supposed success. Seeing such a woman extolled gives credibility to their frantic lifestyle juggling job, children, husband, church, and housework.

It has been said that part of Palin’s appeal is that her family is like so many other families. She is today’s American woman, who works outside the home and does it all. Whose daughters get pregnant out-of-wedlock. Whose husbands wear the aprons.

Have we gone insane? Is this something to celebrate?

The message is clear that she believes a woman’s place is in the home. If there is any doubt that this is her message, she again makes it clear in the conclusion:

As conservatives continue chanting Sarah Palin for president, are they disenfranchising the men capable of stepping up to the plate in 2012? There are many strong conservative men better qualified to lead the greatest nation in the world.

I pray these men rise to the fore and that Sarah Palin begins to turn her heart toward her home.

I pray America wakes up to realize once again that the hand that rocks the cradle truly rules the world. That is a mother’s highest calling. That is Sarah Palin’s calling.

Be Sociable, Share!

24 Comments

  1. 1
    Christoher Skyi says:

    Reminds me a bit of Ayn Rand. Rand was not, really, a serious philosopher. No question she was a genius, but she was not another Immanuel Kant forging new ground.
     
    She was, however, a great, passionate propagandist for reason and capitalism. That was her genius — had she tried to be a serious academic philosopher, nobody would have heard of her.
     
    Palin doesn’t belong in politics — her talents lie elsewhere. While she likely won’t have the impact of Ayn Rand, I think she does have a lot to offer the conservative movement, but she’s got to find her nitch and make a real contribution. We shall see what she makes of them.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    In a way she does belong in politics–but not in governing. Many people are well-informed on the issues but could not win an election.  She has the charisma to attract a following and succeed in politics, but lacks the knowledge to be involved in governing. Maybe her niche is in the media. I could see her making a fortune in the media as she attacks the media.

  3. 3
    Christoher Skyi says:

    “I could see her making a fortune in the media as she attacks the media.”
     
    Oh yes, I don’t think we have to worry about the “Cuda’s” future! 🙂
     

  4. 4
    alaskamen says:

    Conservatives Against Palin – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty …: Three years after the birth of the first o.. http://tinyurl.com/ljgrm8

  5. 5
    Alaska Men says:

    Conservatives Against Palin – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty …: Three years after the birth of the first o.. http://tinyurl.com/ljgrm8

  6. 6
    b-psycho says:

    Isn’t Olivia St. John taking a good paying right-wing columnist job that could go to a man? 😉

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:

    I wonder if she writes from home.

  8. 8
    alaskamen says:

    Conservatives Against Palin – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty …: Three years after the birth of the first o.. http://tinyurl.com/ljgrm8

  9. 9
    Mr. Jeffersonian says:

    What I’d like to know is what ever happened to the Barry Goldwater camp of the party?  Not that I’m anymore on the Goldwater conservative side but  they at least try to follw a strict interpretation of the constitution and they’re more honest about getting “government off our backs. Sara Palin is a perfect example of a conservative who understands little if anything from the constitution and who’s more concerned with imposing “traditional values” on the general public that her own family seems to lack. If Peggy Noonan had made this arguement I might take her criticism seriously.

  10. 10
    Mr. Jeffersonian says:

    Correction I meant to prefer to Olivia St John

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:

    I’ve mentioned Barry Goldwater many times here, especially noting how liberal his views on social issues would be compared to the current views of the Republican Party. Goldwater had no use for the religious right.

  12. 12
    Fritz says:

    The Barry Goldwater wing got 86’ed from the GOP.  Some became Libertarian Party members.  Some bagged politics.  Then the LP got taken over last year by rogue elements of the GOP.

  13. 13
    Eclectic Radical says:

    There were issues with rogue elements of the GOP in the Republican Party before last year. The paleoconservatives of the Ron Paul and Bob Barr stripe have flirted with the LP since before Barr’s nomination, Paul was their nominee not too long ago as elections go. Republicans like Robert Stacy McCain consider themselves ‘libertarian’ because their misunderstanding of Hayek fits very nicely with their John Calvin + Kenneth Copeland take on the theology of wealth. An element of the libertarian party whose focus is on economics above all else, has always flirted aggressively with such Republican ‘libertarians’ because of their desire to grow their power base.
     

  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:

    I do find it sad to see how the libertarian label has been destroyed by conservatives who have taken it over. Agree or disagree with them, there was always something attractive about the consistency of libertarian belief in the days when it generally referred to people from true limited-government types to anarcho-capitalists. It still had some meaning when used to refer to those who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal but over time this meant those who back Republican economic policies and there was little focus on anything else. It is bad enough when social conservatives such as Ron Paul are lumped with libertarians. When people who support the Iraq War and the Patriot Act also claim to be libertarian, the word has lost all meaning. This leads to those such as “Libertarian Republican” Eric Dondero who backs what is essentially a military dictatorship to fight for “freedom” in their war on “Islamo-Fascism.”

  15. 15
    Fritz says:

    Ron, while Ron Paul is in some senses a social conservative, it is also true that the second time I met him (in 1988) was at a fundraiser for his Presidential run — the event was held at the home of Timothy Leary.   It is an odd breed of social conservative that would win the personal support of Dr. Tim.  I wish I had taken a picture of the two of them sitting together.

  16. 16
    Ron Chusid says:

    True, he is not a social conservative in the Huckabee mode.

  17. 17
    Mr. Jeffersonian says:

    But he is still Anti Choice, anti Immigrant and anti health care reform so I wouldn’t give Ron Paul kudos over huckabee just yet.

  18. 18
    Ron Chusid says:

    Being better than Huckabee is a pretty low bar. While Paul has many faults and it would be a disaster if he had any chance of actually getting elected, his views on some issues such as drug policy are preferable to those of more conventional Republicans.

  19. 19
    Fritz says:

    Actually, Ron Paul’s stance on immigration is that he is against illegal immigration and wants the economy of the USA to be so vibrant that we would be opening the floodgates in order to get more workers to immigrate.  I think that he is vastly overestimating the intelligence and the sense of the American populace there, but so it goes.
     

  20. 20
    Eclectic Radical says:

    Fritz is correct, Dr. Paul IS anti-illegal immigration while supporting a much more ‘liberal’ immigration policy than, say, Barack Obama.
     
    Immigration is one issue on which both parties are frequently very wrong. Some of the individuals with whom I have most agreed on the issue have been Republicans who understood why amnesty and reform of the legal immigration system would do much more good for the country than a fence on the New Mexico border.  Unfortunately, GOP immigration reform came to mean not an increase in the ease of legal access but a guest worker program designed to allow corporations to continue to exploit workers legally. And the nativists won out in the end anyway, as they usually do in the Democratic Party as well.
     
    I have to agree with Ron that Paul’s political philosophy is far preferable to that of most neoconservatives… in many ways he is a ‘Goldwater Republican’ in the 1964 model… but the Goldwater of 1964 would have been a disaster as president for many of the same reasons as Dr. Paul.
     
    However, Dr. Paul is also still fundamentally in bed with the Republican ‘mainstream’ on choice, workers’ rights, poverty, and other important issues.
     
    His differences with them, despite the significance of those differences, are outnumbered by the commonalities and when Anne Coulter denies that he is even ‘really a Republican’ she is missing the mark.
     

  21. 21
    Ron Chusid says:

    I wouldn’t consider Paul a Goldwater Republican either. Goldwater wouldn’t go along with Paul’s social conservatism, such as on abortion. We can’t really say where Goldwater would stand on Iraq as he wasn’t around. I would hope that he would realize this was a foolish use of military power. Regardless, Goldwater would not go along with Paul’s overall views on the military. Of course Paul did not always support his own views on cutting military spending as his campaign mailings often gave the impression that he was a big supporter of military spending, depending upon the target audience.

    Unfortunately Paul is a throwback not to Barry Goldwater but other portions of the old right, as was demonstrated when his racist writings came out and his initial denials of responsibility were shown to be untrue. At least this opened the eyes of many libertarians. While I don’t think it ever made much sense for libertarians to see Paul as their hero, the racist writings ultimately did get most (but certainly not all) libertarians to drop their support for him.

  22. 22
    Fritz says:

    IIRC, those weren’t Dr. Paul’s racist writings, but were written under his auspices and he should have stopped them.  He’s not the only politician (and I am not only talking Republicans) who has let similar notions go through (with a hope they stay under the radar) in order to keep some supporters.  The radar’s a lot lower these days.
     
    I really dislike guest worker programs.  “This is not your home” is a terrible belief to instill in people who live here.

  23. 23
    Ron Chusid says:

    Fritz,

    Some of the old statements from Ron Paul (which he probably had hoped would remain under the radar) made it sound like he was taking credit for writing them. It is possible that he was taking a position of claiming authorship for things under his name written by others, but even then should have repudiated them when raised earlier as opposed to implying authorship.

  24. 24
    Eclectic Radical says:

    Goldwater, while not himself a racist, held such strong views on individual freedom that he believed the government did not have the right to legislate against segregation in many facets of ‘private’ society. He believed (at least in 1964, during the turmoil of the civil rights era) employers should be allowed to hire those whom they were most comfortable working with, that private clubs should have the right to be restricted, and that desegregation of schools was a fundamental violation of the democratic rights of school boards. All of these positions attracted a great deal of support from the elements of the ‘old right’ from which Paul descends, and many of the Goldwater Republicans were such conservatives.
     
    Of course, to be fair, Goldwater also supported the same economic and social rights of exclusivity for blacks as he did for whites and prominent radicals (he was endorsed by the Black Panther Party) or conservatives (he was endorsed by Effa Manley, an owner of the Negro National League Newark Eagles who opposed desegregation because of what she saw as the threat it implied to the black community’sd economic structure) among the black community supported his candidacy because they either overtly supported their own system of separatism or feared the consequences of premature desegregation before the problems of racism were fully solved. One can certainly argue this was a valid view, though it is an equally valid view to argue that the problems of racism could never be solved in a system in which blacks and whites could avoid facing those problems directly.
     
    Certainly Goldwater would disagree with Dr. Paul’s social positions on more than a few issues, especially abortion and national defense.

1 Trackbacks

Leave a comment