Editors’ Round Table on Sarah Palin: The Palin Moment
by Tom Piatak
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Thomas Fleming, Scott Richert, and Aaron Wolf have all offered typically thoughtful pieces raising important points to consider in evaluating Sarah Palin. But I would like to offer a different perspective, focusing on the speech Palin delivered at the Republican Convention and the reason the speech succeeded, to the point that Palin now enjoys a higher approval rating in the polls than either Barack Obama or John McCain, not to mention the hapless Joe Biden.
Once the Palin nomination was announced, Palin was subjected to a vicious media onslaught, with the same media that did its best to ignore the story of John Edwards’ infidelity to his cancer-stricken wife lapping up the story of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy with glee, giving credence to false rumors that Palin’s Down syndrome son was actually her daughter’s, and generally treating the Palins as the Clampetts of Wasilla hoping to move to a big mansion with a genuine cement pond. Many of the media criticisms reflected the leftist elite’s disdain for ordinary Americans, and especially its belief that the central defining value for all right-thinking people is support for legal abortion and mandatory sex education. After all, what shocked the media was not that Bristol Palin had engaged in fornication–an activity regularly lauded in the press and glamorized in all the offerings of Hollywood–but that she had not been supplied with condoms and, when those failed, a check made out the nearest abortionist. And there were even ugly criticisms, in a variety of internet sites, of the fact that Palin had not murdered her youngest son when she learned that he would be born with Down syndrome. The Obama campaign even reacted to Palin’s nomination by starting an ad campaign attacking John McCain’s professed pro-life stance, no doubt intended to stir fear that if the crazy Palin makes it to the White House, women will no longer be free to kill unborn handicapped children or unborn children conceived during youthful fornication.
And then Palin took the stage and fired back with poise, confidence, aplomb, and humor. The speech was devastating to Obama because it was true: Obama does talk about ordinary Americans one way in Scranton and one way in San Francisco. And Palin was able to speak out in defense of ordinary Americans in a credible way because, much more than Obama, McCain, or Biden, she is one: she was indeed a small town mayor, and she did first get involved in politics through the PTA. She is not a multi-millionaire. She is not part of any establishment. Her husband does manual labor and belongs to a union. And she exhibits, or at least projects, some of grit and defiance characteristic of the frontier women Roger McGrath has written about in Chronicles.
The fact that Palin struck a chord with millions is a positive sign. It is healthy that millions of Americans still respond to evocations of small town life and the frontier, rather than evocations of victimization and shame in our past. It is healthy that millions of Americans revel in mockery of a corrupt and effete leftist elite, an elite that wishes to erase the last vestiges of Christian morality and pride in the America that existed before the cultural revolutions of the 1960s. And it is healthy that millions of Americans recoiled from the type of attack launched on Palin by the media and capitalized on by the Obama campaign.
To be sure, none of this is a reason to vote for John McCain, a staunch advocate of global free trade, mass immigration, and a belligerent and reckless American imperialism. But it does, in an otherwise dismal political season, offer some reason for hope. Sarah Palin may well end up proving as big a disappointment as most recent Republican politicians have been, but the fact that millions of Americans responded so positively to the speech she gave and the image she projected suggests that, one day, there may actually be a political market for the ideas and policies that, unlike those advocated by McCain, will help in preserving the America Palin’s fans wish to preserve.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by MilesGloriosus on 6 September 2008:
Sarah Palin may well end up proving as big a disappointment as most recent Republican politicians have been, but the fact that millions of Americans responded so positively to the speech she gave and the image she projected suggests that, one day, there may actually be a political market for the ideas and policies that, unlike those advocated by McCain, will help in preserving the America Palin’s fans wish to preserve.
Examination of McCain’s life would suggest that Palin, like so many others before her, will be just another patsy for McCain to use and then discard like a dirty paper towel in his pathologically egoistic pursuit of power.
Here’s hoping conservatives foolish enough to be gulled into voting McCain-Palin aren’t too disappointed when abortion isn’t curtailed one iota, 20,000,000 illegal aliens are amnestied, our industries are outsourced at an even faster rate and their current heartthrob is relegated to flying to state funerals when she’s not fetching the boss’s coffee.
2 Comment by Tom Abts on 6 September 2008:
Thank you Mr. Piatak. It is very encouraging that Mrs. Palin was so well received by so many Americans. I still have hope for America. Alaska’ desire for secession resonates with a lot of people – in fact, even us Minnesotans are seeing the War Between the States in a new light. Christianity, family, and liberty are going to make comeback.
3 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 6 September 2008:
The whole affair from selection to media revelations to inevitable criticism by the democratic partisans to rousing speech to rally ordinary Americans has been well calculated, practically scripted. The fact that so many who should know better – and that means you, Mr. Piatak, among others – are being fooled is the most disheartening aspect of this nauseating charade.
4 Comment by jack bailey on 6 September 2008:
I don’t think Mr. Piatak has been fooled at all. Palin is, at this point just about the only politician that approximates what 63%+ of the electorate wants but can never get. Yes it is a cynical manipulation and it’s wrong . But that’s the best we can do.
5 Comment by Tom Piatak on 6 September 2008:
Mr. Higdon,
What do you expect out of politics, spontaneous demonstrations of unvarnished virtue and truth? Of course politics involves calculation and manipulation. It always has. What I asserted was that 1) Palin was attacked because, whatever her other faults might be, she is not a leftist, 2) she delivered an effective speech attacking the leftist elite, 3) the speech was popular because most Americans disdain the leftist elite, and 4) the fact that most Americans still disdain the leftist elite offers some hope for the future. I think each of these propositions is eminently defensible and, in fact, correct.
6 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:
Yes it is a cynical manipulation and it’s wrong . But that’s the best we can do.
Nothing like situational ethics, eh, jack?
7 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:
I agree with my friend Tom Piatak on the four points that he has enumerated in comment 5 (with the caveat that the feminist element of Palin is indeed leftist).
Where we may disagree is over the question of whether those four points should make any difference when we’re deciding whom to vote for in this election.
8 Comment by jack bailey on 6 September 2008:
And alternative being, let me guess, virtue?
9 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 6 September 2008:
Palin’s not going to make me change my vote to the GOP/Stupid Party. Fot the past 20 years my conscience has been perfectly clear voting for losers like Paul, Marrou, Philips, Buchanan, Peroutka, and this time well! I might even vote for a honest Wobblie before any of the deceitful liars set before me.
10 Comment by Tom Piatak on 6 September 2008:
Note to all:
I am not advocating a vote for McCain, as I thought I had made clear in my final paragraph. Indeed, I do not intend to vote for him. But I do think the reaction to the Palin speech is a positive development, for the reasons set forth in my piece.
11 Comment by Daniel McCarthy on 6 September 2008:
I fear this will be a case of paleo votes, neocon victories. The tragedy is that between the Buchanan movement of 1996 and the Bush re-election in 2004, the neocons “drank our milkshake.” They successfully channeled social conservative populist resentment away from the establishment in general and toward Kerry (and now Obama) and the Democrats in particular. Palin-style Christian Zionism was an indispensable element in this. That’s one reason why I won’t celebrate Palin or her supporters, however much they may irritate the Left. Figures like her will prevent the return of any America First movement in the future.
12 Comment by Kearney Smith on 6 September 2008:
The ideological faults that McCain may have do not stem from a malevolence in his character, no matter how much we may dislike votes he made in the Senate. It is perfectly clear that he fundamentally believes in doing good things for the United States. His military experiences and his family’s reputation make it clear that he holds the welfare of the nation in high regard.
For these reasons, I don’t think it is fair to accuse him of diabolical intentions. A man who makes errors while meaning well is salvageable because he can be persuaded by reasonable arguments. He may come to see the errors of his former views.
I can hear someone responding, “But do we want a president learning on the job?” My reply to that is, every president has plenty of opportunities to learn on the job and the good ones do. Worse than a willing learner is having a president who should be learning on the job, but refuses for one reason or another to do so and persists in a failed policy.
13 Comment by Tom Piatak on 6 September 2008:
Dan,
You are correct about how the neocons have coopted conservative populist resentment. But the fact that the resentment is still out there is a sign of hope. The problem is that paleos simply don’t have the media or political access the neocons do. If that problem could somehow be solved, a good number of the people cheering Palin on would be quite willing to cheer on a figure far closer to paleo thought than Palin is.
14 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 6 September 2008:
The fact that “conservatives” as well as ordinary Americans are so consistently fooled and co-opted by the left despite their more or less normal sentiments is not in my estimation reason for hope. And Palin is a leftist unless career feminism and Christian Zionism are to be considered rightist phenomena. And as far as McCain’s “good intentions” are concerned, this is the guy who merrily sings about bombing people. That’s about as “diabolical” as it gets.
15 Comment by Tom Piatak on 6 September 2008:
To all:
The redoubtable Mark Shea has located a perfect, if extreme, example of the type of leftist hatred that preceded Palin’s speech. It purports to be a blog by Palin’s son with Down syndrome, is completely vile, and predictably attacks Christianity and sexual morality, not to mention mocks the retarded: http://downspalin.blogspot.com/
If this sort of hatred had not preceded Palin’s speech, the speech would have been far less successful than it was.
16 Comment by Tom Piatak on 6 September 2008:
Mr. Higdon:
The left is not attacking Palin because she has a career outside the home. It is attacking her because she has five children, one of them with Down syndrome, because she favors abstinence-only sex education in schools, and, preeminently, because she opposes abortion. Take a look at the website I mentioned in my prior post, and get a flavor of what American leftists think of Palin.
17 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 6 September 2008:
Mr. Piatak,
The Democratic left is playing its role in assisting the Republican left to sell a left-wing Christian Zionist feminist to easily manipulated conservatives. The fact that the defenders of Palin may be “sincere” (as are her leftist attackers) is necessary for the net result – the closing of the sale. But this is no more grounds for hope than an equally sincere and equally meaningless leftist attack on Stalin by Trotskyites and resulting defense of Stalin by Russian nationalists during the 1930s.
18 Comment by Kate Dalton Boyer on 6 September 2008:
Unfortunately, Mr. Piatak, I think it far, far more likely that Gov. Palin’s good points will be swallowed up by President McCain’s machine, than that the regular people she has so energized will ever gain a voice in national politics through representatives like her.
It was a very well delivered speech, and she is appealing. But however normal and even heartening her former life has been, however forgiveable her problems, we are voting for a leader, here, not a neighbor. As a politician she is appealing as a mayor or governor at most–but not as a presidential advisor or possible president. She is just too green for that.
If she were not overwhelmingly ambitious, she would not have accepted the nomination for a job she must know she is in no way prepared to do. More than her gender, or her shelved family responsibilities, or her shelved state responsiblities (she won’t be governing much in the next few months), her unpreparedness is the essential point to me. Plus a lot of principles will bend under pressure from a large ambition–which we have seen hints of in her already, despite a short record. It’s an insulting pick, no matter what her good points, and no matter how politically effective it may end up being.
19 Comment by Kate Dalton Boyer on 6 September 2008:
To connect my point a little more clearly, perhaps, to Mr. Piatak’s: any excitement or appeal Gov. Palin creates is translating to support for Mr. McCain, support which he does not deserve, will do nothing to deserve, and which will retard and not foster the careers of more paleoconservative leaders. So–not encouraging.
20 Comment by Tom Piatak on 6 September 2008:
Ms. Boyer,
Yes, the enthusiasm for Palin makes McCain more likely to win. But it also makes clear that conservative populist sentiment remains a potent force in American politics, which is a cause for hope, since such sentiment could well be channeled in a paleo direction in the future, if the organizational problems I mentioned in post 13 could be solved. In fact, I believe, as did my friend Sam Francis, that such sentiment is the only mass force in American society that, at this point, could conceivably be channeled in our direction. If conservative populist sentiment of the type Palin has tapped into were in fact a spent force, I have a hard time seeing how paleo ideas could gain broader currency than they have now.
21 Comment by Tom Piatak on 6 September 2008:
To all:
Here is the website I mentioned in post 15 and have tried, unsuccessfully, several times to post here: http://downspalin.blogspot.com/
It is a perfect example, albeit a vile and extreme one, of the type of leftist hatred that preceded the Palin speech and helped make it so successful. It purports to be a blog by Palin’s son with Down syndrome, and not only mocks the retarded, but Christianity and sexual morality. That such sentiments are being rejected forcefully by Americans is a cause for hope, since they are a perfect example of the leftist hatred of the normal that Joe Sobran has been writing about for years. (Hat tip to Mark Shea for finding this site).
22 Comment by pablo H on 6 September 2008:
Had Palin ran for the nomination she might have won on her own. Populist conservatives wanted one of their own to run, Duncan Hunter came close but he had no charisma.
As for “experience” I wish people would stop Harrumphing about it.
Lincoln had 2 years experience as a Congressman Wilson 2 years as a governor. TR -2 years as a Governor, 1 year as Asst sec of Navy and 4 years as an NY assembly man. LBj and Nixon had more experience than anyone – both were failures. judgment is more important than “Experience ” – in fact we don’t want someone with too much DC experience since that usually means they have been approved and brainwashed by the very elite we are fighting.
23 Comment by Robert Bruce on 6 September 2008:
Only people supporting Palin are the Christian Zionist dispensationalist nuts that would have no problem seeing the world burn for the state of Israel. McCain’s almost assured perpetual war will be the dagger in the heart of the american economy and nation. Any forms of uber nationalism, statism have always been used for evil means. Christianity in America has been totally corrupted to inherently mean worship of the state, that the state is an instrument of God. Palin supports the wars as long as they are God’s will? Has this dumb woman ever read the Gospel? America 2008 smacks too much of 1934 Germany. USing this perverted Christianity to promote war, death and destruction is unimaginable. This is the tag that has been placed on “populist” conservatism and when the disasterous results of this folly is realized, conservatism will effectively be killed off as an ideology, including paleo conservatism.
24 Comment by Tom Piatak on 7 September 2008:
Mr. Bruce,
My wife, sister, and brother-in-law were among the people thrilled by Palin’s speech, and none of them is a “Christian Zionist dispensationalist nut.” (In fact, all of them are Catholics). Palin made no mention of any Christian Zionist beliefs in the speech, nor was Christian Zionism a focus of the media attack on her that preceded the speech. In short, Christian Zionism has nothing to do with Palin’s speech or why people liked it, which was the actual subject of my piece.
25 Comment by G.L.A. on 7 September 2008:
Mr. Paitak, (19)
“such sentiment is the only mass force in American society that, at this point, could conceivably be channeled in our direction. If conservative populist sentiment of the type Palin has tapped into were in fact a spent force, I have a hard time seeing how paleo ideas could gain broader currency than they have now.”
I think you are right that some of this reform, populist sentiment that is showing itself with the Palin response overlaps with the paleo positions. The problem is that it is just that, “mass sentiment”. As long as Americans function as a mass they will be manipulated as a mass . This Palin response may be showing that there are signs of life in the old middle American rebellion against the tyranny of the ruling coastal elites, but rebellion and conformity are no different than taking the same coat and turning it inside out and pretending it’s a different coat. More specifically, for Americans to think , on a mass scale, that all they have to do to rebel from the ruling elite is “elect” someone different, is really simply conforming to the massive, manipulated “electorial system” with its wire pullers, party bosses, special interest, foreign interest, etc. The reality is that these middle Americans are so dehumanized at all levels that they can do little more than hold sentiments and vote and pretend it will make a difference.
As expressed many times in the Chronicles discourses, the only long term and meaningful action for middle Americans is to start at home (or to find a home or place from which to start), to repair the damage done to them and their communities, to rebuild their Church, their family, their local commercial enterprises, their schools, and so forth. Until this is done there will not be enough Americans with their feet on the ground and the Faith and awareness required to deal with the realities of the tyranny under which they presently suffer.
26 Comment by F.N. Talvi on 7 September 2008:
Im voting for McCain-Palin for three resons : energy policy, national defense and taxes. Im not encouraged by the antipathy towards science in the religious circles but in the words of Neil DeGgrasse Tyson (paraphrased) ‘ what Republicans hate most is to die poor and science definately brings home the bacon. Sooner or later they realize this and follow suit’. With all the charges of Zionism, it may be a good idea to remeber that Israel is very pro science and that includes many of the things the chrisitan right has an aversion in ignorance towards. So too S Korea, India, Japan , China Russia et al and the religiosly motivated at the base will have to accept this and settle for conservative judges. They may be willing to risk our global status on religious principle, nobody in a McCain White House would.
The liberal base is a far more difficult to satisfy and seems to have an aversion to science as well, only there’s is to anything solid state that can be used for military purposes, or energy that doesnt cost almost as much as it delivers in watts. Ive also seen how easilly Obama changed course in his Iran rhetoric and dont think it’s reasonable to suppose he would not be for engaement in the same things of defense nature that many who call McCain war-happy are so averse to, just that he would do his part as commander in a rather cumbersome, equivocal manner due to the need to appear somewhat loyal to the left that voted for him.
We need to push natural gas development and not with enormous taxes for those that happen to own it under their soil, nor with punative taxes on the indsutry itself. Its not out of the question for many industries, should Obama & Dems get to push their aganda, to put things on hold, or at least scale down even more, until a more favorable fiscal policy were to be implemented. And no, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters will not be allowed to take over everyone’s company.
27 Comment by TJF on 7 September 2008:
And, in adding up his many virtues, let us also remember that a vote for John McCain is a vote for the Albanian Muslim KLA terrorists who bought him and brag about it. That’s why they call him Honest John. Oh, wait a minute, no one calls him honest. As for natural gas, it all depends on who is paying whom and how much. McCain, no less than Bob Dole, is for sale, and that is what makes his advocacy of reform so delicious. Only in America. I am reminded of the old South Carolina coalition between Bootleggers and Baptists to keep the state dry. That is what we now are being asked to call coalition-building.
My good friend Tom Piatak is right to look for some sign of hope in an insurgent booboisie. It is the best hope we have to break the duopoly of the party state, as our late friend Sam Francis used to argue. I would like to point out, without throwing too much a wet blanket on the enthusiasm, that the Hard Hats and Wallace supporters of the 60’s and 70’s were a good deal more influential than any populist upsurge since then, and that includes the Perot and Buchanan movements. Each decade, the boobs get more tranquil as outrage decays into irritation.
What then? Voting for the GOP is a vote that dooms any hope of a conservative resurgence. Voting for any of the current Third Parties is a waste of time except as a protest vote that will not be counted or noticed. Not voting has at least the merit of showing your indifference. (Anyone want a bumper sticker, Don’t blame me: I didn’t vote for anybody”?) The only hope would be in a conservative coalition, not a party, that could work with the GOP when necessary and agree on a set of core principles. But who would be in it? Not, certainly, the homicidal maniacs who watch John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and company. Certainly not the Ultra-trad Catholics who say they hate their country. Certainly not the libertarians who repudiate loyalty to anything from family to party to nation. The tent just keeps shrinking. What I would like to see is a few hundred thousand people with the clarity of purpose and courage to begin to act together on principles that are Christian and conservative, and, no, they would not admit people like Ms Palin into the tent. This is not going to happen because, I fear, because otherwise intelligent conservatives cling to a hope that is really a form of despair, the hope that some flawed leader will ride in on a White Horse to save the republic. That is why Palin’s nomination was enough to enlist their support for a man they have always despised.
I remember years ago, fighting some of these battles with Rothbard and his followers, working in tandem with some disgruntled leftists and with Old Right political intellectuals like Paul Gottfried. Many things conspired to teach me how futile these efforts must be, not least of which was the statement, made repeatedly by Gottfried, that we had to measure our success by access to the NY Times, Washington Post, NPR. In other words, we had to let our acknowledged enemies define us. So now, conservative “success” means signing on to the campaign of a leftist Republican who wanted Holy Joe Lieberman as his running mate. To quote the late great beatnik poet Kenneth Patchen, “And the thing is, they never get wise.” This from his poem, “I don’t want to startle you, but they’re going to kill all of us.” Indeed, they are.
28 Comment by TJF on 7 September 2008:
Correction: “kill most of us” After all, someone’s got to pay the taxes. That is what the Muslims learned.
29 Comment by Robert Bruce on 7 September 2008:
She was put on the ticket to get the Dobson crew, etc on board for McCain. Do you think her alluding to the wars as God’s will wasn’t intended for this crowd? Christians are the dumbest folks of all time and just have flushed any credibilty down the tube by buying into this war garbage. Why are they the dumbest folks around? They have the truth right in front of them in their bible, but they obviosuly are too lazy to read it or like one writer put in are Christian anarchists that just take bits and pieces out to suit their needs They are acting like a skank or a love lorn young woman that gives it up as long as the guy promises that he actually loves her. In the end she is just used as a semen receptacle. This is a crude analogy, but it is pretty much the truth. Whisper sweet nothing in their ear and they bow like a whore. But then again we are a nation of whores. American Christians are a bad joke, and will be unpleasantly surprised when they meet their maker.
30 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 7 September 2008:
The first requirement for any true reform is the destruction of the Republican Party and its replacement with a populist American party. Therefore, no sensible patriot will vote for McCain or any other Republican under any circumstances. Let’s repeat, as often as it takes, that the sainted Ronald Reagan gave us the Bushes and the Neocons, global democracy, and unpayable debt.
31 Comment by Izzy on 7 September 2008:
Mrs. Palin is beautiful and scrappy, but this lady who claims she is a reformer of government received a thumbs-up from the head of the National Education Association.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2008/08/nea_palin_is_pleasant_surprise.html
No institution is more anti-family and in the hands of the liberal elite than government schools. Real, conservative reformers want to separate school and state, not increase per pupil spending.
32 Comment by pablo H on 7 September 2008:
I think voting 3rd party the most sense. I’ve never understood how one “throws one’s vote away”. Its take little effort and a protest vote has just as much impact as voting R or D. 10 or 20 million voting for a conservative 3rd party will accomplish more good government than voting for McCain or staying home.
No conservative should vote for McCain. There is no substantive difference between the 2 parties and McCain with his bi-partisan, inside the beltway, viewpoint will blur the difference even more.
33 Comment by Kearney Smith on 7 September 2008:
24 I think you are doing the right thing. Electing McCain-Palin will probably delay the bad things that are in store for the USA.
I sympathize with those writing posts and comments longing for the ideal candidate. But the perfect candidate for any small group will probably not get votes from anybody but that group. So it goes even up to a group as large as fifty percent.
Democracy is imperfect that way. The electorate is not smart enough or virtuous enough to nominate and elect a very very good candidate.
A very very good candidate won’t run in the first place. Only a sucker for punishment is going to run for a public office. Look at the insults endured by Palin—insults that have little bearing on what kind of VP she would make.
34 Comment by Eagle on 8 September 2008:
Mr. Smith touches on an improtant point:
“Democracy is imperfect that way. The electorate is not smart enough or virtuous enough to nominate and elect a very very good candidate. ”
Humanity is imperfect that way. I look around the university campuses where I did my studies, I look around my place of work, and I look around my extended family and friends. The seven deadly sins – particularly envy, greed, and pride – make any decision-making based soley on majoritarianism to be fraught with peril.
The battle between good and evil for men’s souls has always raged. That times have become worse because of more widespread immorality brought on by this diminishing Christian faith is also certain in my mind.
It’s not merely that people will sin (they will); modernity has institutionalized peoples’ bad behavior and taught them that it is the exact opposite of what it is: something good. That is why we have institutionalized envy (democracy), institutionalized greed (capitalism), and institutionalized pride (consumerism) – all of them unchained from the restraints of Christian morality.
For these reasons, I would place no faith in democracy to improve the government much less “fix” a nation whose culture has rotted because its people no longer cultivate their intellect and spirit.
35 Comment by Skinny Leonard on 8 September 2008:
Thanks to Mr. Piatak for wringing a couple drops of glee out of the Sarah Palin naming.
36 Comment by Tom Flinn on 8 September 2008:
Eagle (#32) makes a very good point about institutionalization. It is quite possible for an individual person to maintain a Christian life in the face of a society going to hell in a handbasket. However, it is much easier to do so when the institutions of society are supportive. Jaime Balmes in his book “European Civilization” points out that the Catholic religion, being incarnational, never stopped with simply being an “idea” or “value” in the minds of people, but was always expressed in institutions: monasteries; universities; guilds; local communities; the hierarchical Church; the military, with the state maintaining a proper balance over the whole. The Catholic social order which was destroyed by liberalism (generally called conservatism in the United States), was far from perfect. But the institutions existed which made it easier for average people to do the right thing. It is no accident that one of the first things the French revolutionists destroyed were the guilds. Saints will be saints no matter what, but most of us are not that heroic and without the restraints and the support provided by traditional institutions it is too easy to “go with the flow.” When the flow is towards evil and destruction too many are perfectly willing to follow the Gadarine swine over the side of the mountain, all the while singing the praises of “freedom,” “democracy,” “free markets,” and all the rest.
37 Comment by Alex on 8 September 2008:
Granted, Sarah Pallin’s lack of hypocrisy is a breath of fresh air. That said, is anyone terrified that one heartbeat away from the Presidency there could be an individual who is utterly ignorant of the rest of the world, who just a year ago never had a US passport? I certainly am.
38 Comment by Tom Flinn on 8 September 2008:
I am voting for neither, but is it more frightening for someone with no experience to be one heartbeat away from the presidency than it is for someone with no experience to BE the heartbeat of the presidency?
39 Comment by Kate Dalton Boyer on 8 September 2008:
Goodness knows it seems ornery and perhaps unChristian to be resolutely cynical on this matter, because cynicism so easily leads to lethargy and do-nothingness, and I too wish to be gracious to Mr. Piatak’s decision to find hope in this nomination. I have to feel, however, that voters’ affection for Mrs. Palin has been much too easily and cheaply bought, and while I am a great fan of Sam Francis myself, I have been waiting for a long time for any middle American radical re-emergence.
I think the best we can hope for is a governor or US representative who is both coherently paleoconservative and who has the kind of outer-edge influence on the sold-out middle that someone like John Randolph had from the right, so long ago, and that many other people in more recent years have had from the left. He would need to have independent means, a biting tongue, good social connections and a brain, all of which are a lot to ask for in an elected official. But, Mr. Piatak, I can join you in hoping for that–not in a middle American radical class, but perhaps here or there, a Middle American Radical who can hold onto his office and use it as a bully pulpit.
At the moment the class you speak of is content to be sentimental about its sentiment, fooling itself that there is a way to support someone on a national ticket who will actually represent its healthier views. That kind of blind optimism is what will take you, smiling, right over the edge of the cliff. So I’m going to have to remain wet-blanketish about Palin’s poplularity, and cheerful about something else.
40 Comment by Ken Zaretzke on 8 September 2008:
A key question is whether Sarah Palin might turn out to be a disappointment to cultural conservatives. Maybe she will buy into the neocon thing lock, stock, and barrel. But I doubt it. My sense of the Palins–Mr. and Mrs.–is that they have pretty good BS detectors–especially Todd Palin. What we should do to encourage their skepticism about neoconservatism is to emphasize the philosophical core of neoconservatism, which is Straussianism. This vile, I might even say evil, philosophy is sure to be repugnant to the Palin’s, if only they know about it.
41 Comment by Justitia on 8 September 2008:
@Robert Bruce
“Christians are the dumbest folks of all time and just have flushed any credibilty down the tube by buying into this war garbage. Why are they the dumbest folks around? They have the truth right in front of them in their bible, but they obviosuly are too lazy to read it or like one writer put in are Christian anarchists that just take bits and pieces out to suit their needs”
“American Christians are a bad joke, and will be unpleasantly surprised when they meet their maker.”
Which is it? All Christians or just American Christians? I would be careful with the generalizations, there are a lot of Christians who aren’t “drinking the kool-aid” and are adhering to their religion as well as they possibly can.
42 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 8 September 2008:
I am inclined to think that Mrs. Palin’s surge in popularity has little to do with religion or right to life. It has to do with people being energised by seeing a national figure that resembles a real American (for better or worse) rather than a DC mandarin. The problem is the same that has been happening since Nixon—the modus operandi of the Republican Party is to capture the instincts of decent Americans and make sure they have no impact on anything. The kind of sentiment represented by such identification with Palin and by the Paul campaign is worse than useless unless it can find a vehicle other than the Republican party. Conservatives and Christians must cure themselves of the strange delusion that the Republican party is or ever has been “conservative.” Probably the best hope for a third way was lost when the “conservatives” rallied to the Republicans and killed off Wallace and Perot.
43 Comment by Navlav8ter on 8 September 2008:
When I make a major investment in any product I usually defer to reviews or endorsements of the product made by current owners. Sarah’s approval ratings have been level at nearly 80% since she took office as Alaska’s Governor. Her approval ratings by her constituents are comparable to that of Lexus or Mercedes-Benz automobile owners. All three of the other candidate’s approval ratings are down in the area of a Hyundai. If you lump them in with the other 97 members of the US Senate their ratings go off the chart negative. I’ll take my chances with a known commodity with a history of customer satisfaction
44 Comment by C Bowen on 8 September 2008:
If Obama had any sense, and rejected the ridiculous Biden in favor of say, Jim Webb, what would be the paleo reaction if not a reversing of rolls–though maybe the focus would be on the tactical brilliance, or dour on the unimportance of the VP slot, or Machiavellian–lets finish the GOP off for good.
I still wouldn’t have pulled the lever for Obamanation, but I would be rooting for Webb and I wouldn’t think too deeply about it.
45 Comment by Eagle on 8 September 2008:
“I am inclined to think that Mrs. Palin’s surge in popularity has little to do with religion or right to life. It has to do with people being energised by seeing a national figure that resembles a real American (for better or worse) rather than a DC mandarin. ”
Why, Professor Wilson, do you mean to say that the people don’t identify with a perma-tanned, bleeched-teeth, hair-plugged, six-term senator who prattles on incessantly about what a saint he is for all the years of “service” he has given the people? You mean to say that the average Joe, unlike the Biden variety, does not regularly dine at five-star establishmets with lobbyists and frontmen for the Albanian heroin mafia? You mean the people cannot identify with Ivy League plaigarists who were not only graduated but who were subsequently welcomed into law schools?
I believe that you are all too correct in the assessment. Though as Gov. Palin stumps for more votes over the next few weeks, some of her charm will also wear as people get a taste of her own pietous boastfulness that we glimpsed during the convention.
I agree with you entirely that the GOP is not a vehicle for any positive change.
46 Comment by Ken Zaretzke on 8 September 2008:
#44 C Bowen:
My sentiment exactly. But suppose McCain then picked Lieberman. That might be a good reason to vote for Obama.
47 Comment by John Willson on 8 September 2008:
I’ve been asking younger women around my small midwestern city: “So, what do think about Sarah?” Without exception, women in my unscientific poll (and therefore more accurate than any of the others) say, she’s just like me. And they also add, most of their mothers think she should stay home with the kids. In other words, Sarah is, with women, a wash. Let’s remember one thing. The John and Sarah show is the war show. Bottom line.
48 Comment by John Willson on 8 September 2008:
C Bowen@44
Jim Webb, for all his virtues, is for killing babies. I don’t care how brave he is, or for that matter how brave John McCain is, or how the hell brave anybody else is, if they are not willing to protect the life of our unborn babies, they are not brave.
49 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 8 September 2008:
“The kind of sentiment represented by such identification with Palin and by the Paul campaign is worse than useless unless it can find a vehicle other than the Republican party. Conservatives and Christians must cure themselves of the strange delusion that the Republican party is or ever has been “conservative.””
As usual, Dr. Wilson has the Republicans pegged. For a brief few months I bought into the delusion that we could work ‘within the system’ using ‘Ron Paul Republicans’. Well, those of you pained yourselves watching the GOP convention last week got to see the Ron Paul delegates from Massachusetts and Nevada vote for McCain. Then, in some kind of delusional state, claimed they ‘gave a little to get alot’. Get what, exactly? To be a tool of the GOP machine, perhaps.
50 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 9 September 2008:
One wonders how Sarah Palin will react if a President McCain, his particular friend Sen. Lindsey Graham, and a dying Ted Kennedy cobble together illegal immigration amnesty in 2009. My guess is that McCain will not consult her on the question, she will obey her president in supporting amnesty, and she will end up looking as foolish as Dan Quayle did in 1990 when he dutifully supported George H.W. Bush’s tax increases.
51 Comment by Tom Piatak on 9 September 2008:
Mr. Leaberry,
I think you are correct.
52 Comment by Tom Piatak on 9 September 2008:
To all:
Mark Shea is doing an outstanding job of analyzing the leftist hatred of Palin, which he rightly sees as an example of the leftist hatred of the normal which Joe Sobran has been writing about for decades: http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/
53 Comment by Tom Piatak on 9 September 2008:
To all:
Mark Shea is doing an outstanding job of analyzing the leftist hatred of Palin, which he rightly sees as an example of the leftist hatred of the normal which Joe Sobran has been writing about for decades.
54 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 13 September 2008:
The problem I have is what Palin’s surging popularity reveals about the “normal” American electorate – especially the female half of it. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that women are “snapping up” Sarah Palin style eye glasses, shoes, and (of course) lipstick. There is even a demand for Sarah Palin wigs. Needless to say the denizens of the fashion industry are scrambling to make a financial killing off this most recent celebrity fad. Can anything be as surpassingly silly? On this basis the American people choose their rulers.
More serious is the blatant militarism of the McPalin ticket, emphasized and re-emphasized by both candidates and the me-too militarism of Obama and the democrats. The American people are bloodthirsty and eager for more war. Were a pro-war position unpopular, the candidates would be eager to conceal their own pro-war inclinations; instead they proclaim their militarism in every interview.
55 Pingback by Scott Richert: One Catholic’s View of Palin « The Paleocrat on 13 September 2008:
[...] Tom Piatik: A Small Town Girl [...]
56 Comment by Tom Flinn on 14 September 2008:
I have decided to write in for president the name of Otto von Habsburg. He represents everything I would like to see in a president: a strong Catholic faith, steeped in the history of western civilization, a gentleman and a scholar and one with vast experience in the ways of politics without having been corrupted by them. Draft Otto movement, anyone?
57 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 15 September 2008:
@27 Tom
I know you don’t like to vote. And it’s probably true that if it would change anything then “they” wouldn’t let us do it. However, I still show up at the polls for 2 reasons.
1. I had to wait 10 extra years for citizenship because I was white, and even then Congressman Frank Wolf had to intervene on my behalf — the spite factor, and
2. I vote No on any and all bond issues and Virginia constitutional amendments — another spite factor.
Plus, since VA has no party registration I’ll vote in democrat primaries for Lyndon LaRouche because he’s a bull goose loony who got railroaded by the system, and he’s Virginia’s bull goose loony. Like Tip O’Neill said — all politics is local.
58 Comment by Jim on 16 September 2008:
I’m going to clone the post I put on Aaron’s fine article. Dang but I hate going against all my intellectual idols! Prof Wilson: there isn’t going to be any traditionalist reaction. Forget it. We didn’t pass the civilization on to our children. They don’t even know what you are talking about. When the pendulum of the dialectic next swings away from the statist/leftist/evil antithesis, it isn’t going to be to the paleo thesis; it will be to the synthesis and that will not be to our liking. It has already swung once and the synthesis is the hated neo-cons. The next synthesis is going to be an even worse group – the libertarian types who have no sense of right/wrong nor community and yet feel a great sense of entitlement. These are the selfish heathen who cut in front of you on the freeway on a good day and will push the button on a bad one, say, after the economic meltdown.
I understand and agree with what you guys and the beautiful Mrs Boyer are saying: we shouldn’t be naive about what we are getting and, yes, all those cheering fans are being very naive! But now the cloned post:
Hey all you Paleo Purists! We’ve lost the culture war. The dialectic has turned a few times and nothing short of meltdown and/or civil war is going to bring back the life we cherish. Most of us older folks haven’t even been able to pass it on to our children and certainly not to our grandchildren. No election is going to change that — as most of the Chronicles posts recognize.
So why are we being stubborn holdouts for the perfect ticket? It hasn’t happened, again. All one can do is perform a little calculus as the issues and facts parade before us and go for the team that is closer or even slightly closer to our own desires.
Other than the possibility of McCain foolishly pursuing hegemony around the world, McCain is closer to our side than is Obama. And even with Obama we are still going to have someone who thinks we should be the world’s policeman. You can count on his signing on to United Nation’s adventures and foolish treaties that usurp US sovereignty. With McCain having a Democratic congress to contend with I doubt that he will be able to engage in much imperialism.
It pains me to see so many of you whom I respect being such absolutists. Most of you are agreeing that Obama would be worse and yet you are still holding out. For what? Look, we all know the Bush years have been a disaster but at least we got a Supreme Court that recognizes the 2nd Amendment means what it says. And didn’t Bush appointees uphold the partial birth abortion ban? I hate to expouse situation ethics but that’s the choice we have before us.
59 Comment by Tom Flinn on 22 September 2008:
(#58, Jim): You make some very good points, but I am not quite ready to call it quits on a restoration of Christian civilization, although I am not naive enough to think it’s going to happen soon. After all, when St. Benedict and his monks got to work the society they had to live in was a pretty hideous mess. It took many years and it wasn’t politics that made the difference. As far as being a purist, perhaps there are some but as for me I have never expected to find the perfect candidate or ticket. This is politics, after all, and there are going to be compromises and dirty deals occasionally. However, I have voted all my life for the lesser idiot so the bigger idiot would not get elected. You see the results before you. Voting for the lesser idiot is no longer satisfying. It is very tempting to vote McCain just because he isn’t Obama, but I am going to resist the temptation. Unfortunately, we depend on the two major parties to supply us with candidates and when they can’t do any better than this year I say a pox on both their houses. Either way I am afraid we will get what we have asked for all these years.