The American Scene

An ongoing review of politics and culture

• Politics
• Economics
• The Media
• Culture

• Home
• About
• Archive
• Search

Leave a Reply

1. I love Andrew Sullivan too, but he obsesses a bit… and he has been a bit embarrassing on Palin.

   The problem I have with the GNP, and Palin’s relationship with it, is whether it’s just a coat of paint on the same Rove BS. She’s got a very intriguing story, but all I heard were snarky attacks and the attempt to open new fronts on the culture war.

   As far as I can tell, all you and Douthat are about is intensifying the culture war, but making sure you do it with candidates who exemplify it this time.

   — J.W. Hamner · Sep 5, 05:57 PM · #

2. I’d be much more interested on your take on the issue of whether Palin is a real reformer. As other comments of mine have made clear, I think the answer is no.

   Regarding Andrew – of course he is being unfair, and of course he is a bit overwrought on the subject of “Christianism.” But I tend to think (1) that you and Ross, while aware of the obstacles to the type of reform that you advocate, aren’t fully aware of just how difficult it will be to get past those obstacles, and (2) are not sufficiently cognizant of the fact that many of your social conservative allies – at least the politically influential ones – are more a part of the problem than part of the solution. Palin is a case in point.

   Moreover, taking the long view, your current support of McCain is terribly destructive to your long term goals. If there is any hope for you to realize the type of Republican party that you want, it will come not with the triumph of someone like McCain, or even of Palin, but through a crushing defeat followed by a fundamental reappraisal.

   — LarryM · Sep 5, 06:25 PM · #

3. I thought Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish was the same young man Henri Nouwen wrote about meeting in Sabbath Journey. Now I’m thinking they must be two different people.

   — Julana · Sep 5, 06:29 PM · #

4. Not that you needed any clarification, but it is an ad hominem of the ‘guilt by association’ and ‘I’ve made up my mind don’t bother me with the facts’ variety. It relies on almost entirely on insinuation.

   As Reihan suggests, the argument is irrefutable because no evidence has been advanced other than 1) she is a christian, 2) christians like her. From this abundant evidence, Andrew implies she will do unspecified, Christianist things…which may or may not be true. What’s important is that there is not sufficient evidence in her public actions to justify Andrew’s insinuations. Granted her public record isn’t that lengthy, but that ground has been covered fairly well by now…

   — kab · Sep 5, 06:47 PM · #

5. He is an extremely insightful thinker, he is a forceful and persuasive advocate for the extension and deepening of human rights, he is a beautiful writer.

   I know you are sincere, but this is starting to sound like a Macro.

   Sullivan’s at his best when his scope is expansive, his subject is abstract, and his purpose is persuasion. He’s at his worst when he’s oppositional. When he inhabits the mindspace of the latter, he loses all perspective, and my interest.

   — JA · Sep 5, 07:08 PM · #

6. Andrew knows a lot about fantasies, and not just his fantasy of “christianism”. Currently, he is deeply invested in his fantasy that Palin is going to be bumped off the ticket, fed both by his hatred of “christianists” as well as his increasingly apparent gynophobia.

   — moqui · Sep 5, 08:39 PM · #

7. Sullivan really seems to have gone off the deep end where Palin is concerned. See the link in my signature, or here: http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2008/09/andrew-sullivan.html

   — Stuart Buck · Sep 5, 08:47 PM · #

8. “Sullivan’s at his best when his scope is expansive, his subject is abstract, and his purpose is persuasion. He’s at his worst when he’s oppositional. When he inhabits the mindspace of the latter, he loses all perspective, and my interest.”

   That is very, very well put by JA.

   But I also think it’s true that Sullivan’s postings in the past week have been unusually hysterical.

   It’s hard to come to any other conclusion: Sullivan fears how Palin will shape the election.

   — thehova · Sep 5, 08:51 PM · #

9. Jesus Christ. “Bizarre” family life? Why? Because she’s had five children? That one of them has Down’s and another one is pregnant? That’s an insult to anyone who knows people who are in one of these situations. Several people in my extended family have more than two children. Some of them have had children with handicaps, mental or otherwise. Some of them have been pregnant before reaching that magical age of twenty when they are not teenage anymore. I am happy to be informed that what was considered normal for millenia is now bizarre. This is just so condescending and insulting. Usually when I read Andrew it elicits little more than a roll of the eyes but now I felt a burst of anger.

   In the news in France is the story of a 57-yr old woman who is going to have triplets via artificial insemination, obtained in Vietnam when she could not do it in France. This means that three children are going to be born into the world, who will never know their father, and who are statistically most likely to lose their mother in their early twenties. Something tells me if a commentator called this “bizarre” Andrew would denounce them as a sinister agent of the Christianist intifada (or whatever). But breeding? That’s just crazy.

   (Of course the bit about her “bizarre” family life being a Christianist “initiative” is even more absurd, but less hurtful. Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m sure Andrew believes in strict separation between public and private spheres. In fact, when the Spitzer scandal broke, he wrote (a little Google punditry): “as far as I’m concerned, this is between him and his family.” So to sum up: when you’re governor of a large state, hiring prostitutes? Private matter. But breeding with your husband? Part of a Christianit plot to overthrow the Republic. Good to know there’s no double standard here.)

   In fact, reading this colors much else of how I read Andrew! I’m against same-sex marriage, more on Burkean prudential grounds than on religious/cultural ones, but I find his argument that same-sex marriage would anchor same-sex couples more into the bourgeois mainstream by subjecting them to the same rules and obligations as hetero couples extremely compelling. But isn’t that argument little more than a red herring since it now appears he feels little but contempt for the bourgeois mainstream lifestyle he claims to want to see gays moored to? (There are plenty of things un-mainstream about the Palins, but living in a small town and breeding is definitely mainstream. Yet to Andrew this is “bizarre.”)

   The worst thing is, by reacting so vehemently, I am essentially becoming like Andrew. I think there’s something unhealthy about the tribal feelings that Sarah Palin elicits in social conservatives (I’m not even American!). But there is also something definitely screwed up about the reactions in the liberal media (that’s right, I said liberal media) about her. She’s like the One True Ring, or something.

   — PEG · Sep 5, 08:53 PM · #

10. I understood immediately the intended meaning of Andrew’s comment. I found it to be nearly obvious.

    I dare say most people entertain dreams of reform, good governance, justice, and the like. In fact, it may be a universal impulse. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. However, when it comes to the specifics of how to achieve such desires – Palin in this instance – some methods fall into the realm of fantasy.

    Interesting how a simple statement can so readily be interpreted as a personal slight.

    — roberto · Sep 5, 08:56 PM · #

11. Roberto — not sure you read the post. And actually, not sure you’re interpreting it as Andrew interpreted it, so I suppose it can’t be quite so obvious. Perhaps you understand Andrew’s intentions better than he does, which is impressive.

    — Reihan · Sep 5, 09:27 PM · #

12. PEG nails it.

    I’m just going to come out and say this: Andrew Sullivan has behaved in a sexist manner this past week, often belittling Palin in a disgusting manner.

    It’s very shocking to me that this is coming from a commentator I used to respect so deeply.

    — thehova · Sep 5, 10:00 PM · #

13. Palin’s presence on the GOP ticket would be unimaginable in the absence of its Christianist wing. (Although the wing and the party appear to be identical.)

    The word “Christian” is tossed aorund these days as if it is a label that can be applied only to born-again evangelical fiundamentalists. That’s simply not true. Individuals decide if they are Christian. No external arbiter exists. Tens of millions of Americans consider themselves Christians who are in no way born again evangelical types.

    That said, I always consider someone’s religious faith to be off limits, but that their political behavior, even if motivated by their faith, is very much fair game. Palin’s pentecostal faith concerns me because I’m not sure where her loyalties are. E.g., if she believes in the “end times”, and if she believes that the U.S. is carrying out God’s plan, would she be willing to work to prevent a nuclear war in the Mideast if she believes that war would be in fulfillment of prophecy? What would inhibit her from working to faciliate that turn of events?

    If you want to reform conservatism and the GOP, you first need to purge of the people who believe they are doing God’s work.

    — justcorbly · Sep 5, 10:21 PM · #

14. PEG, if you had been here for the 2000 Presidential election, you wouldn’t talk about an American liberal media. The American mainstream media isn’t conservative; it’s just reflexively anti-liberal, and has been for my adult life.

    Sullivan fears how Palin will shape the election.

    I keep hearing this all the time; and I suppose it’s fun to assert things like that. I do, however, have more pragmatic reasons for disliking Palin. In my opinion, she’s an arch-conservative played to be a centrist. She’s woefully underqualified with a spotty resume in many areas, in an election where conservatives have said for over a calendar year that experience trumps everything in executive office. She plays herself as a reformer when she has reformed very little, she plays to ethics when she is under investigation, she styles herself a feminist icon when the cynical political maneuvering that directly resulted in her nomination makes terribly insulting assumptions about women.

    I know I’m in the minority here, but my continued frustration is the inability of many commenters to acknowledge that their admiration for Palin is influencing their perception of what’s going on in the media. I mean many conservative bloggers, and many commenters here, keep flogging this narrative that Palin is being the subject of these ridiculous attacks from all over the media. But as Ta-Nehisi Coates has pointed out (and he’s doing yeoman’s work), this is largely an illusion drummed up by conservative supporters of Palin. Yes, Andrew Sullivan has been intemperate. He is one man, and I find the continued efforts to act as if there is some huge liberal conspiracy working against this woman (a woman! they’re being mean to a woman!) to be just more electoral cycle posturing.

    What would make me happy would be for people in this space to acknowledge that maybe, it isn’t just that the liberal blogs have an excessively negative vision of Palin, and that maybe, conservative bloggers have an excessively high opinion of her. I mean you would have though Reagan had been brought back from the other side and chosen as McCain’s running mate. The praise for Sarah Palin is in the territory of the slobbering Of course, my ideological and partisan inclinations effect my judgment. They effect yours too, and yet so many seem to say again and again that it just is true that Palin is being unfairly attacked, and the media is out to get her, etc. etc. That’s just assertion, and it isn’t temperate, either. Love Sarah Palin as much as you do, but acknowledge that this love is coloring your perception of how she is being treated. (And, perhaps, how her gender is doing the same.)

    From purely political perspective, I remain worried about my party’s overall chances, but I find this notion that Sarah Palin will lead Republicans to a blowout victory to be weird. She is not the kind of candidate who will cause vast amounts of undecideds and independents to switch sides, and early polling has not seen this amazing Palin bump that we keep being promised. She is, to me, a fairly underwhelming candidate from any perspective. Even if she wasn’t, it’s John McCain who is the nominee for the Presidency of the United States, and John McCain who must defeat Barack Obama. In exit poll after exit poll, we see that the Vice Presidential nominee is an afterthought in Presidential election voting. It’s something more to be taken seriously by the media and the chattering class (read:us) than to be a major election player. John McCain has to win this campaign for Republicans, and he has an awfully hard task ahead of him. That hasn’t changed.

    — Freddie · Sep 5, 10:27 PM · #

15. I suggest you google “reformer with results” and remind us how that one worked out for you. Same campaign team, same campaign theme.

    I’ve got a Bridge to Nowhere for you, just vote right here.

    — Tiparillo · Sep 5, 10:36 PM · #

16. thehova writes: “I’m just going to come out and say this: Andrew Sullivan has behaved in a sexist manner this past week, often belittling Palin in a disgusting manner.”

    Except, its not just last week, and its not not Palin. He did it to Hillary as well. Misogynist is too weak a word for Sullivan. He is a gynophobe.

    PS – a guy who publicly trolls for “bareback sex” on online sites has a lot of nerve calling anyone else’s personal life “bizarre”

    — moqui · Sep 5, 10:40 PM · #

17. I’ll put in a vote for a post on whether Palin actually is a reformer.

    Here’s my understanding of the argument: She is a reformer because she has opposed earmarks and fought corrupt politicians.

    Here’s my understanding of the facts: She has fought for earmarks for her town and state. Her repeatedly claimed opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere is false. Although she is praised for fighting Ted Stevens, she received his endorsement in 2006. I don’t think she has even opposed his re-election following his indictment.

    Meanwhile, she appears to be guilty of firing public officials for her own personal reasons, echoing on a smaller scale the US attorney’s scandal.

    Can someone make or point me to a defense of her reformer status?

    best,
    Tom

    — Tom G. · Sep 5, 11:24 PM · #

18. Freddie, in response to a claim than “Sullivan fears how Palin will shape the election,” you say, “I keep hearing this all the time; and I suppose it’s fun to assert things like that.” I don’t think we need mere assertion: here’s Sullivan himself, from back in the time when I still read him (that is, two or three days ago): “What I fear is some kind of pure emotional-religious wave that redefines the GOP for ever as a purely religious party, swamps all genuine questions about governance, celebrates this woman as the epitome of modern conservatism and rides the tidal wave of fundamentalist fervor to the White House.” I trust that that’s straightforward enough for you?

    But as you say, Sullivan’s just one man. However, there are also articles on Slate now numbering in the dozens which cover everything from running a contest to name Bristol Palin’s baby to claiming that Palin has set a bad example by failing to abort a Downs Syndrome baby to claiming — not implying, claiming — that the daughter’s decision to keep her baby was “coerced” by her parents. There’s Richard Cohen in the Washington Post comparing Palin to the horse that Caligula deified. There’s a writer for the NY Times apparently still “standing by” her story that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party even though the party itself now says that that’s wrong. There’s a piece in Salon arguing that Palin is a hypocrite for bearing her child, and since she obviously would have been a hypocrite for aborting it, I don’t think that leaves her too many options, do you? NPR ran a long and stunningly ignorant piece this evening suggesting that because Palin is a Pentecostal — and for that reason only — she is likely to seek to destroy Islam.

    How long a list would you like, Freddie? I could keep going for quite a while. These are not marginal bloggers that no one reads; these are significant players in our media.

    I think you are confusing frustration with this mindlessly abusive “coverage” of the Palin nomination with support for Palin herself. I don’t even know what I think about Sarah Palin, because the noise-to-signal ratio of the media response to her is so absurdly bad, and born from such evident ill-will, that it’s hard to ferret out what little information has been discovered. I don’t know whether McCain’s pick is frivolous and cynical, as has often been suggested, but much of our news media has been both, and in spades.

    — Alan Jacobs · Sep 5, 11:27 PM · #

19. Also, Freddie, I’m sure you know that the percentage of journalists who self-identify as “liberal” is significantly greater than the population at large, and the percentage of journalists who self-identify as “conservative” is far smaller. See here, for example. So you should probably note that when you say that the press is “anti-liberal” you’re using an uncommon definition of “liberal.” Which is fine; but it should be acknowledged, I think. And of course the fact that journalists hold certain political views doesn’t necessitate that those views emerge in their journalism — that’s a separate question.

    — Alan Jacobs · Sep 5, 11:37 PM · #

20. And of course the fact that journalists hold certain political views doesn’t necessitate that those views emerge in their journalism — that’s a separate question.

    The fact that they hold certain beliefs is largely irrelevant. The media is not tilted in the sense that they run stories saying “abortion bad, family good”. It’s that they a) make out every analytical story about politics or governance so that it’s bad news for Democrats, and b) constantly flog a vision of America where conservatism is the philosophy of the Real American Man and liberalism is some freaky fringe ideology. When Wolf Blitzer attacks the Democrats for having three liberals prominently featured on the first day of the convention, when he asks all of his guests incredulously about the wisdom of putting so many liberal speakers out there, he’s contributing to the notion that this is a conservative country with conservative values, where liberalism is a loser’s ideology and where the only hope for Democrats is to become a second conservative party. He would never think to ask the same question of Republicans. No one would. What sense would it make to ask whether Republicans were making a mistake having several prominent conservatives at their convention? The Republican party is the conservative party, which Wolf Blitzer understands and accepts. What he and so many others in the media don’t accept is the notion that the Democratic party should conversely be a liberal party. They seem to support an America with a center-right party and a far-right party.

    The media has been so cowed by the (remarkably disciplined) conservative machine’s efforts to brand the media liberal that they are now reflexively anti-liberal; they’re afraid to appear biased against conservatives and as a consequence they slant too hard in the other direction. Their idea of balance, as has been demonstrated again and again and again, is a panel show with three conservatives and a moderate. Watch a cable news channel, any of them, for a day and count the number of pundits who genuinely support liberal positions.

    And Alan, you’re kind of rigging the game. The question isn’t whether Sarah Palin is being criticized or examined, it’s whether or not the way she is being interrogated by the press is somehow malign or not. You prove my point entirely when you just make a list of stories that are critical of Palin; it seems like you’re assuming that because they are critical, they must be unfairly critical. Many conservative bloggers don’t even feel like you have to argue how those stories and posts are unfair. That’s the problem exactly. People keep saying that Palin is being uniquely and unfairly examined by the national media, as if asking any questions whatsoever about her competence or character is below the belt or unfair. Would people circle the wagons around Joe Biden if he was being dissected in this way? Of course not. That’s my point. The fact that many think ipso facto that a list of critical stories shows unfairness is the problem itself.

    — Freddie · Sep 6, 12:07 AM · #

21. First of all, Freddie, I would be more confident that you’re arguing in good faith if you were to say something like, “You’re right, Sullivan did say that.”

    Second, “The fact that they hold certain beliefs is largely irrelevant” is the kind of bald assertion you deplore when someone else makes it.

    Third, whether “three conservatives and a moderate” is the TV-news norm depends on your definitions of those terms. If you have Wolf Blitzer, James Carville, Paul Begala, and J. C. Watts on a show — I’ve seen that a few times — you don’t think there are any liberals in that group?

    But to the major point: I think I, to quote our esteemed president, I misunderestimated you. I thought you would readily see that there’s nothing fair or journalistically appropriate about running a contest to name Bristol Palin’s baby. I thought it would be obvious to you that legitimate journalists wouldn’t simply assert without evidence that parents had coerced their daughter into having a baby. I was citing a series of stories that I thought were self-evidently mindless bullshit — in order to point out that stories like this are (as I said) the noise crowding out the signal of legitimate criticism. The more I have to deal with National-Enquirer-style gossip and innuendo — but not in the National Enquirer, rather on the front page of the New York Times and the lead stories in Slate and Salon — the harder it is for me to get to the exploration of questions than matter, like whether Palin lied about the Bridge to Nowhere and what her actual reformist credentials are.

    But I’m effectively repeating what I’ve already said. Freddie, sometimes it feels like you don’t really read what people say before you disagree with them. This makes me worry that I’m wasting my energy by replying to you.

    — Alan Jacobs · Sep 6, 12:33 AM · #

22. I’m rather impressed by the NYTimes report that her campaign for Wasila mayor featured signs reading “We will have our first Christian Mayor.” Her opponent was raised Lutheran, though the article didn’t make it clear whether he was practicing. In any case, this is a damn sight more “Christianist” than the standard “I’m a man of faith” appeals politicians use.

    While it’s lamentable that these considerations get brought into the political realm, let’s not pretend it isn’t funny when someone names their kid ‘track’.

    — Justin · Sep 6, 01:24 AM · #

23. What you find self-evident, Alan, is a product of your ideology. What I find self-evident is a product of mine. One of us owns up to it. But maybe I’m just not reading you.

    — Freddie · Sep 6, 03:12 AM · #

24. LarryM—
    R&R have put meat on the bones of a particular strain within what David Brooks was calling “big government conservatism.” TR, McCain’s beau ideal, was probably its last big proponent. Like McCain he seemed to’ve really stumbled on it, as a man less of great governmental philosophy than of conservative instinct and activist disposition (although in the presence of guys like Brooks Adams I’m a bit leery of discounting broad government philosophies). The upshot is McCain has been someone who, for a long time, has been actually seen as potentially a major driver of, not Reihan’s “Sam’s Club Republicanism,” but it’s kissing cousin. I won’t presume to flesh out that argument given more competent company — but it’s by no means obvious that McCain is not a vehicle for a GNP-style politics.

    Oddly though I recall a long, great Brooks article in — 2004? — about the history and prospects of “big government conservatives,” that argued that George W. Bush could be its great exponent, so, aah, mistakes were made.

    Alan: you da man.

    — Sanjay · Sep 6, 03:15 AM · #

25. Few (but not no) serious people would argue, now, that Palin is an unimpressive candidate; personally I’d think it foolish. I’m not sure she’d be an impressive President. (I will say of nothing multicellular that it cannot be an impressive Vice-President.) Then again I am relatively sure Biden would not be, either, and it’s much more a known quantity.

    — Sanjay · Sep 6, 03:26 AM · #

26. Freddie,

    Everyone is a product of their ideology to a certain extent. The purpose of discussion between people of different ideologies is to find common ground to the extent possible, clarify differences, and reflect on possible weaknesses in both party’s positions.

    Alan advanced an argument, and listed supporting examples. Rather than challenging any of the supporting examples on the merits, you responded first by simply ignoring the examples, then by making a vague accusation that Alan wasn’t owning up to the fact that he was a creature of his ideology. I suppose it is easier than making a counter-argument or addressing the examples, but it seems to justify Alan’s suspicion of bad faith.

    The charge you made could be advanced at any time in any argument by either party (‘you are too blinded,’ – ‘no, you are too blinded’). It’s a cheap shot and a non sequitur imo.

    — kab · Sep 6, 04:17 AM · #

27. “Few (but not no) serious people would argue, now, that Palin is an unimpressive candidate.”

    That’s silly. She’s an impressive candidate for some kind of political office becasue she can give a good speech and becasue she’s a compelling personality. I like her. But so what. She is not an impressive candidate to be the vice president of a 72 year old man, because is not qualified to do the job, which is replace the preisdent if he can no longer serve. She is un qualified because—and I am very, very confident here—she don’t know shit about 9/10th of what an impressive VP candidate needs to know. Why am I so confident? Becasue of her education, because in this age where everything is recorded or written down, no one can find anything she has said or written that reflects the necessary knowledge, and mostly, because they won’t let her speak unscripted, won’t let her answer questions in the press.

    And Alan, I think you are getting way way to het up about this. She is a celebrity, to use a term I heard somehwere, a term that partially fit Obama, and totally fits Palin. She is on the ticket because of her personality and story. In other words, as a celebrity. THe right are celebrating her as we speak. That speech she gave was a celebrity speech. It was all one liners and folksy touches. There was nothing real about policy, or governing. It was all personality. She didn’t have to give that speech. She is not a captive. She willingly accepts and uses her celebrity status. If she wanted to be taken seriously as a vice presidential candidate, someone who could be president in 60 days, she would have given a different speech. But she didn’t.

    She is a celebrity and when you are a celebrity you get the celebrity treatment. I don’t see you railing about how they are treating Brittiny. I don’t see you all pissed off about who they keep showing Calista Flockharts sagggy belly or Christy Ally’s saggy everything. If you really want to rail against someone, rail against McCain who is using her—as a celebrity—to prop up his campaign. Rail against the stupidity of that segment of the american people who respond to this kind of moronic campaign tactic. Republcian and democrat alike. But Palin is not some innocent alaskan housewife who got kidnapped and was forced along with her family to perform at the republican national convention. She is an adult who has been in politics for nearly 20 years. She saw what happened to Barack Obama. She knew her daughter was pregnant. She uses the fact that her son has downs syndrom in her political speeches as a reason to vote for her.

    — cw · Sep 6, 06:35 AM · #

28. I’m calling the Freddie-Alan exchange in favor of Alan — but of course I’m biased.

    @cw

    That speech she gave was a celebrity speech. It was all one liners and folksy touches. There was nothing real about policy, or governing.

    To be fair, what speech, out of the two conventions, had real policy and governing content? Obama’s contained a laundry list of policy proposals targeted at Democratic interest groups and vague appeals to bipartisanship, which might be too little or too much depending on your point of view, and I haven’t read or seen McCain’s, but Biden’s speech wasn’t exactly Grand New Party in terms of policy ambition either.

    The entire election is about personality and life story. Part of it is because of the society we live in, where voters trust character before policy (a development which I consider to be a good thing), and part of it is because of Barack Obama himself, whose entire candidacy was solely premised on his life story, up to and including his opposition to the War in Iraq. (To be fair, so has John McCain’s, to a large extent.) When Joe Biden was nominated more hay was made out of his supposed rough and tumble upbringing than his chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    And it isn’t new. “I still believe in a place called Hope” isn’t exactly the Beveridge Report either, and I’m not blaming or even criticizing Bill Clinton. It’s just what you do to win these things called elections nowadays. I don’t see how the problem is limited to Sarah Palin or how that somehow the fact that she advances her compelling life story undercuts her claim to be qualified to govern when every other candidate does the same.

    — PEG · Sep 6, 07:35 AM · #

29. Palin’s pentecostal faith concerns me because I’m not sure where her loyalties are. E.g., if she believes in the “end times”, and if she believes that the U.S. is carrying out God’s plan, would she be willing to work to prevent a nuclear war in the Mideast if she believes that war would be in fulfillment of prophecy? What would inhibit her from working to faciliate that turn of events?

    If you want to reform conservatism and the GOP, you first need to purge of the people who believe they are doing God’s work.

    I think you are badly misinformed about what religious faith actually entails. I am willing to bet my left leg that not a single recognizable politician of a major party believes in the “end times,” at least in the “Left Behind” sense. And even so, I don’t think believing in the “end times” entails what you think it does. Implying that because one is a Pentecostal — a denomination that covers over a hundred million people on every continent — one believes in “religious prophesies” that would stop one preventing a nuclear war in the Middle East shows a level of misinformation and, frankly, prejudice and paranoia that is hard to comprehend. Because this person is a Pentecostal, they might be an accomplice in nuclear war? Seriously? If McCain had chosen Joe Lieberman, would you be fretting on how he might condone nuclear war because it would somehow advance the interests of Israel — and, after all, he is a devout Jew, and who knows what their religious prophesies entail? Ahem.

    I would say that people who believe they are doing God’s work, from the Civil Rights movement to Reaganite conservatives, haven’t been so bad for the US.

    Despite all the heavy breathing about apocalyptical end-times “prophesies” animating US foreign policy, few point out that neoconservatism is the least religious strand of conservative thought. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are noted for many things, but the fervor of their Christian faith isn’t exactly one of them. The only part of US foreign policy that can legitimately be said to be inspired by Christian beliefs is the dramatic expansion of the development assistance and AIDS relief budget, and I don’t think that’s such a bad thing, do you?

    — PEG · Sep 6, 08:04 AM · #

30. Wow, what a treat to wake up to. Alan staying on point, and scoring many; Freddie blending reason and intemperance into his usual rocky-road with cherries filibustering.

    I have nothing of substance to add on the Palin phenomenon, except to say the recursively expanding literature surrounding this pick continues to fascinate me. So keep on keeping on.

    I love this site.

    — JA · Sep 6, 02:10 PM · #

31. Oh, and PEG, great stuff, as always.

    — JA · Sep 6, 02:13 PM · #

32. Upon closer examination, Palin is really just GW in drag. For example, they said exactly the same the same thing about creationism being taught alongside evolution in public highschools. Palin, is far more wrong than Bush btw, because pace Kitzmiller, that would be illegal.
    On the other hand, the ability to maintain a belief in creationism speaks of an inflexibilty of thought and a capacity to muster massive denial in the face of scientific fact.
    Likely that is what has lead the current administration into the Grand Misadventure of the Manifest Desistiny of Democracy.

    Now Bobby Jindal…belives in demonic exorcism through laying on of hands.
    I think that is a problem for any future run on the presidency.
    When the Founders stipulated that religion is not a qualifier basis for the office, i dont think they meant to say we had to vote for stupid people, or crazy people, because that is a part of their religious belief.

    — matoko_chan · Sep 6, 03:06 PM · #

33. Manifest Destiny of Democracy.
    i cant speel, lol.

    — matoko_chan · Sep 6, 03:09 PM · #

34. Everyone tries to articulate this as a culture war, or social issues.
    It isn’t…it is the War of the Bellcurve.

    — matoko_chan · Sep 6, 03:11 PM · #

35. “The only part of US foreign policy that can legitimately be said to be inspired by Christian beliefs is the dramatic expansion of the development assistance and AIDS relief budget, and I don’t think that’s such a bad thing, do you?”

    the proplem PEG is that a half-century of feel-good mortality reduction programs which have universally rejected any birthcontrol education for indigenous populations has resulted in triple-digit population group in Africa. In 2020 there will be a half trillion young people with nothing to do and nothing to eat.
    Do you think they will be grateful to us?

    The Road to Hell and all that.

    — matoko_chan · Sep 6, 03:18 PM · #

36. Palin is really just GW in drag.

    Maybe. But Palin is far, far more effective as communicator and standard-bearer. She’s scary-good.

    — JA · Sep 6, 03:25 PM · #

37. “I don’t see how the problem is limited to Sarah Palin or how that somehow the fact that she advances her compelling life story undercuts her claim to be qualified to govern when every other candidate does the same.”

    Because compelling life story is all she is advancing, or is all they will let her advance. Like I say, she could have given a different speech, she is a free adult.

    JA—“she is scary good.”

    Keep your pants on. We’ve seen three speeches.

    — cw · Sep 6, 03:39 PM · #

38. CW, her goal is to get McCain elected. Her speech, and most especially her delivery, was perfectly calibrated to this succeed on this point. You can make normative complaints about what kind of strategies win elections, but you’re wasting energy when you complain about politicians wanting to win.

    On my praise of the Governor, my opinion plus a dollar will by you a pack of gum. However, I know quite a bit about Sarah Palin, and she is scary-good — on a pre-rational level most especially.

    Promise.

    — JA · Sep 6, 03:53 PM · #

39. So Alan thinks it is self-evident that something is amiss when the New York Times prints misinformation about Palin’s supposed membership in the Alaska Independence Party. Freddie seems to think it self-evident that such misinformation is OK, or maybe that it means the press is somehow anti-liberal. Those two impressions are not equivalent.

    — Stuart Buck · Sep 6, 04:31 PM · #

40. I’m not complaining, I’m explaining. I’m explaining to Alan Jacobs why he shouldn’t let all the informational hub hub around Ms. Palin get him upset. I’m saying she’s willingly running as a celebrated personality and therefor has to expect the celebrity treatment in the press. Which—by the way—doesn’t seem out of the ordinary to me, there’s just a whole bunch of it compressed into a very short time, so it seems like there’s more and more intrusive than normal. And I’m sure Alan is greatful for my guidence.

    About scary good, you are correct on the pre-rational part. But at some point she is going to have to talk about something with out the teleprompter in front of her, answering questions she hasn’t anticipated. If she handles that—which is going to mean learning a whole bunch off stuff she has neverr shown any interest in before—then maybe she’s scary good. I mean, what I have seen of her when it’s not a stupid speech, I have liked. I haven’t seen her talking about Iran or Russia, but maybe she could do that and I would still like her.

    But, she hasn’t passed the scary good test yet, except as a right wing symbolic hero. She is a scary good as a right wing resentment generator. But as a national politician, with all that entails, we haven’t seen that yet.

    — cw · Sep 6, 04:46 PM · #

41. I’m saying she’s willingly running as a celebrated personality and therefor has to expect the celebrity treatment in the press.

    My bad if I misinterpreted you re complaint/observation. Also, I agree with this to an extent. Such treatment is to be expected, especially since the pick was jumped on a press notoriously ungrateful for being kept in the dark (note: I think the suddenness of Palin, more than bias, accounts for last week’s scramble to find dirt; nevertheless, bias was a motivating factor for many, if only as a priming mechanism).

    What was mildly disconcerting was 1) the particularly nasty/vacuous kind of celebrity treatment Palin got, given her not meager public record (some might say because of), and 2) the prestige of the media organs and personalities who gave it to her. True, Palin’s rise to prominence was so sudden that most of us only had access to surface stuff, so that’s where a lot of the scrutiny was going to end up given the needs of the 24 hour news cycle.

    However, a lot of those who ended up in the role of surface mongerers know better; demonstrated by their restraint with other, similar stories. That’s what’s so fascinating about it.

    — JA · Sep 6, 05:08 PM · #

42. Keep your pants on.

    When in the course of a discussion of Sarah Palin, that’s a very tall order.

    — PEG · Sep 6, 05:52 PM · #

43. I love how the people arguing against Freddie here just keep proving his point over and over. If anyone still cares, the point was that Alan’s list was not an objective list of facts. It was a list of his characterizations of those articles. Alan’s skills in accurately characterizeing such things have proven very lacking recently. Reihan’s too, for that matter.

    Anyway, just wanted to pop in and help you guys out with your site tracking stats: go ahead and cross off one RSS subscriber.

    — miles · Sep 7, 12:31 AM · #

44. Reihan, Palin is a Stealth Old White Guy. Bush:“Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about.”

    Palin:“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

    Not only is Palin stupid enough to believe in creationism, she is stupid enough to believe it can be TAUGHT in public schools after Kitzmiller.

    — matoko_chan · Sep 7, 10:12 PM · #

45. One more thing Reihan, cher.
    Its tribalism all the way down.
    Its the cudlips vs the l33ts.
    Tom Jefferson was a polymath and a l33t.
    He praised the Yeoman Farmer.
    But i dont think he would have supported one for president.

    The Singularity will change all that, lol.
    Im glad im young.
    ;)

    — matoko_chan · Sep 7, 10:18 PM · #

46. Matako, you embarass yourself.

    She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

    Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

    “I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

    — Blar · Sep 7, 11:17 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.

↑ Strategy and Identity

↓ Is Sarah Palin an action hero?

All contents copyright The American Scene unless otherwise noted. Colophon. Archive.