"The Meaning of Sarah Palin"
In a smart piece on Sarah Palin’s candidacy, Yuval Levin argues that the cleavage separating her backers and critics is owed to “the age-old tension between populism and elitism in our public life.”
He writes:
Even the poor in our country tend to be moved more by cultural than by economic appeals. It was this sense, this feeling, that Sarah Palin channeled so effectively. Her appearance on the scene unleashed populist energies that McCain had not tapped, and she both fed them and fed off them. She spent the bulk of her time at Republican rallies assailing the cultural radicalism of Barack Obama and his latte-sipping followers, who, she occasionally suggested, were not part of the “the real America” she saw in the adoring throngs standing before her. Palin channeled these cultural energies more by what she was than by what she said or did, which contributed mightily to the odd disjunction between her professional resume and her campaign presence and impact.
I think that is sound analysis, but that a couple points need to be added: Americans disdain the cultural radicalism of men like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and their ilk, and comparing their lives, rhetoric, and personas to Barack Obama, a cautious, even-keeled family man who ran the Harvard Law Review, helps to demonstrate why Sarah Palin’s charges of cultural radicalism failed to take hold. If the professional, “latte sipping” class in America backs a candidate in large numbers, he may well be a social liberal, but it is exceedingly doubtful that he is a radical.
This point might be grasped more readily if we abolished the word latte and started talking about people who drink espresso with warm milk. Wikipedia says the latte originated in American life as follows:
Lino Meiorin… was the first Italian-trained barista in the Bay Area. Customers were not used to the strong flavor of a traditional Italian cappuccino and would ask Lino for more milk. Speaking in Italian, Lino would tell the barista to put more latte (milk) in their cup. Eventually he put a larger drink on the menu with the same amount of espresso but more steamed milk, and called it a caffe latte. It was originally served in a bowl, but switched to a pint beer glass.
Espresso with warm milk may stop dividing Americans if we reflect on the fact that if you walked into a diner anywhere in the United States, and replaced the coffee with espresso, a very American response would be to pour it into a pint glass, heat up some milk, and mix it with the overly powerful foreign coffee.
Okay, back to the estimable Mr. Levin:
Applied to politics, the worldview of the intellectual elite begins from an unstated assumption that governing is fundamentally an exercise of the mind: an application of the proper mix of theory, expertise, and intellectual distance that calls for knowledge and verbal fluency more than for prudence born of life’s hard lessons.
Sarah Palin embodied a very different notion of politics, in which sound instincts and valuable life experiences are considered sources of knowledge at least the equal of book learning. She is the product of an America in which explicit displays of pride in intellect are considered unseemly, and where physical prowess and moral constancy are given a higher place than intellectual achievement. She was in the habit of stressing these faculties instead—a habit that struck many in Washington as brutishness.
What I fail to understand is why, if I value “sound instincts and valuable life experiences,” I should be so enamored of Governor Palin that I imagine her to be the future of the Republican Party, or a plausible VP choice.
Senator McCain’s life experiences include seven decades on earth, combat duty in Vietnam, being tortured in a Vietnamese prison cell, having his instincts tested in that time of crisis and passing the test, a long career studying matters foreign and domestic, an ethics scandal that chastened him forever after, fact finding trips all around the world, etc. If it’s instincts and life experience you’re after, he’s your guy. But somehow, these supposed “instinct and life experience” voters weren’t at all excited by Senator McCain, whereas they were thrilled by a youthful first term governor who lacked any experience in the military or a corporation, who seldom traveled outside Alaska, and whose instincts haven’t ever been tested in a time of crisis. This isn’t to denigrate Governor Palin. It is only to say that neither her life experiences nor her instincts are particularly notable, even compared to other Republicans like Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and all the rest.
Later on Mr. Levin writes that Sarah Palin was a problematic candidate:
She began by opening up a huge space for herself, and then was unable to fill it.
…Her convention speech, her interviews, and her debate performance drew unprecedented audiences.
But having finally gotten voters to listen, neither Palin nor McCain could think of anything to say to them. Palin’s reformism, like McCain’s, was essentially an attitude devoid of substance. Both Republican candidates told us they hated corruption and would cut excess and waste. But separately and together, they offered no overarching vision of America, no consistent view of the role of government, no clear description of what a free society should look like, and no coherent policy ideas that might actually address the concerns of American families and offer solutions to the serious problems of the moment. Palin’s populism was not her weakness, but her strength. Her weakness was that she failed to tie her populism to anything deeper. A successful conservative reformism has to draw on cultural populism, but it has also to draw on a worldview, on ideas about society and government, and on a policy agenda. This would make it more intellectual, but not necessarily less populist.
I am confused. Earlier on in the essay, we were told that a defining attribute of cultural elites is their “unstated assumption that governing is fundamentally an exercise of the mind: an application of the proper mix of theory, expertise, and intellectual distance that calls for knowledge and verbal fluency more than for prudence born of life’s hard lessons.” Paragraphs later, we’re told that Sarah Palin needed to offer an overarching vision of America — but doesn’t that require verbal fluency? We’re told that she needed to formulate a consistent view of government — but doesn’t that require applying a proper mix of theory, expertise and intellectual distance? We’re told she needed a policy agenda — but doesn’t that require exercising the mind?
Though it isn’t explicit, it seems an awful lot like Mr. Levin thinks a successful candidate must possess all the attributes that supposedly relegate politicians to the “cultural elite” side of the American political cleavage, which would seem to be bad news for Sarah Palin and other candidates like her. Elsewhere, however, Mr. Levin seems more confident in the Sarah Palin model of candidate.
I’m sure other readers can help me to more fully understand Mr. Levin’s ultimate argument, which really is very much worth your while.
With all this talk of how conservatism can relevant again, ending the discussion of “latte-drinking liberals” needs to end now. How many conservatives drink Starbucks, drive Volvos, shop at LL Bean and go hiking? Lots. And the ones who don’t? Well, they’re the ones still carrying water for Sarah Palin.
— Matt Stokes · Feb 5, 03:20 PM · #
I think you’re right that there’s a tension here. However, Levin’s position makes sense if we make a distinction between a vision that is compelling to elites—articulate and detailed in a way that they find necessary—and a vision that is capable of convincing voters that it has something to offer them.
‘Consistent’ might be the word that’s doing the trick. It can mean a view that’s stable, and connects a number of different ideas, or it can mean a view that’s theoretically coherent, which is a lot more demanding. Levin has to be meaning the former.
— Justin · Feb 5, 03:23 PM · #
Conor, you quote Levin:
You then wonder how this squares with the notion that Palin needed an articulate vision. I think you are missing this: “more than for prudence born of life’s hard lessons.” You seem to imagine that “a worldview,” “ideas about society and government,” and “a policy agenda” can only issue from an Obama-like culturally elite upbringing, when Levin’s whole point was that these things can and do come from other places. Her populist touch is (or should be, I guess) a complement to such a worldview, not a substitute.
To quote Levin again:
Markers for cultural elitism have nothing to do with having proper “ideas about society and government.”
@Matt S: I invite you to read Yuval Levin’s piece and pay particular attention to his account of the elitist backlash against Palin. I then ask that you reconsider who started this particular cultural donnybrook.
— Blar · Feb 5, 03:53 PM · #
Given that it was unprecedented for a 44 year old mother of five children to find herself in the situation which Governor Palin was in as a VP candidate, then her achievement there was more notable than you acknowledge. Also, I’m mindful of the fact that almost 60 million Americans did vote for the McCain/Palin ticket, in which Governor Palin was required to play a supporting role to Senator McCain’s vision of America. I’d accept that she was not ready for the Gibson/Couric interviews, but neither had she been campaigning for the better part of the two previous years as the other three candidates had. Matt Stokes, there may well be many more “carrying water” than you imagine.
— iac · Feb 5, 04:12 PM · #
I think Mr. Levin’s main point is that, while there are all sorts of valid reasons for either a conservative OR a liberal to like or dislike Sarah Palin, most people formed an immediate and unshakeable opinion of her BEFORE they knew anything about her. Typically, people looked at her cultural backgound and decided instantly “She’s one of (yay!) US” or “She’s one of (ugh!) THEM.” And at that point, for most people, thinking stopped. If she made a valid point, most liberals didn’t hear it. And if she was smeared with a ridiculous, false charge, liberals didn’t question the charge. They were too wedded to the notion that Sarah Palin was merely the unwashed, Religious Right writ large.
And if she said something stupid or embarrassing, most conservatives didn’t hear it. They were too wedded to the notion that Sarah was THEIR candidate, so any gaffes she committed had to be the fault of the liberal media.
BOTH sides judged her NOT by her record, but by her perceived social class.
Personally, I knew almost nothing about Sarah Palin before John McCain selected her as his running mate. About all I knew was that she was governor of Alalska and that several conservative commentators I respect (most notably Ross Douthat) liked her. So, I was predisposed to think of her favorably. And the first impression she made on me was a positive one- I liked her, and still do. She seems like a cool person.
But here’s where I seem to differ with most people on the Left and the Right: I didn’t have my mind made up about her. While my first impressions were positive, I had some concerns about her experience and readiness to be President, and her dreadful performances in interviews only confirmed my worst fears.
Was the press out to get her? Did she suffer all kinds of unfair attacks? Yes- but she had no one to blame but herself for her ignorance of important issues and her lack of preparation for interviews. So, my take as a conservative is: Sarah Palin was a major disappointment. Maybe she just wasn’t ready for the big time yet… but if that’s the case, she’ll never improve unless she acknowledges how badly she performed in 2008.
Mr. Levin notes, correctly, that Sarah Palin did NOT govern like someone taking marching orders from James Dobson or Jerry Falwell. If everyone had looked at her RECORD, maybe liberals and conservatives alike might have realized she wasn’t exactly what they thought she was.
And I think that’s Mr. Levin’s real challenge to all readers: judge Sarah Palin for what she is and what she’s done, NOT for what you assume she is and has done.
— astorian · Feb 5, 05:06 PM · #
“ I’m mindful of the fact that almost 60 million Americans did vote for the McCain/Palin ticket, in which Governor Palin was required to play a supporting role to Senator McCain’s vision of America.”
Ridiculous. Obama could have put Zippy the Pinhead in the #2 slot and (at least) 60 million people would have voted for him.
— Tony Comstock · Feb 5, 05:27 PM · #
Conor, a smart post, as always. I think the biggest element of Palin’s candidacy that I found troubling was the implied notion that there is some particular category that embodies being American and that anything that falling outside of that category is by definition dismissible.
Such tendencies seem all too pervasive in political discourse and remain disingenuous to the reality and variety of American life. Even in your own post, you say,
“Americans disdain the cultural radicalism of men like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and their ilk, and comparing their lives, rhetoric, and personas to Barack Obama, a cautious, even-keeled family man who ran the Harvard Law Review, helps to demonstrate why Sarah Palin’s charges of cultural radicalism failed to take hold.”
I think the following at Wright’s church belies your point. The fact that some Americans tend to fall in for a more radical approach to politics and cultural issues doesn’t make them any less American. It might place them outside of the mainstream, but they do make up a certain proportion of the American ethos, for good or for ill.
I’m not suggesting that there isn’t some tie that binds what it eans to identify as American, but rather as I suggest here (www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/we-the-people/) that simplifying our notion of the diversity of the American people, or any people for that matter, is both unhelpful and destructive to the democratic project.
Not that that further clarifies Levin’s point, but it is a pet peeve for me and something I picked up on in your post.
— Scott H. Payne · Feb 5, 05:40 PM · #
Levin writes:
I think that’s wrong. The explicit charge was that Palin had no depth to her positions outside a small corner of policy space, and yet she mimed these positions with a perfunctory persistence that was all too familiar. The implicit charge was either 1) she was cynically selling a focus-grouped litany of stock phrases to the gullible masses, or 2) she actually was that incurious and pat and confident.
Who knows, maybe that’s the same as “not speaking the language of the elite.” Sad, if so.
— JA · Feb 5, 05:43 PM · #
JA – agreed. It’s more than just “shared assumptions.” The charge, whether from Christopher Hitchens or David Frum, still stands. Palin never answered it…there are many politicians who could answer that charge and not yet share the assumptions of the “Beltway elite.”
— Matt Stokes · Feb 5, 06:07 PM · #
I think the epistemology issue gets played too much in these cultural divisions, the result of the notable coinage of “reality-based” versus “faith-based” knowledge. I think the issue is what it means for someone to have achieved the American Dream, a point n+1 magazine wrote an interesting article about even before Sarah Palin got on the scene (she practically rose as the embodiment of the issues raised in that article).
The “worldview of the intellectual elite” is a bad phrase, because what is really meant is the “worldview of the professionalized elite.” Not everyone thinks being a lawyer is a sign of intellectual or moral strength.
— Rortybomb · Feb 5, 06:47 PM · #
Clearly, we must hand over even more power to smart, sophisticated elites like Robert Rubin.
— Steve Sailer · Feb 5, 09:18 PM · #
I predicted Palin would split the GOP along the IQ faultline last summer, but even I did not predict that partisanship and wistful thinking by conservos with real intellectual chops like Douthat and Levin would facilitate the continuation of the deeply-delusional-watercarrying-for-Palin contingent.
Two succint findings.
1. The myth of the spectacular hidden leadership cababilities of teh Noble Yeoman Farmer is dead except among the hardcore GOP base. Palin is simply ludicrously unfit for leadership in the Age of Complexity.
All she and JTP need are bozo wigs and clown cars, to borry from Conor.
2. Palin got where she is by appearance. Admit it. Survival of the Prettiest. How far would Palin have gotten if she looked like Janet Reno? She became governor of Alaska simply by overcoming more competant and able candidates BY VIRTUE OF HOW SHE LOOKS. Her formative years were not those spent as a sportscaster, but those spent as a beauty pageant contestant. She still speaks in Heartland Pageant Speak, pushing buzzwords around in a wooly mass of verbage while searching for a relevent answer. And that is why she thought she would win….and why she thought she could take the Couric interview.
Because looks always worked before.
The Empress is naked, and the conservative movement is doomed until they can acknowledge it.
Let the healing begin!
— matoko_chan · Feb 5, 10:16 PM · #
I’m hoping my children turn out just like the Palin children, especially the one who got knocked up at 17 and is unlikely to finish high school.
— HappyConservative · Feb 5, 11:19 PM · #
No Steve, obviously we should hand over more power to know-nothing everymen like Joe Wurzelbacher. Or maybe there are other options…..
— Drew · Feb 5, 11:46 PM · #
I remember many years ago, possibly when he was making his mock run for mayor of New York, William F Buckley, hardly an anti-intellectual or one who pretended to come from a destitute background, commented (to paraphrase) that he would rather have laws written by a hundred people chosen randomly from the NYC phone book than by the current Congress. He was not contrasting educated vs. uneducated or white collar vs. blue collar; he was expressing the idea that there was a group of people, including the “liberal elite” and most members of Congress, who were disconnected from the life decisions and moral ideals of ordinary Americans, but felt they had a right and duty to run these Americans’ lives. Buckley obviously felt that group of people were wrong. Ronald Reagan, esprecially in the beginning of his political career, used the same message. I think that was the message Palin attempted to get across. Whether she did get that message across, whether it’s worth getting across, or whether Reagan exemplified that message once he was in office, is beside the point.
— allann · Feb 6, 01:07 AM · #
“I think that was the message Palin attempted to get across.”
There was no message.
Sometimes the cake really is a lie.
— matoko_chan · Feb 6, 02:59 AM · #
I think any discussion of the reaction to Palin has to consider the fact that GWB was the outgoing president. There was a sense that we just spent eight years testing the theory that a non-intellectual with a real-folks style could make better decisions than the meritocrats, and that theory was found wanting. If Kerry had been elected in 04, the chattering class and the public in general might’ve been more willing to give Palin a shot.
— kenb · Feb 6, 03:13 AM · #
“No Steve, obviously we should hand over more power to know-nothing everymen like Joe Wurzelbacher. Or maybe there are other options…..”
Yes, like handing over economic power to Rubin’s protege, Larry Summers, as Obama is doing? How’d that work out in Russia in the 1990s, by the way?
— Steve Sailer · Feb 6, 08:31 AM · #
Mr. Levin makes a good observation i.e. Palin hasn´t a WORLDVIEW to attach her popularuty onto….I expect her TEAMSARAH poeple will endeavor to BUY her one with donations from SARAHPAC. Other then that, it´s a rehash. Well, that´s a rehash too……….
— DEO · Feb 6, 03:34 PM · #
ALSO TOO, I wrote my previous post while drunk, so please forgive my spelling.
Sarah Palin-Tonya Harding 2012
— DEO · Feb 6, 05:12 PM · #
jeezus h christ inna handcart, Steve.
You above all people should be totally congruent with the lack of substrate argument.
Summers has the substrate at least.
He might be WRONG, but at least he has the substrate to make attempts with.
Palin and JTP are simply……“without”.
— matoko_chan · Feb 6, 05:50 PM · #
And NEVAH in a kajillion years would I have thought the stone brilliant Steve Sailer would put partisanship over Science, Empiricism, and Truth.
— matoko_chan · Feb 6, 05:53 PM · #
How’d that work out in Russia in the 1990s, by the way?
================================================================
How did that work out in Russia, I DON´´T KNOW. let´s ask Palin, didn´t she say she could SEE Russia back in the 1990´s from her guest house? She said some such shit like that….
— DEO · Feb 6, 07:25 PM · #
I think that there is a tendency to conflate social class, culture, geographical loyalties, educational attainment, and intellectual aspirations in any discussion of Mrs. Palin, and her detractors and supporters. I think that both Palin’s appeal to her supporters and the revulsion felt by her detractors was a result of her bearing lower-middle-class social signifiers, her education at a non-prestigious educational institution, and her political career in a non-prestigious state. Read Paul Fussell’s 1983 book “Class”, and apply his analylisis of social status to Palin, McCain, Obama, Biden, Bush and other pols. Class prejudice helped Obama, and worked against McCain and Palin.
— Ploughman · Feb 6, 08:56 PM · #
I’m on board with almost all of what astorian said. But, this:
And if she was smeared with a ridiculous, false charge, liberals didn’t question the charge.
should be instead:
And if she was smeared with a ridiculous, false charge, Andrew Sullivan didn’t question the charge.
Snark aside, I think the problem is not so much that certain charges were ridiculous and false, but that Palin’s detractors inflated their relevance. Just like John Kerry may not have been within the borders of Cambodia on Christmas Eve, or whatever it was. The problem wasn’t that the allegation was false, but that undue emphasis was placed on it.
— dj · Feb 6, 09:01 PM · #
Ploughman….
the simple truth is, the Noble Yeoman Farmer is incapable of governing in the 21st century.
in the 18th century, mebbe, but today?
not so much.
It isn’t Palin’s cultural tags that are offensive……it is her lack of substrate.
the only reason she governor is appearance.
admit it.
if she looked like Janet Reno she’d still be a fish gutter and a pta mom.
— matoko_chan · Feb 7, 12:28 AM · #
I mean…..the cake is a lie.
Don’t you get that?
Jim? Reihan? Anyone?
— matoko_chan · Feb 7, 12:30 AM · #
“Palin got where she is by appearance. Admit it. Survival of the Prettiest. How far would Palin have gotten if she looked like Janet Reno? She became governor of Alaska simply by overcoming more competant and able candidates BY VIRTUE OF HOW SHE LOOKS.”
Now I know why I, a moderate Republican, twice voted for Janet Napolitano, a moderate Democrat. “With those looks she’s got to be good!” We should deem this the “Smuckers effect”
— c3 · Feb 7, 10:24 PM · #
Snark aside, I do think it was an excellent article. I’d suggest that at their cores both Sarah Palin and John McCain had conservative outlooks AND a generic goal of “good government” (efficient, not corrupt and not stridently partisan and most important getting things done).
No compelling message there and in the heightened reality of a national campaign no consistent, sound bite. You could see it in John McCain with his “economic idea of the day” after the economic sh*t hit the fan. You could see it in Sarah Palin with the recurring “paling around” comments. Eliminating wasteful spending or earmarks isn’t sexy.
In one sense it’s the persistent dilemma of a conservative candidate: how do you sell less government and no great new ideas other than to get out of the way and let the “genius of the American experiment” do its thing?
— c3 · Feb 7, 10:34 PM · #
c3, how did Palin get elected governor?
“you betcha” it wasn’t on her intelligence or expertise.
She beat out cadidates that were more qualified on her looks.
Answer my rhetorical question— where would Palin be today if she looked like Janet Reno?
I’m “gosh darn” sure she would still be a fish gutting PTA mom.
— matoko_chan · Feb 7, 11:11 PM · #
iac·Feb 5,11:12 AM – “Given that it was unprecedented for a 44 year old mother of five children to find herself in the situation which Governor Palin was in as a VP candidate, then her achievement there was more notable than you acknowledge.” See, there lies the whole premise of the entire saga – there has to have been something else that we don’t know about, because it just doesn’t happen that way. So just in case, the benefit of a doubt. No one can quite nail down the substance of that unrecognized achievement…
We’re a country that embraces the passion of dreams and the triumph of the underdog; we are generations raised on fairy tales and film scripts in which all things are not only possible, but pretty much always pan out. And in just two hours. Sunnybrook Farm and The Black Stallion for us older ones; Aladdin the pickpocket becomes a Persian prince; the princess gains back her fortune and the beast becomes a handsome popular lord; the poor kid struggling for survival becomes a Jedi Knight against all odds and saves the entire frickin’ galaxy. This story was an unlikely remake of National Velvet meets FlashDance, the ghetto kid living in an abandoned building, doing manual labor by day and dancing as a stripper at night, magically fufils her dream of becoming a prima ballerina without a single dance class, based on pure raw talent and sex appeal. And wins over the elitist snobs to boot. Conversely and perhaps ironically, I see this as a singularly non-partisan national moment – we ALL wanted this to work out, didn’t we? Admit it.
astorian·Feb 5,12:06 PM – “BOTH sides judged her NOT by her record, but by her perceived social class…But here’s where I seem to differ with most people on the Left and the Right: I didn’t have my mind made up about her.”
I respectfully disagree. BOTH sides were wondering who she was and what the possibilities were. My perception is that BOTH sides really took a hard look and NOBODY had their mind made up. We’re all just a little desperate and yes, tired of “politics as usual” – even the corrupt are tired of the corruption!
— GC · Feb 10, 08:53 AM · #
But you see, GC….Obama really IS Luke Skywalker. Because he has the substrate.
And that is a very bitter pill indeed.
Gimped apologia like Levin is offering does the conservative movement a great deal of ill.
— matoko_chan · Feb 12, 02:33 PM · #