"The Politics Of Authenticity" by Matthew Lee Anderson
In Proud To Be Right’s opening essay, social conservative Matthew Lee Anderson shows us the 2008 GOP primary through the eyes of young, politically active social conservatives — a group that began election supporting Mitt Romney, the most electable seeming candidate, but were ultimately won over by authenticity of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. In Lee’s telling, these young voters, though ardently pro-life, are very much anti-torture, more concerned with the ethics of war than stem cell policy, and motivated by a desire to protect the human rights of immigrants more than the border and culture of the United States.
He ascribes these priorities to the prosperous economic times in which his generation grew up, and especially the travel abroad that it experienced: Once you’ve gone on a church group trip to sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America your outlook changes. What the young people of his acquaintance share with their socially conservative parents, however, is a jaded expectation that politicians will exploit their support during election season, only to betray them on issues of the utmost importance, as so many have done before.
“For most of my friends, the appearance of being ‘authentic’ was more important than the candidate’s actual policy positions,” he wrote. “We want to know whether our leaders are the ‘real deal,’ or whether they are simply pandering.”
With his folksy manner, rhetoric drawn from the bible, and long record in public office, Huckabee won over these young voters at the grassroots level, though “social conservative leaders dithered.” Being a Huckabee supporter was therefore difficult, Anderson recalls, due to the candidate’s poor treatment in conservative media, biblical rhetoric that Anderson deems better suited to a previous age of American oratory, and an inability to expand his appeal beyond the evangelical base. “Those limitations partially explain the phenomenal appeal of the light that eclipsed him, Sarah Palin,” the author writes. “Palin’s personal narrative, ease, and authenticity all made her extremely likable to most Americans, and grounded our faith and trust in her. But unlike Huckabee, Palin introduced the possibility of a conservative with traditional social values who knew how to articulate them without potentially offensive religious overtones.”
There is much to like about Lee’s essay, but what is the reader to make of this turn? Most glaring is the error of fact. Contrary to the author’s assertion, Sarah Palin is not “extremely likable to most Americans.” In fact, she has a zealous fan base that likes her extremely, but polls indicate that roughly half of the country views her unfavorably. At best, she is wildly divisive, far more so than Mike Huckabee. It is curious that an informed observer of American politics so misunderstands the stated opinions of his fellow citizens.
Anderson never completely reveals whether or not he is a fan of former Governor Palin, but his account of her supporters suggests that they’re making a grave error in judgment. If you’re upset about being perennially fooled by slick politicians who always break their promises, it is a strange response indeed to pick future candidates based mostly on an assessment of their authenticity, the very quality you’ve long been unable to correctly identify! What exactly makes these people confident that they won’t be fooled again?
Every presidential candidate employs a team of image makers, speechwriters, handlers and strategists whose job is to conjure whatever qualities voters are defining as “authentic” that election cycle. That Mitt Romney can’t fool anyone despite his machinations isn’t evidence that other charlatans are as easily identified, any more than spotting a brown tree snake implies an ability to see the chameleons spread about the same trunk.
Social conservatives ought to know by now that no one is able to identify an authentic politician by the speeches they give or the various cultural cues they exude. The best bet is backing political champions based upon the public policy measures they’ve actually supported in the past, and the most specific pledges possible about their future behavior. By that measure, Sarah Palin is a wild gamble on every issue save abortion and special needs kids, whereas a multi-term governor like Mike Huckabee, perfectly trustworthy on those issues, is a more known quantity on many other matters besides.
The most peculiar thing about the affinity of social conservatives for Sarah Palin is that they despise John McCain, distrusting him as much as any other Republican in the Senate… but are completely unbothered by the fact that he was championed by Palin not only on the campaign trail in 2008, but also in his 2010 bid to be re-elected to the Senate. Fellow mavericks! Ask a Palin supporter about this. They’ll usually reply that she was just being loyal to the man who helped establish her on the national scene. Put another way, Palin acted like a typical career politician by supporting someone not based on shared convictions, but because that person helped to advance her career. In other contexts, that sort of quid pro quo is held up as representing everything that is wrong with politics.
Near the conclusion to his essay, Anderson writes of social conservatives that “our politics—of both generations—are largely determined by our implicit trust our lack thereof in our candidates.” I’d ask him this question. Given the repeated inability of socially conservative voters to accurately assess the authenticity of their candidates, why should the rest of us give any weight to the outcome of events like the Values Voter Summit? Were it a reliable gauge of how a politician would behave in office, it would at least provide valuable information. But if the social conservatives of the past have inadvertently championed faux-authentic hucksters who successfully misled them about how they’d govern — and this experience has resulted in an investment of trust in Sarah Palin because she seems authentic — why should anyone be persuaded by that endorsement?
“The politics of authenticity” isn’t just a theoretically misguided method for choosing electoral candidates to support. It has been demonstrably discredited for decades on end by politicians left and right. So long as grassroots factions on the right decide primaries based on that metric, general election voters are rational to mistrust GOP nominees, as they often do. As Sarah Palin demonstrates better than any living politician, authenticity is in the eye of the beholder.
UPDATE: Matthew Lee Anderson responds to this review here. Please take a look.
“Contrary to the author’s assertion, Sarah Palin is not “extremely likable to most Americans.”
Well, I don’t know the context, but she was one of the most popular politicians in the country before she was nominated. The NYT, for example, seemed enamored with her in one piece I read. And of course she was endearing to conservatives as well.
As an analogy, I would say that Obama is a pretty likable liberal, despite the fact that many people dislike him quite a bit. And, just to add fuel to the fire, I think W. was likable as well. (Certainly more so than Gore, or Kerry.)
— John 4 · Nov 16, 01:53 PM · #
To me, this is the problem with the fetish for authenticity, in the smaller perspective. Straining for authenticity provokes the least-authentic of human behaviors.
— Freddie · Nov 16, 06:58 PM · #
The Left should be encouraged if young social conservatives are taking up the “politics of authenticity.” The first thing I thought of while reading your critique was Robert Wright’s recent article in the NYT on “bridging”:
“So why have conservative Christians gotten less homophobic? Putnam and Campbell favor the ‘bridging’ model. The idea is that tolerance is largely a question of getting to know people. If, say, your work brings you in touch with gay people or Muslims — and especially if your relationship with them is collaborative — this can brighten your attitude toward the whole tribe they’re part of. And if this broader tolerance requires ignoring or reinterpreting certain scriptures, so be it; the meaning of scripture is shaped by social relations.”
When something like a “church group trip to sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America” is the prime mover in your American political identity you don’t have the “ingredients” to be a cultural conservative. Your identity is defined as potential “bridging.” You are merely waiting for your conservative instincts or inheritance to be bridged.
I guess you can stay pro-life because, as Matt Welch recently pointed out, that’s a “metaphysical issue.” But anything short of metaphysics is at the whim of history.
Of course, this isn’t just a process that young social conservatives go through. It’s the process that defines Movement Conservatism.
— Tony S. · Nov 16, 08:31 PM · #
There’s something to be said for authenticity, but the problem is that it’s rare and hardly ever found in the political realm.
— mike farmer · Nov 17, 01:19 AM · #
Well, I don’t know the context, but she was one of the most popular politicians in the country before she was nominated. The NYT, for example, seemed enamored with her in one piece I read.
i think you’re making that up. i do accept her unfavs were low, but i am skeptical that most people even knew who she was. so your assertion is not even wrong. as for the new york times, its politics pages are no better that us weekly. though do read fivethirtyeight.
conor is a gentleman indeed. that sort of howler would have made me put the piece down. when your argument is founded on tissues it will fall down.
— razib · Nov 17, 02:06 AM · #
The mainstream conservative politician seems to me to be almost defined by ack of authenticity. How many actually hate gays? How many actaully believe in supply-side economics? How many actaully dispise the elite? At this point the entirty of the republican schtick is a goofy myth of us vrs them concocted to titilate a certain class of voters predjudices and fears. It’s kind of touching/scary to me that people brought up on this myth would feel betrayed when they find out that the myth-makers don’t really believe it themselves (the scary part is that the marks feel betrayed by the myth-makers but still hold on to the myth, and in fact go serching for a politician as duped as they are).
— cw · Nov 17, 05:44 AM · #
Well cw, its almost as bad as the class warfare crap that liberal politicians play to the hilt. I mean they talk a good game but the checks from Goldman Sachs keep coming.
— vaildog · Nov 17, 07:03 PM · #
Slightly off-topic, but it does pertain to the notion that Palin’s “authenticity” is really a carefully constructed sham. Did you get a load of the whole Facebook smackoff between Palin’s kids and a classmate who had the temerity (rolls eyes) to criticize Sarah’s reality show?
Leaving aside the poor grammar, misspellings, and homophobic slurs hurled around by the Palin kids, there was a constant thread of self-congratulatory status dropping in their insults. To the Palin girls, anyone who criticizes Sarah is only jealous of how successfull and attractive their entire family is, etc. etc. etc. The fact that bleary-eyed Palin supporters are willing to hurl their hard earned money at Sarah and Bristol for merely appearing at an event (something akin to Paris Hilton getting a five figure check for ordering a drink at at LA Nightclub opening) has been inflated in their minds as not only a confirmation of their status, but an invitation to vindictively deride their “lessers” at any given opportunity.
Considering kids learn their values from their parents, can you imagine this freakshow if it were on the White House stage?
— Pete · Nov 17, 08:18 PM · #
Vaildog,
The only real class warefare these days is being conducted by the far right. How many times in the last two years have you seen conservative pundits lay the collapse of the financial industry SQUARELY at the feet of minority homeowners (here’s a hint, a distressingly large number of times).
How many times have the tax cut crowd while simultaneously extolling the critical need to reward the upper 2% of the country with yet another tax cut have thrown in bitter snarks about how over 40% of the country doesn’t pay federal income tax (while ignoring the idea that you aren’t charged Federal Tax if your checks are at or below poverty level, thus implying that nearly half the country is currently living below the poverty line).
How many conservative deficit hawks have screamed that at no time shall any income tax be raised on the wealthiest 2%, while jumping on board with the notion that the mortgage tax credit and child tax credit be phased out entirely. Of course, that would be a disproportionate tax INCREASE on the middle and lower taxes.
Trickle down economics used to be promoted as a means to increase wealth for everyone by taking care of the wealthy first. These days, the words “middle class” hardly come out of a conservative’s mouth while they are ranting about the unproductive, the leeches, the lazy poor, etc.
Class warfare indeed…
— Pete · Nov 17, 08:25 PM · #
John: Well, I don’t know the context, but she was one of the most popular politicians in the country before she was nominated.
Palin’s 2010 likability is net negative and much lower than Huckabee nationally and also in her home state, The fact that Palin briefly held stratospheric favorability ratings in Alaska (due to the oil payout) in 2007 is an interesting trivia footnote but doesn’t describe her popularity with the same constituents after she quit her job, as shown by current polls and anti-Palin Murkowski voters.
— Nick · Nov 17, 11:25 PM · #
The fact that bleary-eyed Palin supporters are willing to hurl their hard earned money at Sarah and Bristol for merely appearing at an event (something akin to Paris Hilton getting a five figure check for ordering a drink at at LA Nightclub opening) has been inflated in their minds as not only a confirmation of their status, but an invitation to vindictively deride their “lessers” at any given opportunity.
— kevin117 · Nov 18, 07:36 AM · #
To me ,this is a superstition for authenticity.<a href=” http://www.slibag.com”>Laptop bag briefcase conference bag</a>
— Shoulder bag,Triangle bag,waist bag · Nov 19, 04:36 AM · #