Among the many delightful characteristics of Sarah Palin is her seemingly unfailing capacity to capture Barack Obama's angry attention. This week, she criticized his new nuclear policy. Obama responded by saying "I really have no response to that," which was, I think we'll all agree, an awkward prelude to his ... response. He went on with: "The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues." Well, colour me huffy.
I side with those who venture that the nerves Palin hits have more to do with class -- where she's from, how she speaks, where she was educated, what she likes (the moose-hunting), than her politics or her gender. She's rural, she came into national politics from (ugh) Alaska. She and her husband have the unerasable stigmata of the modern working class. She would not be embarrassed to be seen walking into Wal-Mart.
Murphy points out the nature of the danger she poses to the leftist goal of making the US into a European style social democracy:
Palin is simply not supposed to be a player. She's not only from the wrong side of the tracks, she's so far over on the wrong side she can't see the railway station.
America has always despised inherited privilege and viewed its success as a nation as having been built on the ability of a poor person with innate ability to rise to the top. This is why the majority of Americans simply won't listen to their betters and join in despising Sarah Palin.But there she is, in all her roughness and candour, and her spiky wit and ability to irritate her self-nominated betters. She also happens to be the most naturally charismatic politician at the moment in the United States. She is the one major figure who can claim authenticity without morally choking on the word. That makes her the populist rallying point of a nascent rejection of the fervid partisanship and Washington insiderism that is eroding the consent on which American politics is founded.
And this is why she must be destroyed.
It is either her or Obama: American politics isn't big enough for both of them and there can be no permanent compromise between the ideals they represent.
No comments:
Post a Comment