When the Political Becomes the Personal
But Andrew Sullivan’s latest tell-all missive about his unparalleled obsession with all things Palin demands, to my mind, a response. It demands a response not just because I think Andrew’s handling of Sarah Palin has been unbalanced, but more importantly because it fails to take account of how that handling fundamentally plays into Palin’s hand, reinforcing and feeding into the style of politics that Andrew claims to be battling.
Andrew writes,
I’m getting lots of emails telling me to move on. I will. But I want to explain why I think the Palin drama is actually important. It’s not because of her: she’s a delusional, narcissistic and disturbed person who would be voted off a reality show in the first rounds. It’s because of John McCain, the Republican establishment and the mainstream media. What happened last fall was a warning sign to all of us about how corrupt and cynical the GOP, McCain and the MSM are. They colluded in such a way that this unstable, erratic, know-nothing beauty queen could actually have been president of the United States. What matters is that all those in on this scam be exposed and their way of conducting themselves be reformed until they stop risking the fate of the country and the world on their own vanities and cowardice.
Now, let me get a something straight for the record before I move forward: I am not a big fan of Sarah Palin. I have taken flack (though, in the grand scheme of things, a fairly small heap of it) for questioning her overall impact as a national figure and have, on more then one occasion, expressed concern and extreme discomfort with the sentiments to which she seemed to give rise over the course of the election in which she participated.
That said, it remains the case that a not-insubstantial proportion of the population resonates with Palin, and so one is ill-advised to simply discount her as a potential player within American politics. Which is to say that I think there is an appropriate impulse towards examining her as political figure. The question, though, is how one ought to go about doing that; what about Sarah Palin as a political figure ought one focus one’s attention upon?
Watching Andrew’s efforts, one is compelled to conclude that in Andrew’s mind the focus of attention ought to be placed upon who Sarah Palin is and how the answers there attained render her unfit for office. This approach is deeply flawed on two counts.
The first count was eloquently delineated by E.D. in his criticism of David Brooks’ commentary around Barack Obama, namely: that we ought to fashion our political discourse around an analysis of ideas, not an appreciation (or lack thereof) of particular personality traits. It is consistently astonishing to me how little one sees a serious discussion of ideas present in any number of political foray. Perhaps I’m just waxing naive, but isn’t it just a given that a thorough debate about the merits of the ideas presented by differing viewpoints renders us better off within the context of democratic machinations? So why does it seems as though one has to dig so deeply and widely to hit upon just such a debate within the analysis of different political actors?
The second count that makes this seeming quagmire of personality politics even more disturbing is that the cult of personality isn’t just a normative function of the much dreaded “mainstream media”, but seems to be an increasingly permanent fixture of the so-called alternative terrain of the new media.
Andrew claims that his Palin tear should be properly understood as an attempt to expose the “vanities and cowardice” of John McCain and the GOP to the light of day and to hold the “MSM” to account for its shortcomings as pertain to Palin’s candidacy. All of which sounds fine and righteous until, that is, we stop to consider that Andrew is fundamentally playing the same game as those he seeks to condemn.
I mean, go back over the mountain of material that Andrew has produced in regards to Sarah Palin and ask yourself just how much of it has to do with a principled and considered analysis of the ideas that Sarah Palin brings to the table and why those ideas are found wanting. The answer is very little.
Andrew’s analysis has done, frankly, very little to bring about a game changing shift in the way we process political potentials and realities because he has, qua-Palin, refused to remove himself from the sandbox and stand athwart saying, “No, this isn’t good enough. We can and should do better when considering the options facing us.” Others may point out, as E.D. has, that it is a bit difficult to crucify Andrew for analyzing the ideas Palin has brought to the table, because he basket is mostly empty. How can one challenge ideas that are not presented? Fine, then that should be the focus of one’s analysis, not that Palin is a, “delusional, narcissistic and disturbed person who would be voted off a reality show in the first rounds.”
Andrew’s treatment of Palin has been, I dare say, as churlish as McCain’s appointment of her, a thick poetic irony to be sure. Not the least because Andrew’s failure to remove himself from the very game at which he seeks to take aim means his efforts, like a man in quicksand, only feed the descent. Andrew’s constant barrage of personal attacks against Palin only feed into the notion that Sarah Palin is someone to be watched and analyzed with an unquenchable fervor and heighten the threat he perceives her to present.
I would find this conundrum amusing if it weren’t so troubling as regards the larger trend of vapid political discourse.
I think there is a real discussion to be had here and it doesn’t not revolve around an obsession with Sarah Palin. Andrew is right when he notes that there are deep fissures in our political institutions and their ability to offer meaningful propositions for the challenges we face in an increasingly complex world. Part of the character of those fissures is precisely the vain and vapid discourse those institutions offer, which derives in no small part from de-emphasis on intelligent, well-considered, and thoroughly debated ideas and an over-emphasis on whose personality ticks represent the flavour of the week.
I recognize that it is perhaps impossible to ask that beauty pageant politics be banished forever — who someone is has an undeniable influence in what they represent and how they are perceived. But those of us who believe there is a discussion of substance to be had about our current situations and proposed prescriptions ought at least spend as much of our time focused on that discussion as possible so as to balance the debate out to the best of our ability.
I had thought that Andrew was on our side in that regard, perhaps I’ve been wrong all along.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- Somewhere in my library i...
- Regarding: "This is a goo...
- I should add that there a...
- Presumed innocence is for...
- As a diehard Dick fan, I ...
- I'd recommend checking ou...
- Dave,As someone who makes...
- Well, it puts me back in ...
- Mike,To me, as someone wh...
- What a freaking game.
-
77 comments
Nihilist.
Scott H. Payne
July 9th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
We’ll cut off your Johnson, Thomspon
Sullivan is great with some things and not so great with others. He was more then happy to call people who didn’t support the invasion of Iraq traitors in 2003.
Well put, Scott.
I thoroughly detested Sarah Palin, and everything she stood for. But there was a clear point Sullivan crossed when he went from seeming dogged to seeming unhinged.
Still, I’d rather read about Palin than another pean to “bear culture.”
Jaybird
July 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
woof
Scott H. Payne
July 9th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I’d rather read Andrew’s thoughts about the current state of political discourse and how its shortfalls might be improved so as to better address any number of challenges while maintaining the greatest degree of freedom for and highest degree of engagement of citizens of western democracies, specifically American citizens, than either.
Bob
July 10th, 2009 at 6:19 am
Hey Dan, just skip the “bear” stuff.
Grrrr
I thought that Andrew was on our planet before the Trig Palin changeling stuff arose. I appreciated his optimism on Iran, but have more or less written him off since then.
The Trig brouhaha is the vilest thing that I’ve ever seen done to an American politician, and more importantly, an American politician’s child. If one loathes Rush Limbaugh (this one does) for his awful jokes about Chelsea Clinton, where does Sullivan fit?
I know I sound like a broken record on this, more to Mark Thompson because of discussions at the time on Publius Endures, but the Trig crusade still rankles. It brought Sullivan, whose media and pundit bona fides are still strong, into the land of birf certificate troofers. And he still, like the mule he is, refuses to discuss it or admit he was an ass when even the moonbats like Kos had let it go.
Mark Thompson
July 9th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I think it may have been at your old site (or maybe Schwenkler’s?), not PE. I’m proud to say I only ever mentioned Palin once, in passing, at PE.
Patrick
July 9th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
It might have been in response to something you wrote about Sullivan in particular, where I just shoehorned in my loathing (prompted by a family member with a condition similar to Trig’s, and an adult lifetime of association or working with ARC) as an off-topic rejoinder.
I love OG and think the synergy is great, but I miss you as a solo. I’d never have found OG without PE. Of course, I couldn’t keep my head above as a solo blogger, and I didn’t do it nearly as long as you did. Publius was a great site.
Mark Thompson
July 10th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Patrick: Call me flattered. Oddly enough, that’s exactly how I feel about Popehat/SSFC (except that the “length of service” part is reversed).
I definitely remember that discussion, though. I just couldn’t find it in my archives.
Parts of this I can agree worth and parts I have to differ with. I agree that Andrew’s obsession is out of all proportion to her importance at this timein politics. I agree that it told us something important about John McCain, but he was defeated and will never be president. And it looks very much like she will not be either. I also agree that we should seek to fill our discourse with as much substantive debate of important issues as is reasonable to expect, and that at the moment the venal and the vapid crowds out the vital.
However, I have never been able to agree with the contention (not made in an extreme form here by any means, I concede) that we ought to attend only to the ideas that candidates for public office put forth, and not to their characters and record in putting ideas into action. Especially with regard to the presidency, too many decisions are left to one person in our system (a particular matter of concern here, I realize, but Congress will never be entrusted with the nuclear codes) for us as citizens not to be closely aware of the available evidence about the psychological, emotional, moral, etc. make-up of the persons we place in that office or allow to be within striking distance of it. In that respect, the simple fact of Andrew’s attention to Palin’s character, etc. is not off base. The extent of his obsession is plainly near unhinged, and no longer justified given that she has been marginalized as a potential high-office holder. It was also out of all proportion to the level of scrutiny he ever applied to any other candidate, with the likely exception of Hillary Clinton.
Moff
July 9th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
But I think part of the reason it seems so out of proportion is that we’ve rarely seen a candidate at the VP level whose basket of ideas really is so empty. And so, where it’s frustrating in the case of your average politician that the news media tend to do much serious reporting or ask difficult questions, with Sarah Palin it’s maddening.
I mean, I’m sorry. I appreciate the goodwill I see here and on certain other blogs, the willingness to say “I don’t feel so hot about this person, but others do and I can respect that.” But with Palin it just goes beyond the pale. There’s no substantial evidence that she’s an effective or desirable leader for the advancement of ideas that fall anywhere close to the realm of the wise or just. And there is a lot of evidence that she’s not. And we have to remember that we’re not talking about her being a county supervisor or some shit. We’re talking about her being one of the most powerful people on a planet of six billion.
So to me, it is appalling that her worthiness as a candidate has been treated with as much respect as it has. I hear these complaints about how “shabbily” she was treated in the media, and while I don’t think she got it so much worse than other public figures, and that where she did it was her own fault, it does bother me. It bothers me because it shouldn’t have been mean jokes or allegedly classist or sexist attacks levied against her—it should have been more TV reporters asking harder questions of her and then following up if she didn’t provide a salient answer.
It always should, with any public official. In her case, though, the fruit was hanging so low that it was fucking egregious that so few journalists went after it.
Anyway, I think some of that outrage is propelling Sullivan. I think this is a solid post, Scott, and that you more or less nail it. I think Sullivan is letting his emotions get away from him. But I can also see how it would be hard for him not to (I mean, it’s hard for him on the best of days), and even if I don’t always love his style, I’m loath to condemn him for doing what I think a good journalist should, dogging on a dishonest public official until they give us some straight answers. If more big players were with him on this, I’d be less forgiving about his volume.
Moff
July 9th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Wording in that third graf is a little iffy: I mean that I don’t think she got treated as badly as some say, and that in the instances where maybe she did, she brought it upon herself. But that either way, instead of facing “attacks,” she should have faced more—many more—tough, straightforward questions.
Michael Drew
July 10th, 2009 at 12:36 am
I don’t disagree with anything here. All I’d say is that we should be wary that at this point giving her any more attention than she absolutely earns could contribute to a resurgence.
Scott, nice post, but I think you’re overthinking Palin. There isn’t anything to her other than her personality and biography. She has no ideas, no policies, and doesn’t care about such things. Andrew’s obsession, in that respect, is about unmasking the notion that she’s anything other than a cheap suit parading around as if she actually represents anything other than a vague desire for power and celebrity.
Michael Drew
July 10th, 2009 at 12:32 am
I was going to make this point as well. In that respect, Sullivan is arguably clearing the air to return to substance. (Hopefully he leads the way, and very soon.) But he is right to be terrified of the devastation to discourse if an attempt to collapse the political space into the vacuum of ideas that Palin offered succeeded.
Lisa K.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:08 am
“I appreciate the goodwill I see here and on certain other blogs, the willingness to say “I don’t feel so hot about this person, but others do and I can respect that.” But with Palin it just goes beyond the pale. There’s no substantial evidence that she’s an effective or desirable leader for the advancement of ideas that fall anywhere close to the realm of the wise or just. And there is a lot of evidence that she’s not. And we have to remember that we’re not talking about her being a county supervisor or some shit. We’re talking about her being one of the most powerful people on a planet of six billion.”
I was just going to make that point. There is no other place for the politics to go but to the personality in this case, because that *is* the whole false phenomenon of Sarah Palin-and by extension the GOP. Andrew does have a habit of coddling strange obsession-in addition to his Sarah rants he has also recently elevated the political clashes in Iran to the next American Revolution-but in this case I can sympathize. How Sarah Palin became a candidate for the second highest office in the land and what it says about the cynicism and desperation of her party and it’s so-called heroic leader John McCain is a story that needs to be told.
I have to agree with Michael Drew. Scott, you don’t really offer much of an argument about why we as an electorate ought pay more attention to ideas than to personality (nor does ED in the piece you link, really). You just sort of leave it out there as obvious. But though I for one don’t necessarily disagree with that, I’m not sure I can agree, either. In fact, a leader’s personality and character traits may affect which policies end up being enacted more that than their ideas and beliefs do. I think that was certainly the case with our last president, whose own ideas probably were overwhelmed by what he was led to work for by those who surrounded him, uniquely made possible by his character, style, and will.
lol, you don’t get it.
The reason Sully won’t let go is that Dr.K and Jonah and Douthat are planning on bringing her back.
Dr. K and Jonah just want her to be quiet and go read some books, and Douthat continues his spin/damage mitigation that the hostile media destroyed her, and not her own abysmal unfitness.
But Sully and I and the rest of Medjai are standing at the gates of Hamunaptra with drawn blades, and she shall never pass back into the land of political viability.
;)
I’m sorry, but I think this post is nonsensical.
This assumption that “personality has no place in politics” is beyond absurd. The notion that we should talk about “ideas not personalities” is problematic when we’re working with a representative democracy. In so far as the entire political process involves people interacting with one another to come to the exericse of effective political power through the government, it is I think not only important, but vital that we demand pragmatic, intelligent and consistent actors to be on the stage.
It is particularly salient with a candidate like Palin who, for all intents and purposes RAN ON THE ISSUE OF CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY. There’s no other way to put it. When your entire “basket of ideas” consists of “I’m a good person with common sense and normal values” if you don’t actually live up to those ideas, well you deserve every bit of criticism you get. Moreover, if your political party is so berefit of ideas that it must rely on such a platform, there’s no longer any point in “elevating the discourse” to be about policies concepts and wonky subjects.
Why? Because they’re not playing that same game, and the moment we try to “get away from the cult of personality” we concede that their tactics are ones we aren’t adressing head-on. It’s important, in fact absolutely vital that we call out these cynical bastards for what they are.
If you’re running on character, then your lack of character is a valid policy consideration. Just like how if you run on a platform for increasing government intervention, we should be calling you on the unintended consequences thereof.
I think your post is a bit of ‘ivory tower’ thinking out loud. As others have posted, especially Nob, show us one idea Palin has put forth (domestic or foreign policy wise) which wasn’t a bumper sticker slogan and we can debate it. But to date there are no position papers, no policy speeches, not even a substantive interview, all that we have to go on is “she represents real Americans” and some outright bat shit crazy comments and appearances.
I think Sully is trying to do two things. First, show that Palin is in this for nothing more than, as the ancient Greeks put it, kleos and phertoros, fame and power. Secondly, I think, he is also trying to expose the GOP for what it has become, simply a cult of personality devoid of any serious political thought beyond whatever stump slogan will whip up a frenzy in its base to gain and retain power. McCain, through Palin, is a clear example of that. Thirdly, he is also trying to show how the MSM has lost its standing as the 4th estate, the true investigative reporting and holding the proverbial elected feet to the flame comes not from the million dollar anchors or well positioned reporters for the NY Times but rather from Marcy Wheeler (who broke the torture memo story) at EmptyWheel or the Mudflats blog which has kept Palin on her heels or Glenn Greenwald over at Salon. Watching over those we elected into power was, at least on the surface, suppose to be the role of the free press but today the corporate, political, media triumvirate is so ensconced we get nothing more than softball questions to any issue.
Can Sully be obsessive. Good Lord yes. And thank God he can.
Sorry, but character is and always has been a selling point of political candidacies. And you know what? George Washington was not the most brilliant mind, but certainly had dignity, character and was easily respected. In a leadership position, how one carries themselves is of utmost importance when you represent an entire nation symbolically as well. How many presidents with great personality but acknowledged to have lesser intellects have been successful because of it? Reagan? FDR?
In fact, if you were to look at a history of George W. Bush’s character (I spent a lot of time looking up biographical information and his work history before the 200 election), you’d have realized he was an ineffective leader who ran his companies into the ground and subsequently would get bailed out.
He pretended that his DUI was in his youth (he was 30). There was a very clear track record on George W. Bush’s deficiencies. He was a fraud, but got away with it with Rove’s wedge issue campaign and his charm.
His record as Texas governor was rather flat as well. He didn’t have to do much. This was a man who clearly should not have been in charge of a company, let alone a country. Guess what though? You can figure out that his lack of success in companies had a lot to do with his flippant personality, lack of curiosity, and lack of ability to lead.
John McCain? He’s a man obsessed with becoming great, but lacking the temperament of a good president.
Andrew’s right about Palin. She’s someone who exists as a symbol for the Rovian politics of the past. She’s anti-abortion, winks at male audiences, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, and believes in the neo-con fantasy that the US can bring democracy and power via war.
I think you need to take a step back and see that the longer she’s kept in the media, the lower her approval ratings drop among independents. Strategically, keeping her in the news is probably the best thing to destroy her as a candidate.
I think we would do well to remember the lesson of 1998.
George W. Bush was just a rube from Texas (with a high name recognition), who was adopted by an influential cadre of GOP insiders and power brokers who then propelled him past John McCain in the Republican primaries.
I believed then that in George W. Bush, those inside power brokers saw a person who would do their bidding and further their agenda – someone that they could control.
Nothing I have seen since then has cause me to think otherwise.
And when I look at Sarah Palin, I see the same person as George W. Bush. The same fringe theology, the same intransigent stubbornness, the same proud ignorance and the same fervent core of True Believers.
She hasn’t, as far as I can tell, found a group of powerful insiders who are willing to back her – yet.
But that’s why she bears watching closely and why every effort should be put forth into exposing her vacuous lack of substance.
I’m not much of a fan of Mr. Sullivan, but I’m hopeful that she will be exposed for what she truly is – George W. Bush with boobs.
I would like to be able to convince myself that Scott is just being a contrarian, alas, I fear he believes what he posts.
Ms Palain is an empty suit, although she fills it out well. As Rich Lowery wrote regarding her one debate last fall, “I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, ‘Hey, I think she just winked at me.’ And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.”
I guess Lowery didn’t get the “it’s about the issues memo.”
I fear the author has starbursts in his pants. All Ms. Palin wants to do is to finally win the beauty contest which eluded her earlier in life.
Betcha she’s good at salmon fishing, though—-
It is particularly salient with a candidate like Palin who, for all intents and purposes RAN ON THE ISSUE OF CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY. There’s no other way to put it. When your entire “basket of ideas” consists of “I’m a good person with common sense and normal values” if you don’t actually live up to those ideas, well you deserve every bit of criticism you get.
I don’t think Scott, or most other analysts (nor I), would disagree with this statement. Palin – or at least the nomination of Palin to the ticket – was primarily a personality move, and she ran with it, thus deserving to be criticized (remember: she said here life was an “open book”). It was therefore the job of all media, MSM and alternative, to investigate the claims she brought forth.
To that degree, Sullivan was indispensible during the election campaign, because he brought to the forefront the lack of investigative journalism on Palin’s “platform” by the MSM and the various contradictions/hypocrisies exposed in her own record. Additionally, he was even more valuable in highlighting the GOP’s disingenuous support for two politicians (McCain and Palin) who stood for much of what conservative government should stand against.
However, I think Scott makes some excellent points about to what extent we should criticize a politician’s personality, even in the context of someone like Palin. The most salient issue he brings up is that the criticism itself make identitiy politics more powerful, since it validates the importance of personality traits over policy positions. Palin is a bad example in this regard (since she has no positions to emphasize), but another GOP hopeful I can think of that will probably receive a similar treatment (particularly from Sullivan) is Bobby Jindal – who, sans religious views and personality traits – is the exact kind of wonkish, super-intelligent political mind Sullivan claims to admire.
The obvious drain identitarian politics has on our discourse is/was on full display on Sullivan’s blog over since her nomination. It turned what used to be a highly intellectualized discussion about policies and political philosophy into a TMZ-style conspiracy theory about a faked down syndrome pregnancy. For those of us interested in elevating the political discourse it was a great loss – but hey, I bet he got more hits on his website!
Jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Identity politics seems to be the easiest thing for the msm to report on, with its guarantee of sensational, supercharged responses. To get that emperor to put something on in the name of decency may require a few high profile folks to run around naked screaming at the top of their lungs. Or maybe a nice reasoned chat that never gets heard would do better?
So Scott, what is your positive proscription that will lead us out of the tight circle we seem to be trapped in? It seems to me that there are plenty of folks trying to have a serious discussion about the relative value of competing ideas at any given moment, and all the while a whole lot more folks are lost in an entirely different debate. Votes count, and policy is made based on those votes. How does one go about changing a critical mass of opinions in this atmosphere? Andrew’s ad hominem attacks are not helpful on their face, but the larger issue he is trying to grapple with (how has this state of affairs come about) does track my dismay at the msm’s failings fairly well, as well as highlighting the dangers inherent in blind loyalty to party. I am reminded of the excesses of the woman’s movement in the sixties and seventies, which on reflection seem less excessive than necessary in that they brought the issue under the noses of folks who were otherwise refusing to notice any problem. Sure some of the stuff he is saying is over the top, but it is getting passed around a lot and discussed a lot and keeps the larger debate front and center, which a more controlled approach might be entirely unable to do. There is a yuck factor, but the whole process of politics is likely to have that icky sticky aspect as long as humans are human, don’t you think? Seems a bit airy-fairy to think otherwise, especially as I grow older and get a longer point of view.
I agree with respect to most of what other people have said – Palin can’t be criticized on ideas because she lacks them, and that she needs to be exposed as the liar and fraud she is to ensure that she’s never a viable candidate for president. I’ve noticed a disturbing trend in the GOP – they’ve swallowed the talking points Gingrich’s workshops have drummed into their heads, but they have no actual idea what those catch phrases mean. At the most, GOP candidates can recite them accurately. Palin can’t even do that – she speaks in complete jibberish. Then the media helps her out by interpreting her half-jumbled soundbite talking points into something that more or less conforms to what said soundbites might plausibly imply were they not half garbled. Why is the media helping carry water for this woman?
I’m beginning to think that the GOP base are the true cultural elites. They determine who gets catered to and positively spun by the media more than any other group in the US. Sarah Palin is exhibit A – a completely clueless politician totally ignorant of most major domestic and international policy issues, who nevertheless is catered to by the media because her charisma and good looks have captured the imaginations of a small group of “real Americans”. Would the press give Dennis Kucinich this much attention and adulation? Would they imply that he is popular with “main stream America” because the core base of the left wing (maybe 18% of the electorate) likes him and his policies? At least he has policies he advocates for – with Palin it’s all about the image. She rails against socialism while handing out government checks to every man, woman and child in Alaska. She has no idea what anything she says on policy actually means. Clear evidence that she has no idea what she is talking about.
I think this is a discussion that needs to be in regards to degree rather than an either/or debate.
To what degree do we critique a personality? If there really are no good ideas behind the empty suit, how do we balance the pressure we’re applying to our critique?
For instance, I think Sullivan’s coverage of Palin during the election was fine. It was over the top at times, but it was during an election – and all’s fair in love and war, as they say. She certainly gave as good as she got and stirred the crazy pot a good deal herself.
But two things trouble me about Andrew’s coverage. One, it has gone on so long and so persistently that it feels like overkill and I think does less to “cover” the Palin story, and more to reveal just the depths of his loathing for the woman. Second, we are no longer in an election period, and thus two things change – namely the urgency of the “coverage” itself, and also the type of criticism that seems fair game. Calling names is hardly within the fair game boundaries, I’d say. And Andrew engages in this sort of “coverage” fairly non-stop, as though it were still somehow urgent when it’s not.
I’ve always said, if Palin does run again, that this sort of drum-beating, incessant tracking of her every move ought to be fair game again. But right now, for goodness sakes, it’s just over the top and I’d say that whether or not it hurts her, what it does do is start to make Sullivan look bad, which is a shame. I like Sullivan and I like his blog, but I get turned off by the Palin thing. I get turned off almost as much by the Obama-can-do-no-wrong-unless-it-has-to-do-with-gays thing (even though I agree Obama is wrong on gays in the military, for instance.) Where is the libertarian Andrew Sullivan? Where is the fiscally responsible Andrew Sullivan who is distressed by all this Democratic spending? At some point you have to wake up to the fact that two branches of government are in the hands of the Democrats, and they’re not any better it would appear on issues of war, civil liberties, detention of inmates, gay rights, and so forth than the Republicans.
Sarah Palin is hardly worth the time, in other words. She’s just yesterday’s news, and it seems the only person other than Sarah Palin who wants her to remain in the fore is Andrew Sullivan.
Jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 7:24 am
But isn’t her case a lovely wedge into what deserves to be an ongoing debate about the msm and identity politics? It isn’t as if Andrew was the sole voice out there discussing her, is it? As long as the msm is propping her up as a huge issue she will remain one, and folks like Andrew, it seems to me, are obliged to respond with an appropriate amount of pique. It is damned dangerous to think in terms of election cycles alone in determining the political climate and the effect folks like Palin can have on it. Eternal vigilance…
The criticism here is of going after “who she is.”
The thing is, her entire appeal is based, quite deliberately, around “who she is” or rather who she would like people to believe she is. There is NOTHING ELSE.
The idea that politics should be about ideas sounds nice. But politicians in office do a lot more than simply execute the idea that they expressed on the campaign trail, and we need to somehow evaluate how they might respond to the challenges of office–especially in the case of those like Palin–and Obama too-who don’t have much of a track record. I don’t think it is hard to make a case that compulsive lying is a trait that ought to be considered in this context. Even though I supported Gore in 200, I thought that press stories about the odd little lies he told were appropriate and worrisome. Similarly, Palin’s much more frequent and significantly odder lies are worth talking about.
Huh. Even though I lodged my own disagreement (or support of Sullivan, anyway) above, I’m surprised by some of the negative reaction to this post. I don’t think it’s a nonsensical post at all — I think it’s entirely reasonably to say “Although some people are caught up in the furor over Candidate X’s personality and may let their emotions run away with them, we offer here instead a cool and level-headed critique of X’s accomplishments and platform.” In fact, I think that’s the Enlightenment-esque ideal the founders were aiming for.
I just think the reality is that there isn’t enough interest at this point in time, on either the producer or consumer side, for that sort of disinterested analysis. And I personally would rather see Sarah Palin’s political future ruined than have Sullivan worry about trying to change the tastes of the blogosphere. I do have some thoughts on how those tastes could be changed, which are a bit long and tangential to go into here, so for now let me just say that I do hope we see more of what Scott is asking for.
E.D. Kain
The problem is that the MSM is giving glowing coverage to Palin. Did you not see that Time magazine softball interview the other day? A woman who just resigned from office for questionable reasons?
Palin is a money generator for the media and keeping in the forefront is not Sullivan. Rather, in general, he’s responding to MSM reports on her and not doing fresh reporting. I think you’re just sick of hearing about Palin.
As for Andrew on Obama, much like with Bush, he’ll change his tune IF Obama doesn’t do enough, but it’s only been 6 and a half months so far. You’re being unfair to criticize Andrew on saying Obama can do no wrong except on gays as he’s gone after the torture and detainment issues as well.
E.D. Kain
July 10th, 2009 at 8:14 am
The press coverage of Palin is hardly glowing. It’s just tedious and overblown because it drives ratings. You know the saying “All publicity is good publicity”? Well, in Palin’s case, the reverse is true. The more most people see and hear of her, the more they dislike her. The base that loves her will continue to do so one way or another. The rest will continue to despise her or at least dislike her enough for her not to be a threat. I just think the case for vigilance is overblown when the fact is, she’s her own worst enemy.
jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Hmnn, the issue seems to boil down to her base and whether or not they are persuadable. As long as they can be played to the detriment of sane policy, they will remain a fertile battleground. Vigilance applied in this arena will never be overblown. It is the point, after all, of the argument.
jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 8:36 am
That should read “to what extent(rather than whether or not) they are persuadable, and to what extent we should feel comfortable to sit idly by and watch their ranks swell”
Bob
July 10th, 2009 at 8:34 am
“I just think the case for vigilance is overblown when the fact is, she’s her own worst enemy.”
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” — Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884)
jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Exactly
In an effort to demonstrate my fairness I’ll point to this Wiki page,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin
As someone who was temporarily under the impression that Sarah Palin was not “just another” and who has come to find that, no, she is “just another”, I find the opposition to her to be disproportionate to what she actually is.
She, herself, is not that interesting. She’s just another. Like thousands before and after her.
The criticisms of her, however, strike me as odd and out of place given the subject and are, therefore, much more interesting… but since I’m arguing against folks who are arguing against Palin, this tends to be interpreted as support for Palin, if not support for the Republican Party, if not support for snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues, government subsidies, birthing children out of wedlock, and fishing with dynamite.
Bob
July 10th, 2009 at 9:17 am
“…birthing children out of wedlock….”
But you are for that, correct?
Jaybird
July 10th, 2009 at 9:23 am
What have children out of wedlock ever done for me?
Bastards, all of them.
Bob
July 10th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Jaybird, I’ve never, well almost never, agree with your politics but I had you pegged as a decent sort. Guess I was wrong on that decent thing.
I kid.
Jaybird
July 10th, 2009 at 9:59 am
To answer seriously:
I am much more deeply conservative than my libertarian inclinations probably indicate.
I think that people should only have sex without a condom (at a minimum!) if they are in a life partnership kinda relationship (hetero or homo). (Well, quite honestly, I think that they should pretty much wait until they’re in a life-partnership in the first place but I understand that that is an impossible thing to ask what with latchkey kids and makeout parties and all that so I climb down to the whole “wear a rubber!” position.)
Having sex when you are not in a lifepartnership type relationship *AND* not using protection is *STUPID*. People ought not do it.
Having kids out of wedlock (or lifepartnershipness) could be avoided in oh-so-many cases if people would merely wrap it up. Additionally, there are diseases out there that will make your junk fall off/out if you don’t wrap it up beforehand.
If you don’t want to wrap it up, get a life partner.
Every child an expected child.
jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Agreed
Bob
July 10th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Jaybird, I don’t want to go around with you on this, but you said “birthing children” not conceiving children. So I give you the benefit of the doubt. You are for “birthing children,” as a general matter, no matter the manner of their conceiving. Right?
Jaybird
July 10th, 2009 at 10:27 am
You *DO* know what happens several months before the birthing, right?
Oh! Are you asking me if I’m pro-choice? Hell, I support full abortion rights up to and including the moment of crowning. Keep your government out of my uterus! And birth canal, for that matter!
Bob
July 10th, 2009 at 11:48 am
No. What I’m asking, do you stand by your original list of items you thought folks would think you support by defending Palin.
You wrote, “…if not support for snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues, government subsidies, birthing children out of wedlock, and fishing with dynamite.”
I figured you were not supporting snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues, government subsidies or fishing with dynamite. Perhaps not opposed to any of them, save government subsidies, given your libertarian views but not supporting either. It’s all good, so to speak.
The “wedlock” part of birthing seems to draw a distinction I was supprised to see you voice. If you are prochoice what does “wedlock” have to do with it?
You get the last word, if you wish.
Jaybird
July 10th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I see having children out of wedlock as something that is harmful to the mother, harmful to the child, and something as easily avoidable as putting on a sheepskin.
I oppose folks having children out of wedlock.
Hell, I oppose them doing much more than grinding on the couch out of wedlock.
This is not me saying “THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!!!” but me saying this is obviously a bad thing that responsibility will help avoid entirely.
I’m dense enough to be scratching my head at how/why this would be controversial.
jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 9:20 am
The threat isn’t Palin, but that someone like her can be promoted to such an exalted position within a party whose actual political influence is at play on a daily basis. It seems to me that her base will contract around their unsupportable beliefs until they are pried from them by relentless pressure, and the sooner the better. She is an indisputably precious tactical gift in that effort.
Jaybird
July 10th, 2009 at 9:24 am
This is where my cynicism kicks in.
I don’t see how she’s significantly different from anybody who would want that type of job on that particular stage.
jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Search for another term, I think, because that seems to go well beyond mere cynicism. Smacks of a level of defeatism that precludes public engagement, yet here you are. I see quite a spectrum of motives and capabilities found in those seeking that type of job on that particular stage, and a host of consequences attendant to choices made between them.
Jaybird
July 10th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Hi, I’m a third-party voter.
jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 10:11 am
And your critique of those who would want that type of job on that particular stage doesn’t extend to third party candidates? A bit too convenient.
Jaybird
July 10th, 2009 at 10:17 am
I honestly do put Charles Jay, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel in a different category than George Bush, Barack Obama, and John McCain, yes.
For about a minute, I put Sarah Palin in that category too, but then switched her to “just another” by, oh, September or something.
I still kinda dig that she’s married to a secessionist, though. Maybe he should run.
jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I was and am struck by Ron Paul’s unswerving consistency and pander-less commitment to his ideas. The jury, in all fairness, is still out on Obama. No sense in lumping him in with Bush too quickly.
Jaybird
July 10th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Dude. He’s argued in favor of detention following *ACQUITTAL*.
Like, if a guy was called a terrorist, got “detained”, went to trial, was found innocent, Obama maintains that he can STILL DETAIN HIM ANYWAY.
Or her, of course.
Why *SHOULDN’T* he be lumped in with Bush?
jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Ya, I am aware of that position and disagree with the administration. Lets see how it plays out in the real world. Still, any list of policies you could draw up that seem to put the two presidents in the same boat could be countered by a longer list I have no doubt you yourself could easily assemble off the top of your head (if you were so disposed) that showed their stark differences, both in terms of policy and leadership.
Jaybird
July 10th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
They all look like moral busybodies who demonstrate their own virtue by spending other peoples’ money from where I’m sitting.
Who, of course, support warrantless wiretapping.
Not sure whether anyone has raised this comparison, but since I’m a card-carrying liberal Democrat I will. Sullivan’s weird obsession with Palin and his fevered hot-house prose concerning her personal qualities are wholly unsurprising to me because I’ve seen this same movie with another highly visible female national politician, Hillary Clinton. I voted for Edwards in the primary (yeah, yeah, who knew) because he was more liberal than the other two, who were quite close together on their positions on the major issues. But to hear Sullivan describe it during the primaries, Obama was the transcendent figure of light bringing us all together, while Clinton was the evil harridan whose unscrupulous ambition threatened to tear us all apart. I wasn’t sure what to think then of this vastly disproportionate reaction to very similiar pols grasping their way up the slippery pole, but it is in keeping with his Manichean view of the world (remember how liberals who disagreed with Bush after 9/11 were a “fifth column” according to him? Fun times!) Frankly I’ve always been a little bemused at the level of intellectual respect accorded by both conservatives and liberals to a guy whose posts do very little to hide his embarassing fanboy crushes and fanboy hates. And I’ll note for further discussion that I’ve never seen Sullivan subject major male politicians to criticism this deeply personal. Sometimes, he’s an interesting read, but at bottom he strikes me as a person whose raw and visceral reactions dominate his approach to events rather than any considered framwework on the merits of the issues. And having him opine on the obsessions and emotional/personal pathologies of others is almost unbearably ironic and amusing, if it weren’t so pathetic.
Moff
July 10th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I actually don’t think a lot of Sullivan’s anti-Palin prose is that fevered. I think a big chunk of it is just him pointing out where she’s said things — lots of things — that are demonstrably untrue, or where her supporters have said things that are demonstrably inconsistent. And then the other big chunk is him following up on that sort of thing, but with an almost gleeful satisfaction as the facts often bear out his feelings about her. That gleeful satisfaction is what bugs a lot of people; on the other hand, I think it compels a lot of readers, too.
And I hate the “He hated on Hillary and he hates on Palin, and I’ve never seen him do that to a male politician” meme. Because, one, I have seen him do it with Cheney and McCain; but more important, I haven’t seen him do it with other female politicians or officials. If he were constantly riding on Nancy Pelosi or Condi Rice or Sonia Sotomayor, there’d be a great case for sexism on his part. But he’s not — he’s riding on Clinton and Palin, two people whom plenty of women (and other men) I know feel a similar visceral contempt for, justifiable or not.
Ostensibly this string is about politics and how to discuss, and make judgments about, political ideas and leaders. But it’s actually all about YOU, the posters and commenters in a small virtual club where everyone knows your name — it’s all “Andrew,” “Scott,” “Jonah,” “Dr. K” — not really about political ideas, not even about political personalities, but about media personalities and, in particular, online media people. Look at the premise of the original post — “I want to talk great ideas but Andrew won’t” and then we’re off to the races and it’s all horses and jockies, Sully and Douthat. In this respect the alternative media are hardly better than the MSM– remember how the MSM covered health care in the first Clinton administration? — it was all Hilary and a gentleman completely unknown except to the pages of The New Republic, which demonized him, known as Ira Magaziner. (Remember who was editor of that publication at that time?) Even if you were to talk about how online journalism handles politics and ideas differently from the MSM it wouldn’t be about something as structural as how the economics of corporate media drive coverage — it would be about how “Fred” fired “Dan” or how “Nico” “pwned” “Dana.”
E.D. Kain
July 10th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Or how Harry met Sally?
You raise a good point, Lyle. There is a very organic insularity that bloggers and media elites fall into. It’s part of the whole “discussion” thing. You reference those you are discussing topics with. It’s kind of inevitable. The difference here is that barrier to entry is rather lower than in the MSM – and that’s a good thing.
Bob
July 10th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Lyle, may I call you Lyle?
This is going to sound snotty, probably, but what moved you to comment here? If it’s all about us, aren’t you now included?
Welcome to the “virtual club.”
jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Scott makes explicit claims about Sullivan’s merits, and it seems appropriate for many posters to draw out those claims a bit. Looking over his post one finds very little to respond to in terms of how to discuss and make judgements about, generally speaking, political ideas and leaders. Lots of folks have tended to move the discourse in that direction in spite of that, and one who would like to see more of such could respond to one of those posts….or is it all about YOU?
I think Sullivan’s fixation on Palin, while ultimately unhealthy for him, is healthy for conservatism and the reform of the supposed party espousing that political school of thought.
Palin is identified – not just by the media or by Democrats, but by Republican voters – as a figurehead of the Republican Party. She’s listed as a frontrunner for the Presidential nomination in 2012. She’s being cited and praised by the talking heads who seem to control more Republican votes in Senate than the RNC.
Is it a little personal for Andrew? Clearly. Is it a bad thing for conservatism to try and knock this loony off the boat before she can capsize it? I don’t think so.
I think calling into question all of these “figureheads” whose political philosophy comes not from actual political theory or substantive analysis of any issue, but directly from scripture or “from the gut” is a good thing. I think holding Republicans responsible for the decline of conservatism (and its subsequent over-generalization into social conservatism) is good. I think Palin represents just how off-track the Republican party is, and the only way it will ever recover from its megachurch makeover is to decimate people like her.
To E.D. Kain and Bob — I’m IN? Thank you, I think. I sought to comment from without, only to find that speaking translates you instantaneously to within. Heisenberg? (“Werner”).
jeff
July 10th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Your marks on the canvas are indelible. Apply your brushes at the risk of trivial immortality.
Too many of us half-listen to what people like Sarah Palin say, then later to be surprised by what she does. She belives she speaks for the “real” conservatives who were betrayed by the Republican Party, the ones who really believe in an “American Exceptionalism” approach to National security, Fiscal responsibilty, Family values, small government and individual responsibility. Everbody she knows tells her she is best equiped to carry this message.
Dirty little secret time.. a third party candidate of pure conservative stripes can WIN the presidency with less the 20% of the vote…nationally. You need about 35% (in a 3-way race) in half the states to win. You do the math, then check the electoral college. It can happen, and someday it will happen. Why not an attractive candidate who claims to be the true standard bearer for these “ideas”?
Quick update: Scott has asked me to inform all y’all that he is currently tied up at work (figuratively speaking, I think) and will not be able to respond until later – but he will respond, to each and every commenter in great depth, when he is once again free.
I think Palin’s significance as a political phenomena isn’t a minor issue. She represents quite well a very angry minority voice in American politics, and a majority of the base of the GOP. It’s tempting to dismiss her as just another Britney-Spears content-free celebrity, but she’s not, in that her “content”, while intellectually and morally deficient, has some rather grave and powerful political emotions attached to it. I think it’s important to take her seriously in that sense, the same way it is always important to take seriously the threats of demagogues, even if they seem unlikely to actually gain the higher office they seek.
Sully’s obsession with Palin comes from this kind of fear. Sully is already quite obessed with “Christianists” and their attempts to seize control of the political process in this country, and Palin is now the chosen vehicle for many of them. And since when is it a meaningful criticism of a blogger, for God’s sake, to say that they are unfairly obsessed with some particular subject or personage. That’s the whole point of blogging, I thought. One gets to follow one’s own predilictions, rather than one’s editor’s desire for “balance” or significance. Andrew obviously thinks Palin is worth blogging about, and in his inimitably obsessive way, that’s how he does it. Some are offended by this, but let’s face it, Andrew’s Palin coverage has dramatically increased his traffic. So one can’t really criticize it as being solely a lone personal crusade that no one else cares about. A whole lot of people seem to care about it. I think some here, like E.D., are a bit too certain that Palin has no political future. Based on the response of the GOP’s base, I’d strongly disagree. By the numbers, she’s a very legitimate political candidate for the Presidency, and she needs to be covered legitimately. Sully is just trying to ensure that she’s covered critically and accurately, and not hagiographically.
As for Andrew’s defense of Obama, such as in the spending arena, I think he’s made it quite clear he’s willing to go against his own libertarian fiscal conservatism in times of national emergency, which the last year has been. We nearly fell into a great depression, and are still in danger of slipping further down rather than back up. The real issue is not whether we have spent too much, but whether we have spent too little. FDR got the same kind of criticism, and unfortunately he listened to it and cut spending just as things were getting better, which led to a double-bottom. We don’t want that to happen again. Yes, it’s a shitty situation to be in, but these are the costs of dealing with the economic crisis Bush left us all in.
I have been tied up all morning at work, but contra E.D.’s “helpful” messaging service I’ll be reading through the now 74 comments, picking up some themes, and fashioning a series of follow-up posts on them digging into each and relating it back to the larger context of my critique, which was, ultimately, about neither Andrew nor Palin.
Thanks for all of the thoughtful — and even the less so — comments. Stay tuned, if yr so inclined.