Feminist Hatred of Palin
Violet of Reclusive Leftist posted a thought-provoking piece on her blog this weekend, Feminists and the Mystery of Sarah Palin. Violet is a self-described feminist who has been dismayed by the malicious, dishonest attacks on Sarah Palin.
Violet is “baffled” by feminists who never bothered to research Palin’s record and policy views. Instead, their hatred of Palin spurred them to intentionally make up lies about the ”second woman in U.S. history to run on a major party’s ticket” and parrot the misinformation being disseminated by political hacks:
I don’t agree with Republicans on politics — not by a long shot — but as a person, I found Palin charming in a Harry Truman, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Erin Brockovich kind of way. How could you not? Especially after the goons had spent the previous weekend in a misogyny fest of lurid speculation and grotesque sexual insults about her and her family. I was proud of her for her courage, as well as for her personal accomplishments as a working-class regular person who went into politics and succeeded.
Since August 2008, Violet has been countering slurs against Palin on a fact-by-fact basis, but “after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate.”
Violet contrasts how feminists (and mainstream media) have treated Palin compared to Obama. “The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who’s lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.” In an effort to defend Palin, Violet does what feminists usually do in a girl versus boy contest, which is disparage the male, but this time she’s the only feminist sticking up for the female. Even more ironically, the man ended up being the beneficiary of gender politicking.
The feminist blogger even supposes that Palin hatred can be attributed in part to misdirected anger: Obama is nothing more than an empty suit, yet feminists and other leftists are compelled to support him, therefore they redirect their inner-disgust with patriarchal privilege back at Palin. At first, I was sceptical that Violet’s theory could explain why feminists also directed profound hatred at other reviled conservatives such as Clarence Thomas and George W. Bush. After all, neither of those guys lost an election to a postmodern metrosexual progressive like Obama (of course, feminists had other reasons to hate these two).
On the other hand, feminists might have pent up hatred from interactions with their supposedly “progressive” male friends and colleagues, which is then redirected at conservatives – a safer target. Another irony: when someone complains about the vicious smear campaign directed at Palin, many feminists respond that it’s Palin’s fault that she’s been on the receiving end of misogynistic attacks because she invited them by doing X, Y, and Z – thus they end up committing a cardinal sin of feminism, “blaming the victim.”
She admits that her diagnosis of the causes of Palin hatred is on shakier grounds than her astute analysis of the symptoms. Her argument that feminists need figures like Palin to serve as politcally correct “hate receptacles” because feminists have stored up hatred toward certain politicians seems to be circular. What causes the hatred in the first place?
I’m inclined to think that the more direct causes of feminist hatred of Palin are related to the three following phenomena, all of which have been discussed elsewhere in depth:
Palin is seen as a “gender traitor.” The Left reserves some of its most vicious invective for those members of protected groups – gender, race, ethnicity, class – who reject the rules of identity politics.
Snobbery. Example: Maureen Dowd referring to Palin as a Carribou Barbie
Palin is a threat to the “progressive” team/movement (not just ideology).
Elaborating on the last bullet point: Many commentators have observed that the debased attacks on Palin have stemmed from leftist ideology outweighing any alleged concerns about female empowerment. True, yet ideologues of any stripe will tend to alter their positions as political expediency dictates. Ideology leads people to ally with particular groups, but once they have joined those groups, ideologues will viciously defend their “teams” and their teammates, while viciously attacking their opponents. Actual policy positions become secondary. It doesn’t matter if some of their teammates poorly fit their supposed ideological criteria, they will be accepted. On the other hand, ideologues will lie about their opponents to make them seem more extreme.
The above phenomenon is not unique to the Left, but it is more prevelant on the Left than on the Right. Violet recognizes this tendency when she points out that Hugo Schwyzer is accepted into feminist circles, but she’s not ready to connect that observation to any larger lessons about the Left.
A few parting thoughts: look, it has always been fair game to question Palin’s qualifications to be Vice President – her temperament, policy chops, track record, etc. It’s your prerogative, as a fair-minded person, if you think that Palin is a light weight, a diva, hypocritical. But, if you are incapable or unwilling to admit that Palin has been subjected to one of the nastiest character assassination campaigns in the history of American politics, then I have to question your ability to see beyond the little dome that your academic/media superiors have helped to fashion over your head. Yes, the Clintons were also subjected to vicious attacks from some circles, but these attacks were not amplified to the same degree by society’s megaphones. If the hard-core feminist Violet can see this, why can’t you? The other point I wanted to make was made better by Ross Douthat is in his column yesterday:
Here are lessons of the Sarah Palin experience, for any aspiring politician who shares her background and her sex. Your children will go through the tabloid wringer. Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented. Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith. (And no, gentle reader, Palin did not insist on abstinence-only sex education, slash funds for special-needs children or inject creationism into public schools.)
Women who hate Palin, feminists or not, do so regardless of her gender. They hate her because they see her as a malignant narcissist. Period.
Saying women and feminists should support Palin just because she’s a successful woman is like saying all men should support GW Bush and Rush Limbaugh, just because they’re successful men. Which, of course, is just stupid. And sexist.
To be nonpartisan, I should add:
Saying women should support Palin, just because she’s a woman, is like saying men should support Obama, just because he’s a man.
“Women who hate Palin, feminists or not, do so regardless of her gender. They hate her because they see her as a malignant narcissist. Period.”
Oh really, if that is the case then what of Hillary CLinton?
(here is the claim from Obama supporters that she is a “malignant narcissist”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×6255561
And here is proof that NOW supports this same “malignant narcissist”
http://www.now.org/press/03-07/03-28.html
So again, why the double standard?
I don’t/ never have supported Palin, but please be fair in your claims.
I will say Tommy, that if one hates Palin then they hate Palin, period nothing wron with that. However, I think that we see too much in the way of hipocracy these days, and NOW is a perfect example. NOW hates Palin because she doesn’t beleive in their agenda, fair and simple. They can look past the fact others are “malignant narcissists” as long as they both support the same agenda. So the reason for their hatred is not “malignant narcissism”, but differences of agenda.
Tommy: Who said that women and feminists should support Palin because she’s a woman? I haven’t written anything of the sort. Neither did Violet or Ross Douthat in the two respective articles linked above. I don’t think I’ve seen ANYONE make such an argument on behalf of Palin.
Btw, I am not necessarily a Palin supporter. I supported her as McCain’s running mate, as my alternative was Obama-Biden, but I’ve had misgivings about her seasoning from the start. If she intends to reenter national-level politics in the future, I would advise that she first hit the books, so to speaks.
Anyway, many of the attacks on Palin were gender-specific. For example, some so-called feminists suggested that she was a bad mother for accepting the VP nomination not long after giving birth to a Down Syndrome baby. Cynically, some progressives even suggested that, if Palin truly cared about her children, she would not expose them to the progressives’ vicious attacks on her and her family. The implication was that she should have hid her children from public view, even as Obama paraded his daughters on the campaign trail; or better yet, that Palin should not be a public figure to begin with. Usually, these “progressives” were trying to be cute: saying in essence, “Actually, I think women can be public figures at the same time as they are wives and mothers, but since the ‘Christianists’ don’t think so, I’m going to turn it around on their candidate.” These attacks serve to warn all would be non-progressive female politicians that they and their families will be subjected to vicious attacks if they have the temerity to run for high office.
Likewise, David Letterman’s joke about Alex Rodriguez having sex with Palin’s 14 year old daughter in Yankee Stadium is quite gender specific. Feminists are supposed to be against such misogynistic attacks, but instead they’ve been enabling the behavior (eventually, NOW did condemn this joke).
Obviously, women and feminists do not hate Palin because of her gender. Otherwise, by logical extension, they would hate themselves and all other women – including Hillary Clinton, Elanor Roosevelt, Gloria Steinham, Sappho. Again, Violet stated, “These people [feminists] don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate.” Violet’s theories regarding why self-described feminists would direct so much hatred at a prominent woman were that: 1). feminist Palin hatred is misdirected anger with Obama (a male); 2). Palin is PC target on which to unload pent up hatred that probably originates from patriarchal privelege (males). Maybe you can explain to me how you got from that to saying that women don’t hate Palin because she’s a woman.
Now that I think about it, you must have been thinking along the same lines as Violet when you conceded that the ONLY reason ANYONE might have to hate Palin is that she is a “malignant narcissist. Period.” In other words, you agree that all the other rationalizations for hating Palin were lies and/or red herrings. It all comes down to narcissism, you said so.
Please let feminists and the mainstream media know about your epiphany so that they can stop smearing Palin with all the other lies.
Jay C: nice link to the site accusing Hillary of being a malignant narcissist. I expect that almost every poltician has been accused of being the same, but especially ones that make it on the big ticket – e.g., Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin. Still, I would be curious if efforts to encourage public perceptions of, first, Hillary Clinton and, leter, Palin as “maliginant narcissists” were helped along by any “progressive” JournoList-type coordination, versus how much is just coincidental.
Sorry, that is me commenting as “Buckeye” above, which is my default screen name when I forget to sign in.
It is a fascinating ability that Tommy claims to have to be able to speak authoritatively and without exception about the actual motivations of every single person who hates Sarah Palin. And he even has the ability to state with confidence that they ALL have exactly the same motivation.
Incredible!
Actually It boggles my mind that people actually hate people they have never met.
I personally cant think of someone I have never met that I hate. Yet the mindless hatred that flows toward Palin and Hillary over the years by political opponents is just distressing to me.
I honestly dont understand it.
Sarah Palin is disliked for the same reason as other GOP politicians: because her positions on the issues are wrong and she is willing to exploit ignorance and bigotry to obtain her goals. It’s rather pathetic for someone who slandered Obama as a terrorist and a supporter of sex education for preschoolers and was quite happy to incite racist sentiment at election rallies to the point people made death threats against Obama to whine about people not treating her with kid gloves. She’s demonstrated herself to be woefully ignorant about several important subjects and her resignation further underscores what a disaster it would have been to have her 2nd in line for the presidency. If she can’t take the heat of being governor of Alaska, she sure as hell wouldn’t be able to cope with the heat of being president. Being female doesn’t give her the right to expect to be treated differently than any other politician. Feminists aren’t interested in standing up for her because she didn’t stand up for them and she’s not the victim of discrimination, she’s just not getting preferential treatment. You don’t see Biden threatening to resign despite the fact he’s the butt of jokes on the evening talk shows almost every night.
Discussion of anything Palin is now like discussion of anything Ron Paul. Only the opposite effect occurs: the very mention of her name brings out all of the Palin-haters. Though I disagree with much of the politics of Violet it is heartening to see someone on the other side of the political spectrum be equally baffled by this phenomenon.
And if Palin does in fact stay “off the stage” where will these folks go. The Bush comments just don’t work anymore. Beck and Limbaugh aren’t running for anything just blowing hot air.
We NEED A CONSERVATIVE WHIPPING BOY/GIRL!
The thing I don’t get is why some people so insist that Palin is highly narcissistic. I guess they use it to rationalize their other talking-point that Palin “brings it on herself” or “is asking for it”. How does she do that? By breathing? She generally doesn’t say much unless it’s a response to some wave of unfounded criticism or vitriol. It’s not odd for a Republican governor to attend a Republican Governors Convention or to speak at fund-raising dinners for the Republican Party. It’s not odd to go to a Yankee’s game when you’re visiting New York City. Yet these are the events that people point to when they say that she’s “putting herself out there” or “inserting herself into the media spotlight”.
The fact is, people who hate Palin have deep insecurity issues with themselves as well. If someone truly thinks she’s so dumb that she can’t be taken seriously as a candidate or a even a valid person, then they would not waste their time and focus their attention, thought, and emotion on anything having to do with her.
If Palin were a man, NO ONE would be calling her a narcissist. They would be patting her on the back and saying her resignation was a “great political move”.
Bottom line – the boys still won’t let the girls play, and some of the girls (i.e. the so called feminists) have told the boys that’s ok.
Cynically, some progressives even suggested that, if Palin truly cared about her children, she would not expose them to the progressives’ vicious attacks on her and her family.
So if you truly care about your family, regardless of who and what you are, you should never run against a “progressive.”
Where I come from we call that thuggery. Sometimes it’s even prosecutable.
@Indie
No they wouldn’t, they’d be calling him a wimp and a coward for resigning and unlike Palin the GOP wouldn’t be falsely claiming sexism, they’d be joining in the name calling. Stop trying to claim this is a sexism issue. She got heat for her stances on issues and her stupid statements and would have as a man. Notice Joe the Plumber, a similarly stupid member of the right-wing, gets the same kind of treatment. Difference being he has no job to resign from and no false sexism claim to exploit.
The hatred, lies and abuse of Palin and her family is all just ramped-up political warfare by the fanatical left in line with the main stream media/blogosphere attack on everything George Bush (IE “General Betrayus”).
You’re right, Joe the Plumber didn’t have those things. What Joe the Plumber had was the misfortune of being on the wrong end of a misuse of Government authority in which his private information was obtained and leaked to the media. It wasn’t until then that everyone found out that he didn’t have a plumbing license and that Joe was not his “real” first name, but was in fact his middle name. All of that for asking Obama one question. Joe’s bona fides didn’t change Obama’s answer, but people were so desperate to take the attention away from what Obama actually said on camera that they decided to attack the validity of the person who made Obama slip up.
Considering that your purpose in posting a comment here was to criticize others’ alleged ignorance, it is hilarious that you do not know that the Vice-President is first rather than second in line for the Presidency.
black and white – right and wrong
Some feminists felt stronger about Obama being Black than Palin opening doors for young girls every where. Older feminists tended to vote with gender, knowing we had no role models growing up, heros have always been men. Younger feminists not having experienced misogyny, thinking they make the same $$ as men and will be treated fairly in the home and the workplace voted with the crowd that said its time for a black person over a women. period.
LOL, I had to laugh that Edward Virtually at least admits that ‘progressives’ are equal opportunity thugs. It’s true enough that the left makes vicious attacks on all conservatives, male and female (even to the point of abuse of power in the case of the state official who searched through Joe the Plumbers records in order to find fodder to smear him with)- though Patrick in comment #5 above explained that the attacks on Palin often were gender specific.
If, as Edward also stated, the ‘hatred’ is over policy, then why can’t the ‘haters’ just explain their differences of opinion on the policy?
The Clinton attacks weren’t “amplified.” Duh? Palin was and is clueless. Unfortunately she’s going to move on from politics and make some money as a media celebrity (non elitist variety) and so that means she’s forever going to be one of the faces on the GOP dog food packaging along with Bush, Gingrich, Limbaugh and all the usual suspects. This my friends is not a cause for Republican rejoicing. Until we can disconnect ourselves from the commercial interests mining political and cultural conservatism for profit we are screwed.
Most so-called feminists either succeed on the coat-tails of men (Pelosi, Clinton) or want special privileges because they are women.
Sarah Palin, like Margaret Thatcher, does neither and has been successful nonetheless. “Feminists” cannot stand the way this shows them up. Even more galling, Sarah Palin does not bother to point out their failings.
“Statists”, whether Democrats or Republicans, can’t stand the independent way she and her family live their lives. They know it reflects how a huge number of Americans live or want to live, and that independence (upon which the country was founded) is a massive threat to those whose lives depend on fostering government and draining the country. The “statists” are terrified of anyone who has the clear potential to be a rallying point for personal independence, as Sarah Palin does.
To cap it all off, Sarah Palin’s has principles and lives what she believes in — unlike most politicians. In that respect she is very Reagan-like and very unlike most politicans, who change the words to suit the audience and who are malleable in the pursuit of power.
Obama is also a politician with principles: big government, socialism, special benefits for the elite, the antithesis of the founders of the US. But he is not honest about his principles. He lies to conceal them and lies about the impact of his policies as they are being implemented. Sarah Palin, like Ronald Reagan is quite open about her view and policies, there is no hidden agenda. Also, unlike Obama and typical feminists, she has not tried to trade on some alleged minority injury. Obama has shown himself to be a cowardly bully, ie he will (frequently illegally) use force against anyone that opposes him, but backs down when faced by someone with the power to resist. Sarah Palin does not.
So Sarah Palin’s public existence is a continual visible demonstration of the puny character of the oppressives’ (they are certainly not progressive) champion, and of their own shallow, weak character. They cannot forgive her for that.
But it does not end there. Sarah Palin, like Reagan and Thatcher is a fighter, as is her husband. She has not quit. She will move to a position where she can better fight for her principles and those of most Americans. Like the terminator, and not the governator, she is coming to get the oppressives and the big government Republicans and they are afraid, they are very afraid. They had hoped she had gone away but she has not.
All this is obvious even from the other side of the world.
Give me a break you over-worked geniuses. Wacko-feminists and their media-machine hate Sarah Palin because she is a fundamentalist Christian who is unapologetically pro-life. Palin would be their hero if she would have aborted at least one of her children and a superstar if it would have been the Downs Syndrome baby. Abortion is a sacred, religious act in the deranged minds of lunatic feminists like Barbie Boxer and her band of screechers.
Our society is filled with narcissistic women; Sarah Palin ain’t one of them.
“Sarah Palin is disliked for the same reason as other GOP politicians: because her positions on the issues are wrong and she is willing to exploit ignorance and bigotry to obtain her goals.”
Huh? come again Edward virtually? So *all* GOP politicans have the same views? (I guess that is why in primaries there is the “no, you go ahead and be the candidate” And for that matter, is it possible to have a view on a position that is in line with the GOP that is right? Since you seem to beleive this, I guess we should just accept cap and trade and the public insurance option’s crippling effects on the middle class, as, this crippling is the “right thing”, since the Republicans are for it, are you kidding me? History has shown that both parties make good and bad decisions, and “a good or bad decsion” is determined by the consensus view of the people. (IFor example, most Ameicans, democrats andrepublicans are against cap and trade, and a public government run insurance option, at least, during this receission.
The malevolence directed at Sarah Palin exceeds anything I’ve seen aimed at any other Republicans, with the arguable exception of GW Bush, including toward bare knuckled partisans like Tom Delay. Actually, since Bush was President, the vicious attacks on him were at least relatively more focused on his actions, policies, decisions, whereas Palin has frequently been attacked for her personal life, alleged “bimbo” qualities, etc. Feminists usually have a double standard for (progressive) women polticians. You can’t call them bimbos, but you can call GW Bush a chimp. With Palin, they not only dropped the double standard, they were dishing out some of the “sexist” insults.
I’m sure that Sarah Palin and her supporters would be ecstatic if she had received even remotely “normal” treatment given to Republicans by the media, if she were only so fortunate. To suggest that she expected the “kid glove” treatment is a strawman argument, but then you seem to do a lot of that. Like, saying that she would expect to be treated differently than any other politician. Who said they expected that? Again, she would have been very content to have gotten equal treatment. What politician has ever been treated to the same level of hatred as Sarah Palin? The closest example would be Bill and Hillary. At least those attacks from the vast “right wing conspiracy” were usually related to real scandals, involving the most powerful policymaking couple in the U.S., with some exceptions of inappropriate personal attacks pertaining to their daughter thrown in the mix, etc. With Palin, the crass sexist personal attacks seemed to outnumber the borderline legitimate attacks.
Also, compare the anti-Palin fishing expeditions, which have involved thousands of fishermen (media) netting at best a few guppies, to the anti-Clinton fishing expeditions of the 90s, which landed some real keepers.
Finally, it’s a real whopper for you to compare jokes about Biden’s outspokeness, gaffes, etc. with jokes about Palin’s 14 year old being knocked up by A Rod. Every joke I’ve ever heard about Biden was related to his performance, or lack thereof, as a politician. If you have any jokes about his kids, sex life, etc., please keep them to yourself.
@John
You have a point. When I wrote that the attacks on the Clintons “were not amplified to the same degree by society’s megaphones,” that probably wasn’t the best use of words. The attacks on the Clintons were definitely amplified, in large part because they were in the Oval Office. But I do think that the Clintons had a lot more mainstream media members who were sympathetic to them, who defended them, than has been the case for Sarah Palin. There’s no question that feminists were much more sympathetic to Bill when he was under fire than they were to Palin, even though she was frequently attacked in ways that feminists would normally consider reprehensible.
Plus, the media coverage of Bill’s indiscretions was especially amplified after it became clear that he was lying. In other words, the scandal led the story for the most part, instead of reporters trying to portray Bill as dubious by nature upfront (in 1991 – 1992), then trying to find juicy details to support that narrative after-the-fact. If anything, a lot of reporters and editors were loyal to Bill almost all the way down the line.
Sarah Palin has been subjected to a litany of personal attacks, many of which have had little to do with her record. Moreover, the inappropriate personal attacks on Palin have been – in the parlance of the U.N. – disproportionate to her position as a (former) VP candidate.
@DonVonChristo
Very well said.
@Tommy
or Blacks only voted for Obama because he’s black.
The slobbering Obama media, in tandem with the Marxist/socialists are using one of the Alinsky weapons of choice: ridicule. Lesser women would have completely caved to the pressure cooker Palin has been subjected to.
It is interesting to hear that not all of the lefty loony women are totally incoherent and irrational. Violet gets a gold star for her honesty.
Once got into a ferocious argument with a liberal regarding Palin. I was arguing that the media’s treatment of her was indefensible; the liberal was adament that Palin brought it onto herself. Only when I said, “Fine! Let’s just do a mental excercise. Let’s agree that’s she stupid and incompetent (something I don’t believe)- is that any excuse for the media and feminists to trash her and her family on things completely irrelevant to the issues?” When this liberal heard the desired insult to Palin, she could calm down and agree that the treatment of Palin was over the top. Now, what gives with that?? Why do you liberals out there want blood??? What is wrong with you guys on how vicious, nasty, and insulting you are? And liberals claim to care about people, especially poor people, uneducated people, people who need help- lower class people, blue collar people, etc. I don’t get how the liberal “compassion” is so blood thirsty.
btw- I find it fascinating that conservatives are “wrong” while liberals are “correct,” instead of acknowledging that there are core differences between the two in their respective views on the role of government and and theories of economics. Liberals are ignorant of history and how to run businesses, while conservatives need to bring inovative ideas on how to deal with social issues instead of boot-strap therapy.
Joe’s bona fides didn’t change Obama’s answer, but people were so desperate to take the attention away from what Obama actually said on camera that they decided to attack the validity of the person who made Obama slip up.
It is the tact of the progressive liberal left. Its their strategy.
Fascism says…thou shalt not question the one party running the show. If you do….oh baby!!! are you going to pay!!!!!!!
The fact that Obama is still hovering around 58 percent is not surprising. I have a son in law who is into computers. His wife…my daughter…gets her news from “the view” and my son in law didnt even know what a blog was…exactly.
They are both Republicans but the point is that “the view” and a complicit MSM is not exactly a recipe for bringing Obama down anytime soon. GWB was pretty popular and even won reelection because as everyone knows the press really was more of a supporter of Bush then a detractor the first 3 or 4 years of his admin.
Once they turned on him……..his rating was 31 percent.
Its all about the MSM. The vast majority of people in this country still DO NOT read blogs or get their news from the internet.
kind of a stretch to say the MSM was with Bush for the first 3 or 4 years. From time to time yes – but he was hated before he had to prove he won the election.
@Tommy
Uh, no Tommy. If the issue was one of malignant narcissism, then they wouldn’t have supported Obama either. He’s nothing if not a malignant narcissist. They hate Palin for exactly the reasons cited in this article.
Why don’t feminists support feminine women? Why do feminists project whining and cattiness. Another good question. I guess feminism is not intended to be for the betterment of all women.
For Sarah Palin so loves Alaska that she’s sacrificing her valuable TITLE.
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/sarahs-sacrifice/
Back in the 80s, I relied heavily on marketing insights based on Arnold Mitchell’s book The Nine American Lifestyles. One gem that I have seen in play time and time again is that entry into what he called the Societally Conscious lifestyle (synonymous with the left elite), required an active repudiation of middle-class values. You cannot drive a Ford and hang with the beautiful people or, god forbid, serve Jello at your dinner party.
No politician at the national level in long memory has evinced middle-class values so much as Sarah Palin. This allowed me to predict on the day she was nominated that she may well prove a game-changer (blown by McCain) but that she would certainly become a litmus test. I no longer live in the SF Bay Area but in rural Texas. I’m around middle-class folk all the time, and I can tell you the spectacle of Palin being trashed is hitting at some deep resentment simmering in a class feeling less like the backbone of the nation, more like a looked-down-upon and taken-for-granted bloc there only to be milked for its votes.
If Palin (or someone else) plays this right, the middle class has more votes than the college-educated elites of he GOP and Dem party combined. We could see quite a shakeup not far down the road.
I was right there with you until you said this: “Yes, the Clintons were also subjected to vicious attacks from some circles, but these attacks were not amplified to the same degree by society’s megaphones.”
C’mon–the entire 90’s were a Clinton hate-fest, costing taxpayers millions in “independent investigations.” As a “liberal feminist,” I am in complete agreement with Violet Socks, and have defended Palin every chance I get. She’s right though–the hatred is irrational and primitive. Unfortunately, as Bill Kristol points out, the GOP establishment is against her too. To be fair, the supposedly feminist organizations didn’t defend Hillary Clinton from the relentless sexist attacks last year either. They have been bought and paid for too, and do not represent all women. Palin is strong, independent, and courageous. Even if I don’t agree with her on policy, as a woman, I am proud of her. It will be interesting to see what she does next, and I wish her well. It is pathetic and saddening that the media and ruling elite can decide who to destroy and then use all the tools in their arsenal to do so, and the sheeple follow right along, dutifully repeating their talking points and smears. Palin is facing $500 million in legal bills to defend herself against baseless attacks. How can one person prevail against that?
cici: john (comment #20 above) also called me to task for my poor choice of words, when I wrote that “the Clintons were also subjected to vicious attacks from some circles, but these attacks were not amplified to the same degree by society’s megaphones.” I tried to clarify in my response to John (comment #25), which I hope does a better job of explaining why I think that the anti-Palin attacks have been more gratiutous – if not more amplified – than the anti-Clinton attacks.
I do appreciate that there are many feminists like you and Violet, albeit in the minority, who have been dismayed by the more dishonest attacks on Palin and who are concerned about the manner in which the media, ruling elites, and the commentariat can get caught up in vicious feeding frenzies that go beyond the bounds of acceptable political attacks. When it’s happening to someone we perceive as a polical opponent, it’s easy to go along on the hunt ourselves. But, as the limits of what is considered “acceptable” continue to be stretched, it risks driving potential talent and leadership out of politics altogether. Moreover, these vicious cycles contribute to a coarsening of the civic culture that affects us all, regardless of ideology.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not sugessting that politics has ever been, or should ever be, a genteel affair. Politics is a blood sport. It just seems like there was a time when political pugilists would try to demolish their opponents while still adhering to a certain unwritten code of honor – sort of like a Marquess of Queensbury rules for politics – that set the outer limits, such as no attacks on children, that so-called news “reporters” should not operate as straight political hacks, etc. This isn’t the first time in American history that politics have gotten very vicious and absurdly dishonest. Some of the attacks on Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln were way over the line even by today’s standards. But do we want another Civil War 20 years from now?
As a classical liberal, I’m probably going to disagree with leftist feminists like Violet on policy matters like 80 – 90 percent of time (maybe more), but we can agree that the dishonest, vicious attacks like what happened to Palin are bad for both women and men (and children), Republicans and Democrats, progressives and conservatives. The only way that the more vicious and dishonest tendencies of the media and ruling elites are kept in check is if enough well meaning people/consumers let them know that they’re disgusted with their behavior by hitting them where it counts: fewer subscriptions, lower tv ratings, reduced campaign contributions. Better yet, when it comes to the political class, vote them out of DC and the state capitals – the biggest liars first and “the bums” later.
Patrick Glenn writes:
“The above phenomenon,” (lying about their opponents to make them seem more extreme)”is not unique to the Left, but it is more prevelant (sic) on the Left than on the Right.”
That has not been my personal experience over the last 40 years of observing politics. In fact, I would say it was yet another lie perpetuated against those with a progressive political point of view. We object to the administration’s policies, and we are called unpatriotic, we hate America, we blame America first, we’re trying to destroy this country, and every conceivable lie and distortion of the truth that can be spewed by right wing media while the “mainstream” media looks the other way. If the author honestly holds this point of view then I have to seriously call into question his bias and judgment in other matters as well.
“Better yet, when it comes to the political class, vote them out of DC and the state capitals – the biggest liars first and “the bums” later.”
You think Palin is the cure to lying in politics? Her “anti-establishment” profile is not a result of her genuine desire to let the public be truly represented in DC, but a mere whim, a gimmick that flies in the face of her actual record.
I do agree that not all criticism of her was fair. However, simply because Violet’s post is accurate in essence, it is not actual evidence that there is a permeating philosophical inconsistency in modern feminism that results in hypocritical attacks on supposed “feminists” like Palin simply because they aren’t kosher. Since Palin was given the spot on the ballot because of her sex, it wasn’t a good day for feminism. Feminism is the elimination of all sex-based expectations and prejudices everywhere, “positive” or negative.
David: you implied that you are a progressive when you wrote that “we object to . . .” Thus, it does not surprise me that, from where you were standing, you “observed” (i.e. perceived) that the right has been more capricious than the left. Obviously you’re biased.
I’m biased, too. In my defense, though, I was once a 20 year old “progressive” who knew just enough to be dangerous. So, I know what it’s like to see the world from a progressive point-of-view. I wasn’t really an activist then, but on the few occasions that I did attend protests or help out a “cause,” I got glimpses of how morally bankrupt the hard left can be. I spent 8 years in academia – 6 years as an undergrad (maybe that’s why I misspelled prevalent) and 2 years as a grad student. Maybe you’ll surprise me, but I’m guessing that I have a more intimate first-hand acquintaince with how “progressives” (or feminists) think and act than you do with how conservatives, libertarians, or classical liberals think and act.
I am trying to follow your logic, though. You say that [when] “we” [= all progressives] “object to the administration’s policies,” [therefore] “we are called unpatriotic . . .” I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t mean that, because it would be absurd. More likely you mean that SOMETIMES progressives have objected to [presumably a Republican] administration’s policies and would then SOMETIMES be called unpatriotic, etc. Is it possible to say anything that is unpatriotic, anti-American, or that exhibits a blame America first attitude? If so, and someone called a progressive unpatriotic for something they said while objecting to an administration policy, it would not necessarily be a dishonest attack. You’d need to give me some examples. Personally, I have seen more examples than I could ever count of “progressives” saying or writing unpatriotic, anti-American things, and much of the time they were not objecting to a specific thing that an administration did.
Anyway, it sounds like you’re referring to elements of the left being attacked by elements of the right over IDEAS. A progressive presents an idea or argument and is attacked as being “unpatriotic.” Oftentimes, such attacks can be unfair (but not necessarily so), and taken to an extreme, they can stiffle debate, affect people’s reputations, etc. When partisans step over the line using these types of attacks, they should be called to task for it. Yet, it’s noteworthy that many of the vicious, dishonest attacks on Palin and her family were personal, with little proximity to policy or ideas.
Sarah Palin is an ignoramus who was picked solely because she has a vagina. Why should any woman — or man — have any respect for an idiot who can’t even answer “what is the Bush Doctrine?” It is an insult to women to hold this bimbo up as an example of a successful woman. She lost the election for McCain and will blow it for the Republicans in 2012 if given the chance.