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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/sarahs-sacrifice/