Sunday, September 14, 2008

sarah palin - pauline hanson

Paglia (who supports Obama):
Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment ... A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn't worth a warm bucket of spit
Charlie Gibson's condescension (oh, you don't know what the Bush Doctrine is interview):
I was amazed at the utter condescension in Gibson's voice as he questioned Palin. He came across as a know-it-all and had no patience for Palin or Palin's answers, seeming to mock her after each response. I believe he spoke to her with contempt, possibly showing his bias against conservative republicans or women. Gibson sounded like a person annoyed that he was passed over for the vice presidency position. Another sure sign of his disdain is when asking Palin questions he rarely looked her in the eye or kept his eyes closed
- comment to An Army of Sarahs
In Australia we once had a politician by the name of Pauline Hanson, who stood for traditional values, questioned our immigration rates and could possibly be described as a racist. She wasn't particularly articulate or impressive in an interview. However, the more she stumbled when responding to the "superior", condescending liberal intelligentsia who thought they were exposing her inadequacies -->>> the more popular she became <<<--. In 1998, her party, One Nation, attracted nearly one-quarter of the vote in that month's State elections in Queensland.


Anonymous said...

I've watched most of the interview that's been broadcast so far. The stage was set from the beginning. My read on it is Gibson thought that Palin was a nice enough woman, but that she really wasn't vice presidential material, and he was going to show her up. Gibson is really the only network (non-cable/satellite channel) anchor left in the U.S. who has gravitas and credibility. So I don't think his interview should be dismissed, but there were some errors in his questioning that have subsequently been pointed out. One of them was pointed out by Charles Krauthammer, who I've heard coined the phrase "The Bush Doctrine". He said that Palin was correct to question Gibson on just what he meant. Did he mean Bush's speech given shortly after 9/11/01 where he said "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"? In that speech he said we would not countenance nations who support terrorists or those who harbor them. Did he mean Bush's policy of pre-emptive war, which led to our entry into Iraq? (It turned out this was what he was talking about) Did he mean Bush's speech given before the Endowment for Democracy, where he announced a change in policy from supporting dictators to supporting democracy in the Middle East?

Some knowledgeable people who looked at the interview said, "I didn't know what Gibson was talking about either," when he asked that question. There has never been any one thing that's officially been called the Bush Doctrine. It was just a colloquialism. Krauthammer shows how the definition of a "Bush Doctrine" has changed a few times over the course of Bush's eight years in office.

He concludes by saying that yes, she didn't know what it was, but at least she didn't pretend to know. Gibson didn't know either, but he arrogantly presumed he did.

Most people experienced in the art of diplomacy or obfuscation would've cooperated with Gibson giving some erudite policy statement on one or more of the possible definitions of the "Doctrine", using the question as if it was a Rorschach test. That probably would've been satisfactory enough for Gibson, because he would've gotten some sort of knowledgable answer out of them even if it wasn't what he was after. He may have corrected them, saying, "Well actually I was talking about (blah). Do you support that?", but he wouldn't have treated them like they were stupid.

Camille Paglia is an interesting woman. She believes in what's come to be called "authentic feminism" by some, to contrast those who believe in feminism only when there are liberal politicians and policies attached to it.

Palin has shown up a lot of people largely from their own reactions to her. She hasn't had to do a thing to make that happen.

I first saw Palin on an interview (video link) on Glenn Beck's TV show back in June. I was impressed with her, largely because her approach to energy policy made a lot of sense from a typical American's perspective. It was a lot clearer and to the point than what I hear a lot of politicians say these days on the subject of energy policy.

Beck asked her then whether she would consider being McCain's VP candidate, and she said "No" then. It's traditional for potential VP candidates to be coy, to not seem too eager for the nomination, but usually "no" means "absolutely not". Even Joe Biden, Obama's VP pick, said before he was picked that he didn't want the job, which also seemed like a firm "no". Each changed their minds when the time came though.

The thing that annoys me is that the media by and large is treating the McCain-Palin ticket as if McCain is going to die soon (I can almost hear them mutter under their breath "dead man walking") and Palin is going to immediately become president if people vote for McCain. Personally I think people should be a little more afraid of an Obama presidency since he hasn't had the experience of being in a leadership position at all. That might be fine if we weren't at war, but we are. He's willing to talk a good game about policy on a few subjects, but by and large all I see him say is, "I'm not the cause of your problems. They are," which leaves me just hanging. What is he going to do? It's hard to get firm answers out of him.

Anonymous said...

I almost forgot. Have you seen this (video link) yet? It's hilarious! :)

Bill Kerr said...

hi mark,

Your comments about Charlie Gibson are better informed than mine. But I did react negatively to the way he "talked down" to Sarah Palin. Political exposure is good but condescending attitudes I can't stand.

Also my quote from Paglia was just put out there without much comment from me - in the hope that some readers would follow the link to her full article. I have read a book by Paglia and think she offers a very refreshing perspective on feminism - but won't go into that now due to lack of time

A few other commentators have pointed out that there are different versions of the Bush Doctrine, David Brooks on the NewsHour, said there were 4 Bush Doctrines.

btw you gave me the wrong link to the Glen Beck - Sarah Palin interview. But I found it anyway, here . I agree that alleged environmental crisis is used to shut down necessary development (another big topic)

My main point about Sarah Palin is simply that the more she is derided in a personal way the more popular she will become. This is what happened in Australia with Pauline Hanson. There also seems to be something about many Democrat supporters (but certainly not all - Jay Rosen's piece is good) that makes it psychological impossible for them to treat her as an equal. They believe quite deeply that she is a witch. I begin to discuss these issues more in a morality play . I'm trying to understand politics as an anthropologist would but that also seems to me to be essential to effective political action, too.

Anonymous said...

I double checked the video and the link I gave is one that shows the interview. Beck goes into a rant for the first half. Your link is more concise. :)

I've heard some commentators talk about the same thing you've pointed out here: that there are some on the Left who can't deal with her, and the more she's attacked personally or in a sexist manner the more support she and McCain get.

I heard an opinion yesterday that I think put the finger on the Left's difficulty with Palin: They think she's a throwback to the 50s mentality of women, which makes no sense because no woman in the 50s (in the U.S. anyway) would've been chosen for any elected office, and many women wouldn't have thought it proper to begin with. So to the Left she's a walking contradiction. She holds some traditionalist conservative values, but not all the ones that her parents or grandparents had. She wants to "break the glass ceiling", which has been a rallying cry of the feminists, who were largely on the left a couple decades ago. The Left "owned" that issue. Not anymore.

A few of the left wing commentaries are just baffling. One said "the pretense that she is a woman," is a lie. This is stupid.

The real problem is that intolerance has shifted from inhabiting racist and sexist mindsets, where it used to be accepted many decades ago, into attitudes about political ideas. It's become acceptable to think someone is lower than dirt, or even a threat for disagreeing with you politically. In this case the loathing that is displayed appears sexist, but I think in most cases, at root it's really this intolerance of differing ideas.

This same sort of intolerance has creeped into the universities in the last 30 years. It's an important aspect of what I wrote about in that discussion on the Squeakland list, along with post-modernism.

Dedric said...

I just found your post after I did mine. You might find this ( if not disturbing.

Bill Kerr said...

Dedric's correct URL is here , a juxtapositioning of Sarah and Paulines faces. The URL given is a typo.