[Peace-discuss] Sarah laughed to herself

[John W.]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:12 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:



> I think in fact it's simpler.  The question is, Why do liberals respond
> with such fury to Palin?
>
> The answer seems to be her class background (and her gender).  If a man
> with the right class indicators (Harvard Law school, say) were saying what
> she does, it would hardly be noticed.  But she doesn't know her place, as
> would be said in a more honest class system than ours.
>


 Well, I'm not a "liberal", nor do I pretend to speak for them.  But I
personally would find a Harvard Law graduate to be an even greater idiot if
he said that he had experience in international relations because he could
see Russia from his house.





> And she thereby raises the one topic unmentionable in US politics since the
> drafting of the Constitution, a topic finally more dangerous to the Republic
> than slavery: class.
>
> James Madison said the point of the government devised for the US was "to
> protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." At the end of 50
> years of increasing and accelerating concentration of wealth, which brings
> us back to the levels of 1929, Sarah Palin threatens the comfortable liberal
> ascendancy in the US with the specter of social revolution.
>

Yes, you always quote this.  And social class certainly does play a role in
our polity.  But your reply is utterly non-responsive to MY revulsion for
Palin.




> Maybe they should be scared.  --CGE
>
>
> John W. wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't see why the reaction to Palin is such a profound mystery.  My
>> problem with her is this:
>>  1) She's unbelievably ignorant and uninformed, and almost seems to revel
>> in her ignorance in the finest traditions of American anti-intellectualism.
>>  At the same time, she's not really a populist, but only pretends to be one.
>>  You're probably more of a populist than she is, Carl.
>>  2) By extension, anyone who would vote for her or take her candidacy for
>> the highest office in the land even remotely seriously is unbelievably
>> stupid, and/or unbelievably unconcerned about the future of our nation.
>>  3) Since so many people seem to take Palin seriously, one is
>> discouragingly reminded of how many truly stupid people there are in the
>> United States.
>>  Trust me, Carl....it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
>>      On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:28 PM, C. G. Estabrook <
>> galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>    [My political opinions are anarchist - or if you prefer libertarian
>>    socialist - in the tradition of Rudolf Rocker and Noam Chomsky.
>>    They're related to the sort of thing Lenin attacked in "'Left-Wing'
>>    Communism: An Infantile Disorder" (1920). (For an account of the
>>    position in relation to 20th-century authoritarian socialism, google
>>    "The Soviet Union versus Socialism.") So I'm not much impressed by
>>    Roger Kimball's politics.  But he's on to something here, viz. why
>>    it is that liberals are driven so nuts by Sarah Palin, a point I
>>    continue to find interesting and even significant. It can't be
>>    Palin's political ideas in themselves, such as they are; so he's
>>    right to look for something else. --CGE]
>>
>>
>>           Roger's Rules - http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball -
>>           Small earthquake in la-la land, or, Why is Sarah Palin Smiling?
>>           Posted By Roger Kimball On February 7, 2010
>>
>>    There is a great story about the journalist (and Communist) Claud
>>    Cockburn [FATHER OF ALEX & BROS. --CGE] that while working at The
>>    Times in the 1920s, he won a competition for devising the most
>>    boring headline that actually made it into the paper. His winning
>>    entry: “Small Earthquake in Chile, Not Many Dead.” According to
>>    Wikipedia [1], the story is apocryphal, but I long ago placed it in
>>    the sacred category of “too good to check.” Besides, when I first
>>    heard it, Cockburn won the competition while at The Observer, even
>>    though (as far as I know) he never worked there.
>>
>>    Anyway, notwithstanding the veracity of the story, I find myself
>>    often reminded of it. Just today, for example, when a friend sent me
>>    a piece on Sarah Palin from the Huffing and Puffing Post, sometimes
>>    known as the Huffington Post. It’s by Stefan Sirucek, “independent
>>    journalist and foreign correspondent,” and bears the arresting title
>>    “EXCLUSIVE (Update): Palin’s Tea Party Crib Notes [2].”
>>
>>    So what startling revelation does Stefan Sirucek, International Man
>>    of Mystery, impart?  Why, that Sarah Palin, when she delivered her
>>    speech [3] to the National Tea Party Conference last night had
>>    actually scribbled a few words on her left palm.
>>
>>    Stop the presses!  What a scandal. According to HufPo’s  intrepid
>>    reporter, Palin’s notes to herself are ominous, ominous:
>>
>>       Closer inspection of a photo of Sarah Palin, during a speech in
>>    which she mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter,
>>    reveals several notes written on her left hand. The words “Energy”,
>>    “Tax” and “Lift American Spirits” are clearly visible. There’s also
>>    what appears to read as “Budget cuts” with the word Budget crossed out.
>>
>>    “Budget cuts”?  Crossed out? Tell me it isn’t so. If HufPo’s answer
>>    to Carl Bernstein is to believed,
>>
>>       This would mean:
>>
>>       A) That she knew the questions beforehand and the whole thing was
>>    a farce. (Likely.)
>>
>>       and
>>
>>       B) That she still couldn’t answer the previously agreed-upon
>>    questions without a little extra help.
>>
>>    Where do we start?  First of all, President Obama’s addiction to the
>>    teleprompter is eminently worth mocking. The teleprompter breaks
>>    down, so does the President [4]. He apparently can’t even address
>>    sixth-grade school children [5]without the device. (Even Jon Stewart
>>    [6] made fun of that.)  Second, pace our ace reporter, the fact that
>>    Palin jotted some notes on her hand does not mean that  “she knew
>>    the questions beforehand” or that “the whole thing was a farce.”
>>    Nor, since we don’t know whether the questions were agreed upon
>>    beforehand or not (and what if  they were? So what?),  does it mean
>>    that she “still couldn’t answer them . . .  without a little extra
>>    help.”  What the notes do mean is that she prepared for the session
>>    and thought to remind herself of something. In other words, good for
>>    you, Sarah.
>>
>>    The hatred and contempt lavished upon Sarah Plain, from certain
>>    conservatives as well as from the Left, presents a dispiriting and,
>>    to me, hard-to-fathom spectacle. That is, I understand that the Left
>>    would regard her as a political threat and would therefore dislike
>>    her. But why the contempt? And why the contempt (and hatred) from
>>    the Right? I have several times explained why I admire Sarah Palin
>>    [7]. Please note that I did not say I want her to run for the
>>    Presidency. But what (a locution that comes up often among her
>>    admirers) a breath of fresh air she is! Here you have a woman from a
>>    working-class background who, by dint of her own energy and
>>     ambition, becomes Governor of her state—a good Governor, too, by
>>    all account not tainted by The New York Times. She espouses good
>>    conservative principles: self-reliance, fiscal responsibility, a
>>    strong national defense. And, on top of all that, she is a
>>    courageous and loving mother to a passel of children.
>>
>>    What’s not to like?  That she chose to keep and love a Down Syndrome
>>    child? That sets the teeth of many on edge, I know, though they are
>>    loathe to come right out and admit it. Granted: She’s not a lawyer.
>>    She’s not from the Ivy League. She’s not part of the Washington
>>    Establishment. Heavy liabilities, what? I acknowledge that her
>>    performance in front of Katie Couric and other barracuda-like
>>    interviewers was poor, embarrassing even. But put that and all the
>>    other charges in the scale on one side, then put her virtues on the
>>    other: which side wins out? Stefan Sirucek thinks he can simply
>>    indite the name “Sarah Palin” and all right-thinking (that is,
>>    left-leaning) people will scoff and hold their noses. Maybe they
>>    will. But the aroma of rancidness and decay you sense is not
>>    emanating from Sarah Palin’s side of the aisle. The question is,
>>    when will the left-wing commentariat notice that the winds of
>>    opinion, to say nothing of the winds of political energy, have
>>    changed decisively against them? Scott Brown should have told them
>>    something. But Scott Brown was an impossibility. Or so they told
>>    themselves.
>>
>>           ###
>>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100208/db9bbef6/attachment-0001.html>