Monday, September 22, 2008

Sarah

Of the four candidates running for President and Vice President of the two major parties, Sarah Palin has been glorified by her supporters and vilified by her detractors more than any candidate for high office in recent memory. While her defenders are many, the pundit aristocracy and the so-called mainstream media have subjected her to a drumbeat of shockingly offensive, insulting and angry criticism.

Having lived in Washington for three decades up until the middle eighties and known many of the political players of the day, I have seen a sea change in the way politics is conducted. It has become a brutal and angry game of “gotcha,” a sinister and cynical conspiratorial process that makes a mockery of civilized political debate.

Perhaps we are going through an angry phase in our national life. I see it everywhere. On the Internet hate and anger of extreme virulence seems to be proliferating. Just browse through the comment sections of the various blogs on any subject, but particularly politics, and you will see venomous, hateful and scurrilous opinions that are nothing more than emotional, mean-minded and hateful rants that have little relations to factual and reasoned discourse.

In face to face conversations, political views have hardened to such an extent that one fears to incur blind wrath and nastiness by expressing anything that challenges the prevailing views on either end of the political spectrum. Which brings me back to Sarah Palin.

As a supporter and committed believer in equal rights for woman, especially in the workplace, I am confused and a bit appalled by the virulence of the attacks on Governor Palin by other women, particularly those who profess the same commitment she has to the upward mobility of women, of which she is a shining example.

She has been attacked for her faith, for her parenting, for her hair-do, for her supposed lack of knowledge of foreign affairs, for allegedly censoring library books, for her having been badly educated in state schools, for being too aggressive as an athlete, for not aborting her challenged fetus, for being a hunter and for being a hockey mom to only one of her offspring and, to top it off, too cute. Underlying the contempt of her critics is an unspoken prejudice of self-appointed elitists against people brought up in a blue collar environment, the sons and daughters of plain folks who work with their hands and do the heavy lifting for the rest of us, who fight our wars, police our neighborhoods, put out our fires, drive our trains and buses, clean our streets and build our houses and our infrastructure.

She has been put down for being Mayor of a small town and the Governor of an “insignificant state.” She has been portrayed as a cornball hick, as trailer trash, as a dumbed down “good ole girl,” as an empty-headed wannabe, as a liar and a fraud and as unfit to govern at any level, especially as an eventual President. In short, she has been crucified by what passes today as the best and brightest in media land, the thought police who believe in the infallibility of their judgment.

She has been dissed by the spoiled and overpaid Hollywood crowd who dispense advice as if they really were those heroic images they mimic on the silver screen. Her detractors don’t just dislike her, they hate her with what can only be described as homicidal passion.

To have become the Governor of Alaska, the largest land mass state in the union and a key repository of hydrocarbon energy reserves, a state which is merely a shade below the population of Delaware, from which Senator Biden hails, and to be dismissed as inconsequential in the pecking order of politicians seems to me bizarre and insulting to all women.

Dismissing Alaska’s importance as a State and becoming its Governor as a minor achievement, Sarah Palin’s critics seem bent on making her seem somewhat lesser than other politicians. Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader in the Senate, came from South Dakota, a less populated and arguably less important state than Alaska, and few have criticized him for attaining his once vaunted and powerful position. Indeed, like him or not, the present Vice President hails from Wyoming, a state even less populated than Alaska and South Dakota.

To me, such criticism is not only ugly but the height of hypocrisy. As for her faith, talk to me about that when they take “In God We Trust” off our currency and excise the words “we are endowed by our creator” from the Declaration of Independence.

In terms of parenting, talk to the pillars of the feminine movement about juggling priorities and “having it all,” which has been their mantra. And which parent has the magic know-how to successfully discipline their children on sexual matters when the hormones start to rage? Try discussing the challenges of parenting with Gloria Steinem.

Some of her more hateful critics have gone so far as to say she is not a real woman, that she is merely a womb, that she is a religious nut, a far right wacko and a lousy mother, that she doesn’t have the brains or the experience to occupy any political post. Tell that to the people of Alaska and eighty percent of them will want to lock you in an igloo. I well remember when Roosevelt picked Truman to be his Vice President and the critics raged that he was just a dumb failed haberdasher and a corrupt machine politician.

As for her experience in foreign affairs, I wonder what the chorus of female naysayers might have said if an acknowledged expert on foreign affairs, such as Condoleezza Rice, was chosen by McCain to be his Vice President pick. As for her education, it is true that Ivy Leaguers and their “old boy and old girl networks” get an automatic leg up in the race for fame and fortune, but that exclusivity loses steam when they confront the real world and have to compete with the so-called lessers who got their bones and street smarts in State colleges or in the school of hard knocks where Harry Truman got his mojo. And what college degree is displayed on the walls of Mount Vernon, the occupant of which laid the foundation stone of our Republic? In this context, how about all those MBA geniuses whose overconfident arrogance and greed screwed up Wall Street?

The fact is that Sarah Palin needs no defense from me. Having lived in the near West for more than a decade, I have met lots of women like Sarah: tough, smart, outspoken, authentic, independent women comfortable in their own skin who say what they mean and mean what they say. They are brimming with life, love their country, their parents and their extended families and revel in the energy of the world around them, and, although they might be loath to admit it, they are like the pioneering women of the early West who built this country with their tough optimism, their mothering, their sacrifice and their boundless energy and good humor.

I know. I know. There will be those who might take this essay as an exercise in political persuasion. No minds will be changed. No way. I glory in female achievement. Like many of us, I am the son of an adored mother with an abiding respect and a cheerleader for her gender. Yes, it was a cagey political move for Senator McCain to pick the Governor of Alaska as his running mate. Indeed, Barack, in my opinion, made a fatal error in not offering the Vice Presidency to Hillary Clinton. Now that would have been something, seeing those two tough ladies go head to head.

The fact is that I would rush to Sarah’s defense no matter which side picked her. Win or lose she deserves a fair shake and certainly not the ugly calumny heaped upon her, especially by her sisters. I don’t agree with her on every issue. Who does? And I’d fight like hell if she tried to tell me how to run my life or by legal coercion change my views about religion or a man or woman’s right to make choices that are important to them.

In fact, as a Governor of Alaska she has not tried to impose her personal views on Alaskans and, more importantly, she has not made these views part of her governance. Nor has she tried to hide them. Besides, Alaskans are independent, stubborn, free-wheeling and strong-minded, and many live in that rough climate by choice. For those very reasons, they would likely balk at any attempt by her to reign in their attitude by sending her packing by dog sled to the North Pole.

In Alaska she bucked the system and threw the rascals out. We could use some of that courage in today’s appalling political climate. What’s wrong with a lady who knows how to use a broom (and I don’t mean to fly on it)? And for those interested in irony, she was, as students of the Bible know, named after the right woman. My advice to the voters is to give the lady some space and, if you disagree with her, fight her fair and square.

It might be of interest, too, to assess the qualifications of other Vice Presidential picks in American history, both winners and losers. With a few exceptions, they were a dreary lot. Many were political hacks designed to balance the ticket geographically. Some, like Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman, were great. On the other hand, Aaron Burr was eminently qualified and a murderer.

If I were Joe Biden, I would armor myself well for his debate with Sarah. If he’s not careful, he might go home with a very clean clock.

Warren Adler is the author of 30 novels, including The War of the Roses and his latest, Funny Boys.

18 comments:

Quiz Mistress said...

What concept are you trying to convey by this statement, Warren?: "As for her experience in foreign affairs, I wonder what the chorus of female naysayers might have said if an acknowledged expert on foreign affairs, such as Condoleezza Rice, was chosen by McCain to be his Vice President pick."
I am baffled.

itzaqueen said...

I believe there is good reason for all thed "negativity and hate" on the internet, and it all derives from the past 8 years. And as far as Palin goes, give me a break! I could care less if she's a woman, I do care about what NPR had to say about her trying to exericise her religious rights by taking books out of the library in tiny little Wasilla. Isn't that a breach of the 1st amendment rights? Hilary yes, Palin, NO!!McSane deserves her.

itzaqueen said...

P.S I hope you get more comments then you know what to do with. I'm baffled that you think the way you do. And a writer no less!!

Kimberly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
orinsip said...

Warren, you are losing it or just don't get. It's not a question of ranting pundits but a candiate who is unqualified regardelss of sex, gender, experience etc. We are in a new political era and it has nothing to do with the years you spent in Washington. The world has changed.You're too bright to write this drivel.

Tirzeh1543 said...

I must commend you, Warren, especially in light of the criticism you are currently receiving, for your fair minded assessment of Ms. Palin. It takes courage to confront the "political correctness" frenzy that is stalking our land like a malicious black cloud, seeping into minds and spirits like a noxious toxin. Regardless of political affiliation, I would hope we could do the hard research necessary to apprehend actual truth to undergird our opinions.

annod said...

Perhaps the American public and the media have gotten mean spirited in their criticism. This seems to be particularly true regarding the very high bar set for women. However, I expect more analysis from you, Warren, other than supporting women who are akin to their predecessors in the American west. I for one, do not want Annie Oakley or Calamity Jane for VP. We have had a hard-headed stubborn superficial thinking western guys in the executive branch for 8 years and look at the greedy little mess we are in today. Banning books, mis-characterizing foreign relations expertise, and repeating the same 5 phrases to questions does not give me that Harry Truman feel, or that Teddy Roosevelt gusto. Besides, TR became president without a single female vote. What this country needs now is not a hard-hitting western self-made hero/heroine. We need leadership that can remember history, understands and will uphold the Constitution and can access nuance in setting domestic and foreign policy.

Hold your support of all women as noble and worthy, but do not waive the flag of gender when it relates to an unskilled, ill prepared and wobbly VP candidate. Sarah Palin is this campaign season's "Chance the Gardener". Remember the movie "Being There"? Watch it to see its uncanny resemblance to 2008.

Webmaster said...

Your statement about "hate" of Palin is curious. I doubt anyone hates the woman personally or wishes her bodily harm, but many see our nation in unparalleled crisis and want someone with VISION and LEADERSHIP at the helm, not someone with working class guts and pioneer spirit. Even with their best wisdom on their best days, McCain and Palin won't be able to turn this ship around. As Hillary put it, we don't need "four more years of the last eight years."

As for Hollywood celebrities, many are fine artists with a commitment to sharing their uncommon wealth to make the world a better place for all. As an eminent writer, you should know that.

dum said...

Warren, at once I could say I had some mild ammount of respect for you, not having read much of yours, but enjoying what I had read. Of course I could assume you do this kind of thing often, political blogging in the web crapper, ranting at the world, expelling masses of excessive thought as your face glows in the light of a nice laptop. All of that is fine, of course. However, I would say sending an email that has even a remote reference to your political blog ranting will likely lose you many fans...Or one could assume you would lose a large percentage of the "fans" who strongly disagree with you.

Politics is one of those dangerous things to get involved in, to write about publicly and advertise, to rant about, as it immediately inflicts a reaction of decisive duality within a person - choosing sides, which is what Americans are provided - "sides", one of two options, one of two choices and one of two decisions to be made.

Personally, I have chosen to not pay mind to the illusionary political aspect of our life in America as the choice between two absurdly derranged and disfunctional groups of perpetually bashing and fighting individuals does not appeal to me in the least. That said, it seems Sarah Palin is an especially touchy subject given that she has taken a certain mentality to the extreme and seems to be something of a contradictory individual. So one would think that, as a writer of fiction, novels, short stories, and in general the "art" of writing, that a grave mistake was being made in choosing to spill your mass of mental and emotional support of such a shady and seemingly contradictory individual who currently resides at the forefront of an american political war where every individual is asked to choose sides. It is to say that, you've chosen yours...Or maybe simply, that you've chosen. Good luck.

dum said...

Warren, at once I could say I had some mild ammount of respect for you, not having read much of yours, but enjoying what I had read. Of course I could assume you do this kind of thing often, political blogging in the web crapper, ranting at the world, expelling masses of excessive thought as your face glows in the light of a nice laptop. All of that is fine, of course. However, I would say sending an email that has even a remote reference to your political blog ranting will likely lose you many fans...Or one could assume you would lose a large percentage of the "fans" who strongly disagree with you.

Politics is one of those dangerous things to get involved in, to write about publicly and advertise, to rant about, as it immediately inflicts a reaction of decisive duality within a person - choosing sides, which is what Americans are provided - "sides", one of two options, one of two choices and one of two decisions to be made.

Personally, I have chosen to not pay mind to the illusionary political aspect of our life in America as the choice between two absurdly derranged and disfunctional groups of perpetually bashing and fighting individuals does not appeal to me in the least. That said, it seems Sarah Palin is an especially touchy subject given that she has taken a certain mentality to the extreme and seems to be something of a contradictory individual. So one would think that, as a writer of fiction, novels, short stories, and in general the "art" of writing, that a grave mistake was being made in choosing to spill your mass of mental and emotional support of such a shady and seemingly contradictory individual who currently resides at the forefront of an american political war where every individual is asked to choose sides. It is to say that, you've chosen yours...Or maybe simply, that you've chosen. Good luck.

Warren Adler said...

Thanks so much for your comments. Sorry, but that book thing has long been rejected as false. That kind of belief in lies is exactly what I have been getting at. Sarah banned no books. I've done the research.

Radu said...

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't ban any books. She did, however, fire the librarian in question within days of learning of the librarian's opposition to censorship. Palin's official reason for the dismissal (rescinded after widespread protest) was that the librarian had supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral race; I don't find this reason any more reassuring than if it had been censorship-related.

I've been opposed to Palin for years, since I first heard of her sadistic support for the aerial gunning of wolves. (I'm opposed to many male politicians for similar reasons.) This is not even a respectable form of hunting. She's generally an enemy of all nonhuman species, and her positions on energy and bizarre denial that the current global warming is human-made both feed into that.

The fact that she's one of the worst abusers of the very earmark spending that McCain rants against should raise the eyebrows of McCain supporters in particular. And that's not to mention the useless debt this self-proclaimed "fiscal conservative" drove Wasilla into, and the (equally hypocritical) misappropriation of Wasilla city funds and Alaska state funds for personal use.

These things have nothing to do with gender. I won't go into other issues here, and I wholly agree that women face a steep uphill battle and loads of hypocrisy when it comes to politics. I'm a proud feminist (and a man, and pro-choice, to be clear), and I was an outspoken critic of the sexism inherent to countless attacks on Hillary Clinton. (I, too, wish Obama had chosen Clinton as his running mate.) You raise many points, Warren, that I agree with; things like Palin's personal family issues and the remoteness and population of Alaska are irrelevant.

However, Palin's real flaws, in my opinion, are quite objective and have nothing to do with gender or public misperception. There's a reason why women's rights groups have universally endorsed Obama.

Cheers to you, Warren, for your egalitarianism and for speaking your mind, as well as for allowing these responses.

P.S. Apparently Palin's ruthlessness in b-ball was directed at her own teammates -- in frequent, backstabbing attempts to get ahead by undermining their efforts and making them look bad. That's why they called her "Barracuda," not because she was aggressive with their opponents. We've seen this kind of underhanded ruthlessness in political campaigns before, and it's never a good sign for the kind of leaders they make.

itzaqueen said...

But hey, she's cool. She even believes there is no scientific evidence that humans are to blame for global warming, or as she put it, "if there even is global warming." Anyone who is so blinded, so naive, so ignorant, to believe something like that deserves all the unfortunate things people say about her. Can you imagine having a President (and yes, if McSane gets elected it could happen) who doesn't believe in global warming?

Warren Adler said...

Thank you all for the excellent comments. Respectfully, itzaqueen is quite wrong about McCain. He is a big supporter of the concept of global warming. Many people just don't like our messy political system. Who can blame them? Unfortunately, it beats the others

itzaqueen said...

My comment wasn't intended for McSane, I was noting what Palin's beliefs are, as a human being, not in regards to her affiliation with the Republican party.

Warren Adler said...

Point taken, itzaqueen.

Quiz Mistress said...

Warren, please could you answer my question? It's the very first comment.

Warren Adler said...

What I was trying to convey was that if McCain had picked Condi, people now criticizing Palin for her lack of foreign affairs experience would attack his choice on other grounds. Indeed, what constitutes foreign affairs experience, a brief trip to Europe or the Middle East e.g. Obama or in depth negotiations with foreign leaders? Does that mean only an Ambassador is qualified or a foreign service officer? Harry Truman served in World War I. Is that foreign affairs experience? I wonder what John Nance Garner, Roosevelt's Vice President, knew about foreign affairs, or Henry Wallace, or Alben Barkley. Granted, I should have made my thoughts clearer. Thanks for your comments.