At the risk of overblogging on Palin, I wanted to reflect for a second on how identity politics are at work here. When she was first named to the ticket, much of the liberal criticism on her was based on her identity. It had to be, because we didn't know much about her stance on issues, or how she would perform in a national campaign. It was completely understandable, or should have been, that conservatives (like me) would have pushed back hard on that point. What is an attack on her identity but an attack on we who identify with her? The critics from the left -- not all of them, of course, but the ones who stoked the most ire on the right -- were people who said that Palin was bad not because of what she thought (the details of which were hazy), but because of who she is: a small-town, pro-life, Christian mother of five.
You come after her on those grounds, then you're coming after everybody who sees some of themselves and their own experiences in Palin.
But a month into the McCain-Palin experience, we now have more objective data on which to judge Palin's capabilities to be vice president. Some conservatives -- e.g., Kathleen Parker, me -- who were initially real high on Palin have decided that in light of further evidence, she wasn't a good pick. This is an arguable position. But what we're seeing is that for many on the right, any criticism at all of Palin is still seen as an attack on identity. And you can't argue with that.
To be clear: I find Sarah Palin an admirable person. Everything that I liked about her in the beginning I still like about her. I just don't think that she's ready to be vice president. That's not a judgment of who she is culturally, which is something I identify with to a large extent, and affirm. It's a judgment of her competence for the job. Surely conservatives don't want to be in the position of claiming that identity is a sufficient qualification for a job. Isn't that the basis of the conservative case against affirmative action -- that it elevates identity over core competence?
As a black commentator pointed out in one of the Palin threads below, African-American politics was deformed by the idea that to criticize One Of Our Own is an impermissible act of group betrayal. That's starting to change, the commentator said. What a shame that it's still alive and well among conservatives, who have apparently learned nothing from following the same blind policy during the Bush years.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
cranky:
I have no sympathy with your background or views, so you have no reason to listen to this. But, read your own words:
"I am utterly dismayed that people who supposedly hold the principle of doing the right thing for the country turn their back and run like lemmings the moment they can invent some flaw in the candidate on their side."
Most people here, and certainly the blogger, are in sympathy with your political orientation. So, which of these seems more likely to you?
a) Your fellow conservatives are undermining their own agenda and desires because, for no good reason, they "invent" a reason not to like a candidate whom they initially greeted with enthusiasm.
Or
b) After fighting against the dawning truth, they came to realize that, despite their desires, certain baseline criteria for what constitutes qualification for office were not being met by this candidate.
Maybe, since you've had all this great life experience that no one else here can understand, you're so far removed that you are unable to understand the life experience of all these others, who sincerely don't believe that any old person can be president, or vice-president.
On Palin's experience and qualifications:
americanthinker.com/2008/10/sarah_palin_and_the_experience.html
Cranky,
I understand your point. With all due respect, I disagree.
I think it's tremendously important to understand what guides a person in their decision-making, especially when that person is asking for my support.
My form of Christianity is vastly different from that of a Pat Robertson. The process by which we think of our relationship to God and our neighbor is dissimilar, and how that process effects our thoughts on policy issues could not be more different though we occasionally wind up agreeing on particular issues.
My form of conservatism is vastly different from that of a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, and again though I sometimes agree with them on particular issues I more often find their approach to be deeply flawed as they often seem to be promoting radical-right ideas under the guise "conservative."
These things matter because they inform how we think, and how we think determines how we will act every day and react in a crisis. Asking for a vote is asking for my trust, and I find it reckless to place trust in someone on the basis of shared life experience and appearance.
You pared my post. There was nothing crude, or unacceptable in honest debate. Why?
Interesting post, and discussion. Rod, you picked up on what the African-American poster said on a thread below about O.J. Simpson.
I recently read John McWhorter's book, "Losing the Race," in which he relayed his experience, as a black professor at Berkeley, of telling black colleagues at Berkeley (during the first O.J. Simpson trial) that he believed O.J. was guilty. He said that these colleagues literally stopped talking to him and stopped treating him as a serious person because he had adopted a "contrarian" position. Identity politics, group-think and social pressure are certainly still powerful.
Although I'm supporting Obama, I have great respect for Joe Lieberman for following his conscience and bucking his fellow Democrats. I do not believe he ought to be deprived of his committee assignments. That's not the way to do things. And, I'm happy that Lieberman won re-election.
The idea that someone is a "traitor" to some group identity or another because they speak the truth as they see it is one of the most destructive ideas ever to come down the pike.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.