Palin hurting the Republican ticket

It's not just the interviews, it's her campaigning style---very strident and negative and nothing, no substance, no warmth, to balance that.

What will anyone remember of her after this election is over? Tina Fey and a few nasty rallies.

I guess I'll go first: I agree. It's gotten so bad that I've had to choose between preserving friendships (or at least good working relationships) and expressing my opinion. I choose the former.

A lot of people on the right (sadly, the Christian right to be specific) are simply not amenable to reason. Critique their logic or question their assumptions and you want to "kill babies," or you are a knave who doesn't want people to think you are a "fundamentalist" (I'm Catholic, of course I don't want people to think I'm a "fundamentalist) or -- wait for it -- an "elitist." Say that Paul Krugman has some interesting thoughts about the financial crisis and the first word out of their mouth is "Enron" as if they were programmed with an ad hominem response for every occasion.

Ask, as some women friends of mine did, if maybe, as a Christian with a special needs child and four other kids, perhaps governor Palin's priorities are possibly askew (as the father of a special needs child, I have had to sacrifice my professional advancement to take care of him -- no regrets) and you are shouted into silence.

McCain/Palin are, in all high likelihood, going to lose in a little more than three weeks. Then it's over for them. The mess and damage done to friendships and relationships is going to last a lot longer.

Everybody said I was nuts when I said...the day Palin was announced, no less...that she would be a Roman candle of euphoric GOP rebirth. And then fizzle and dwindle into a combustible toxic backlash since she was clearly not a woman who was an insult to fans of Hillary or GOP dues-paid hard working tenured worker bees. I understand women like Einstein understood matter. It was a smart idea that was stupid a hell. And as it turns out, in spades.

Meanwhile, God Bless Rod Dreher. He's as volatile as a Roman candle, as faithful as a Roman soldier. But when he is against the wall poltically/intellectually, he always recognizes when it is right to finally cut bait and is then quite fair and real. THAT is his secret antidotal potion. Hear, hear!

Roberto wrote:

"Ask, as some women friends of mine did, if maybe, as a Christian with a special needs child and four other kids, perhaps governor Palin's priorities are possibly askew (as the father of a special needs child, I have had to sacrifice my professional advancement to take care of him -- no regrets) and you are shouted into silence."

Well, as the sister of a severely autistic woman who saw her own parents
make considerable sacrifices, as I have myself, to care for my sister,
I say good for you for caring for your child and good for your friends who have brought up this troubling issue about Sarah Palin. I have stated my opinion of this on more than one occasion, and no one has tried to shout me down, not that it would work; years of dealing with my sister's autism - I have been screamed at for hours by her in one of her tantrums - have toughened me a lot, if that's a good thing.

I suppose it might be unseemly to praise one's own magazine, but I am proud to be associated with a publication responsible for David Frum's magnificent and necessary essay.
- Rod Dreher on David Frum's "Unpatriotic Conservatives", 3/19/2003

Rod, I know it may seem a bit unfair to bring up this quote, but the incivility you now see amongst conservatives has a history. Frum's article was possibly the worst of the bunch, containing lots of guilt-by-association smears and plenty of innuendo. But the post-911 conservative movement largely behaved with mob/thug tactics against anyone who questioned the Bush CW, especially against other conservatives.

Conservatives were excoriated, not just for opposing the war, but for opposing radically unconservative policies like No Child Left Behind. If you really think this is some new development, then go back and read The Corner postings for 2002-2003, including your own. Try not to shudder.

I think the key difference between the left and the present-day right is that the left is fragmented into dozens of groups which can be quite doctrinaire but have to work together, while at the moment the right is composed by a much smaller number of groups, some of which have reached a single consensus.

That consensus is acceptable to about 20% of Americans and probably tolerable to 30-40% more, but the 20% have deluded themselves into believing that they are a majority when they are at best a small plurality.

I found your article very interest. I always considered myself a moderate…neither right nor left. There were things in both party I liked, and disliked.

Last week I decided to see what those on the far right were thinking and I visited the Hannity forums. On one thread they were praising the virtues of Rush L. I have always had a problem with Rush, ever since he said mean things about the appearance of Chelsea Clinton, when she was just a child. I hate when people are cruel to children.

I asked how could they praise someone like Rush, who said such hateful things about a child.

Well, I was fairly quickly *banned* from the site. Apparently Rush is one of the sponsors, and the rule is you can not insult the sponsor.(OK…I did call him scum).
BTW, I never called any of the posters scum…I simply asked how they could like someone who was scum, and who thought it was funny to mock a child.

I was stunned. But, I figured it was their site, and I suppose they can make the rules. But, it struck me so odd, that they would so assertively prevent others from posting opposing views. And when there are opposing views (and you don’t insult the sponsors), the responses are so rude and hateful, very little polite debate or discussion. It is either totally with them, or you are the enemy.

It is very scary.

Troopergate is going down and the McCain camp has tried to preempt it. Perhaps they know the findings won't look good.
I noticed in the last couple days where I live in Denver, Colorado (a battleground state) that the McCain ads no longer feature Palin's image. Probably the internal polling in the McCain camp shows what this FOX data showed.
Palin's pit-bull antics have riled crowds up so much that McCain/Palin supporters are now becoming fodder for the MSM. Screams of 'treason', 'traitor', 'terrorist', and 'kill him' have all been reported this week.
Just tonight on MSNBC an audience member told McCain that Obama is an arab and that she just can't trust him.
This pit-bull seems like a cross between a Nazi and Roseanne Barr with her snarky comments and seedy undertones.
She's certainly no credit to the Christian faith.

Rod: I've seen liberals on Kos -- which I don't frequent -- arguing with each other, whereas the more popular right-wing sites seem to be more about laying down the party line, and enforcing movement discipline.

That sounds exactly like my experience. Say what you will about liberals, my experience is that they are far more willing to argue with each other than conservatives are. I have a friend who is an intelligent person. However, he not only believes that almost all liberals are evil promoters of a nefarious scheme to take over the country (literally), but who is stubbornly unwilling to criticize conservatives or Republicans at all, or to accept such criticisms from other sources. Go figure. I suspect that there's some anti-intellectualism in there, but the sheer refusal of disagreement--I don't know.

Rod,

Do Democrats ever call each other DINOs? Do they even have that term of opprobrium and marginalization within their ranks?

Oh yes, indeed they do. In fact I believe DINO was first utilized by democrats to refer to the Dixiecrats. RINO to refer to republicans came later. The most well known DINO up until recently was Lieberman. The new blue dog democrats which are the more socially conservative democrats are sometimes called DINOs. You guys just don't see it out there in Texas! I am in California.

On Palin- a boffo debate performance? Come on. She was able to talk in complete sentences which was a worry prior to the show. I agree with Kathleen Parker, who did not tell McCain to dump Palin as I recall, but she appealed for Palin to step down. That would have opened up an opportunity for McCain to call on Romney and then maybe he would have had a chance. a slim chance but a chance. At this point with Palin as an attack dog bringing up Ayers there is no traction for the McCain ticket.

Rod, will you please change the headline of this entry? The evidence you have provided does not bear out your conclusion. Are you planning on going on television this weekend to announce that Palin is hurting the ticket? If so, you better find some better evidence than the Fox poll.

Perhaps I am not the only one feeling this way, but I feel detached from politics, government, and mainstream culture. I am middle aged, college degree, high earning, upper middle class, high equity, little debt. I am a serious Roman Catholic. I only mention to show that I would have the appearance of mainstream.

I am pro life for the evil of the act, but also I am equally troubled that supporters are willing to redefine human life to support it. It really scares me that folks can cross that ethical line especially for economic reasons. I am equally troubled about the poverty in our country, environmental issues, and consumerism. I am very concerned by healthcare, to the point of avoiding it till absolutely necessary. I have great health insurance too. I can walk many miles down the road with a liberal before they realize that I am not one of their own. Likewise I can walk many miles down the road with a conservative before they realize that I am one of their own.

I avoid political discourse because I am tired of the condescension and the implications of idiocy if I happen to disagree with a position. I view the government regardless of the ruling party as a large self sustaining disgusting parasite. What we have today is not what was intended. I will vote for McCain because of abortion, but that is about it. I have no confidence in him or the party.

Am I the only one that feels detached, and that the culture is off the rails? Perhaps we are beginning to fragment? I am not here to fight. Just wondering if I am the only one who feels more like a subject of a parasitical system than a self governing free citizen. Hope that is clear if anyone cares to discourse.

File this under "Duh": Dixie Chicks.

Add this into the mix, Rod. What was the McCain campaign thinking when they vetted Palin?

afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5giQ7BVhU4eTGCaaiz3WP60iXoUpg

Palin abused power Alaska 'Troopergate' probe finds

3 hours ago

JUNEAU, Alaska (AFP) — Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin abused her position as Alaska Governor by pressuring officials to dismiss a state trooper, an investigator's report said.

In a 263-page report released on Friday by Alaska's Legislative Council following a six-hour closed doors hearing, investigator Steve Branchflower said Palin was guilty of violating state ethics rules for public officials.

"I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act," Branchflower wrote in the report.

intellectual ossification on the Right

Exactly. With Buckley's passing, an era passed. Where are the original thinkers? We are left with intellectually stunted rah-rah popularizers flooding talk-radio.

2) No, we need to stop the out-of-control borrowing without taxing, and reduce military spending. And actually put in government regulations to stop disasters from happening, and I'm convinced we can reduce the cost of health care by removing insurance companies and letting the government cover it, and, oh, we actually need to do something to reduce abortion instead of using it to put right-wing judges on the court, and I'm sure I could think of more.

Ok, I'm going to try very hard to be civil, but after blast of pure intelligence insulting pablum, it's going to be very difficult.

This is what happens, when people who pay no attention to facts start letting emotions guide both decisions and thinking.

Why do I say that? observe carefully.

1. First complaint: "out of control borrowing and not taxing". Oh, we're taxed all right. We're having the living daylights taxed out of us, and the only thing we get in return, is a government that is abusive to our welfare, acts capriciously and malevolently toward our financial and moral affairs.

First completely and utterly wrong statement: We're not being taxed. Perhaps you're so filthy rich that it doesn't matter to you...but the rest of us live in the real world and find that taxes are almost unbearable, in terms of trying to survive and raise children - especially if we're the employer of over 70% of Americans who work at productive jobs - small business owners.

2. "government regulations to stop disasters". Government regulations ARE THE CAUSE of our current financial disasters. No amount of regulation, or blather on your part, can overcome reality. Some of the most seriously regulated economies in the world are in the tank. Does it not occur to you that this is not a "regulation" problem, but a math or "rationality" problem that got us here? Nobody has figured a way to prevent it yet... why do you think that Congress can magically do so?

3. "remove insurance companies and let government cover [ health care ]. In #1, you were presumably complaining about the excessive spending in comparison to the outgo. Health care purchases in this country exceed a trillion dollars annually. So, you want to bump our budget from 3 to 4 trillion+ at the snap of your fingers. And, at the same time, remove insurance companies, which are one of the major sources of investment capital - they invest hugely as hedges against loss.

4. "do something to reduce abortion"? What? It's not ok to tell kids to not have sex everyone says, and "contraception information" is more well known in school than is math. You have left no rational option, due to ideological constraints on your thinking.

5. "Right wing judges"? Oh, my word. Judges are not political. At least not good ones. Good ones follow the law. They don't attempt to write law. Liberals use political tests to see who can be allowed to be a judge. I guess you're not serious about that either.

Now, there's a whole list of things here... taxes, spending, health care, abortion, insurance... All of which are great subjects, and all need to be addressed by our legislators. They need to be addressed even MORE so by the people themselves, as few seem to grasp anything about any of those topics.

But you've left me no common ground to talk to you. There's no reality in anything you said in order to base a rational conversation.

If I object to government funded health care, you will not respond on the merits of the idea, but instead, will make strident and angry moral condemnation of me instead, for wanting to deprive people of health care.

If I try to discuss abortion, you'll never listen to a word I say, but intead, publish your own position papers with my name at the top, and then proceed to excoriate me in public over them, in a hateful and insulting manner.

If I try to object to the notion that we need more taxes, I will get the same hatefilled moral condemnation.

If I even try to discuss the numbers of income vs outgo of our government, and where and how the money comes in, I will be instantly villified as wanting to hurt poor people and being a shill for my 'rich republican wall street fat cats".

If I attempt to point out that you want to increase federal spending by up to 50% on just ONE notion alone (government health care), you'll argue that cutting the military (about 21% of all federal spending) will cover it.

Never mind that the math proves the idea daft, I will be the immoral one for trying to discuss it based on facts and reason.

So, while I'm a very rational and practical kinda guy... I have done practical stuff all my life and am exceptionally good at all I do... And that I really enjoy a challenge and a good honest debate over how to do stuff... And that a good debate like this will be not only respectful from me, but helpful to you... I can't.

I will not accept the radical and unreasonable premises for everything, and I mean, everything you just said. Not a single topic can be discussed without first accepting an irrational premise.

Alicia, God love her, was one I tried to talk to. I attempted, in clear and real terms explain the real estate collapse and the credit crunch it was tied to, but she never even considered ANYTHING about the topic and instead resorted to "I think Reagan did it", which, sad to say, is so far from reality that you can't even see it from there.

So, the topic wanders back and forth about the "tribalism" of the parties and the "incivility" of the discussion about politics, but as you can see... This is set up. It's deliberate and wanted. If you'd just learn a few facts, I could disabuse you of pretty much all the false premises behind your ideas, and you and I could have a fantastically productive conversation or debate. But the people you listen to do not want you to have a rational conversation. You'll stop listening to them if you do.

The question is, will you? I'll state right up front that I will not accept anything irrational as a premise. I won't even in a hypothetical conversation. And please don't be so absurd as to start claiming that I'm the one that's not rational. Everything you've argued here can be easily refuted with 10 minutes of quality time with google. By you. Without my help or guidance. All you need to do is approach these things rationally and have some personal integrity.

So, this is gone long, very long, and I knew it would... But if this is not instructive of the divide, then I don't know what is. If you, regardless of political leanings, can't see a way past this divide, I have little sympathy for your opinions. Or your anger.

I third everything that JohnT said at 9:19PM.

And regarding unrestrained conservative invective: what I'm most interested in is why. I can't exactly confirm reports of vicious hatred on the part of conservatives, but I do recognize that the level of discourse is not what it ought to be, and also that a lot of conservatives today seem to be supporting policies that would have made them gag 30 years ago.

People are rarely mad-dog vicious when they're not scared witless, and I think conservatives (that is, Red Staters) in this country are scared: scared because they're badly losing the culture war, and scared because they see everything they ever really loved and supported being overwhelmed by either A. triumphant, doctrinaire secularism, or B. Islam.

Surely, liberals (that is, Blue Staters) would recognize the need for community - something greater than yourself, the common good of which you can make your own and even die for, and which will be there for you to help you when you need it. For conservative Red Staters, that used to be the Western Culture and the United States. It embodied what they believed in: decent, hard-working people trying to make a living for themselves and their children in a community that acknowledged God even when it didn't obey him, a community that was peace-loving at heart but would arise to stand up against injustice and evil (e.g. Hitler) ... you know the old story. Listen to the sappy songs on country music radio stations and you'll know what I'm talking about.

That their own divorce rates are above 50% makes their situation only that much more desperate. No Christian (and Red Staters are culturally and nominally Christians even if not especially devout) is going to argue that a 50%+ divorce rate is a good thing. But they can't help it. In the culture in which they live they find themselves in desperate situations where they don't know what else to do and do not have the necessary support of the surrounding culture and community that would help their marriages work and save them from what anyone would agree is an awful, sinful thing to have to do. (Quibble with sinful, if you want. I'm basically right.) Mutatis mutandis for any other aspect of their lives.

[It strikes me as an exact analog with abortion. Almost no girl wants to terminate her pregnancy. But when she does not have the support of her family, her community, or the child's father, carrying a baby to term in that harsh environment seems impossible, no matter how horrible the alternative. Blue Staters make this argument all the time, and they're absolutely right.]

And when the Red Staters see the culture and community that used to give them help and sustenance crumbling to pieces around them, an alien ethic cried up on every side, and doctoral degrees used as so many pick-axes to hasten their culture's destruction, they get desperate, and start listening to whomever tells them he can stave off the tide.

The hilarious thing is that each side is starting from the exact same premises but with different emotional commitments. The Red Staters have drunk the (classical) liberal Kool-Aid to the same extent as the Blue Staters, but thought their churches would sustain enough of a culture to enable a man's emotional commitments to withstand unfettered access to gold, pornography, and fat. Turns out they were way, way wrong.

Elmo and Jon W

Those were very thoughtful responses. Elmo, I was kind of getting at your solution--to pray. I feel more in common with the early Christians. At work if I think someone is a believer I’ll let my crucifix be visible or I will say something that is Christian if I want to risk it. It is sort of like scratching the symbol of the fish in the dirt. I don't feel safe or part of the mainstream enough to openly talk about it at work. Faith should inform one’s politics. However, it seems that politics is becoming an expression of faith. It is not a good thing when one’s faith and politics becomes so intertwined that they are virtually indistinguishable. A lot of my conservative friends do not distinguish between the two. In the course of a conversation they move between God and politics in the same contextual space. The context is the difference between informed politics and politics as an expression. The lefties who don’t believe don’t have the context problem at all. Politics is their religion, so they don't have to juggle context like we do. So they are free to prosecute their faith with great zeal.

Jon W, I’ve also recognized that people from both parties often have the same emotional starting point. I can understand how each perspective views each other. When I read this blog, the opponents call each other “idiots” or “stupid” or “fools” etc. etc. etc. The people they agree with are “smart” or “intelligent”. The ease in which we use these classifications is chilling. Both sides worship the cult of smart as you alluded to. I guess that is because the “smart” characteristics are means to end rather than an end in themselves. There is an implicit caste system built into them. The “smart” are privileged while the “idiots” are not. Both teams fail to recognize that their hearts are in the same place as a motivator.

Once we buy into these classifications it is easy to dehumanize our opponents. When they are something less than human, then dealing with the body is no different than dealing with an animal. One of the reasons I am pro-life is because practically the human becomes mere cells with no intrinsic value. The same reasoning can be applied to the elderly (or political enemies). It is sort of a dualistic hypocrisy. When they become “inconvenient” we apply dualistic justifications for terminating the machine. “That’s not Mary, she’s gone, that body there is just a collection of base functions.” All these negative dehumanizing classifications are scary--dumb, stupid, intelligent, smart, blob of cells, etc.. See Jon this is why I agree with your description. Once we’ve dehumanized our opponents, what follows from there when that key policy mistake causes real human suffering?

Rod, with respect to Suderman's points -- and I believe he's very on target! -- here's what I think you're missing: the right and left appear to have different cognitive styles. Some people tolerate ambiguity better than others, and more of those who tolerate ambiguity seem to be found in the middle, and/or the left. As you point out, either extreme on the spectrum has a hard time listening to anyone who doesn't share their own views and validate their worldview.

Here's an example that might be helpful on the notion of 'cognitive styles': I've taught at several levels, kids and adults. In every class that I've ever taught, there are people who need, require, and cling to external structure: they want to know EVERY deadline, EVERY quiz date, EVERY course grade criteria. They don't tend to be all that creative for the most part, but man do they ever meet deadlines!

Then, I'll have students who have to be reminded (at least twice) that a paper is due in two days, and a brief reminder of the criteria. Those students will turn in papers that are creative, even ingenious. But those **tend** to come from students who could probably make up half their own deadlines if I said, "Hey, you have to turn in 6 papers this quarter, and as long as no two are on the same week, pick your own date." These students could figure it out on their own. They create their own internal structures and guidelines.

I view these two kinds of students as having different cognitive styles.
They're all wonderful in their own ways, but some of them just go absolutely bananas without a lot of external structure. They can't stand it if you say, "Aw turn it in sometime this week." They have to know an **exact date**, and even whether to turn it in at the beginning of class, or at the end. Then, and in my case, I don't care all that much because it's not a big deal to me as long as the papers arrive by, say 4 pm -- suppose that I say "Papers are due at the beginning of class." Well, if those students who LIKE and NEED a detailed syllabus, detailed grading criteria see that I've accepted a paper after class period, they just go bananas. They think that they've been treated unfairly, whereas from my perspective, an hour here or there shouldn't be such a big deal.

Different cognitive styles.
(And yeah, for the sake of being 'fair' to everyone -- especially the people who obsess on turning papers in at the beginning of class, I learned to either take off points, or not accept ANY late papers.)

So what Suderman is alluding to is what educational researchers would call 'cognitive styles'. Just as some students can tolerate loose guidelines and lots of latitude for personal initiative, other students flip out if things aren't very precisely stated and expectations aren't precise, detailed, and clear. Some people just need a lot more structure from the outside. I associate that with conservative politics as a general rule, because that's been my observation.
---------------------------------------------

JohnT: You're not the only one who views government as a huge parasite. And I'm a 'liberal', but I come here for different views to broaden my own. As a 'liberal', I strongly believe that there is a role for government. But I also have come to view current government structures, like most bureaucracies, as outdated and unable to attract the proportion of 'the best and the brightest' that is a key factor in 'reinventing government' so that it works better.

The structure of the legislature as a 'feedback mechanism' for government broke down, beginning in the early 1980s and accelerating through to today -- the 'feedback' came from K-Street lobbyists, and their campaign donations were far more 'informative' than our votes. If that lobbying money could 'buy' what courts ruled was 'free speech', then basically the whole information structure of government became perverted by campaign money funneled through PACs, money-laundered vehicles (a la Abramoff-Rove) and bogus 527s (like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth). I view this as fundamentally delusional; the information going into government was primarily shaped to serve corporate interests -- and some extreme religious views.

That kind of 'information' is vulnerable to manipulation, which is where Suderman comes in. If the information structure is damaged, and if the feedback mechanisms are perverted by private agendas hiding behind bogus PACs and other money vehicles, the whole system begins to go haywire -- slowly at first, but more erratically over time. I think we're now seeing the death throes of a badly damaged system.

As for personal lives, my father was one of 12 children born to his parents.
Of those 12 children, most had families of their own, but they each had 2 - 5 children.
My father grew up in what was essentially 'a community' that was based on kinship ties; my own children growing up in a suburb have had to count on neighbors, school friends, and that's about it.
Demographics have shifted so dramatically that it's not possible to rely on family, yet other structures don't have the 'fail safe' quality that are needed to really feel secure. This is causing a lot of emotional strife, IMHO.

However, if you compare average lifespan of today against 100 years ago, you begin to see that divorce was unusual because people didn't live long enough to get divorced. Many women died of childbirth (including at least one of my great-grandmothers), and many widowers remarried -- bringing children into the second (and third) marriages.
What's new is longer life span, plus far more emotional, social, and economic strains on marriage.

All of which means that there are many 'political' issues that really are cultural.
And that some people have a more difficult time grappling with these changes -- because of their temperament, or their own particular circumstances - than others experience.

What's badly needed, IMHO, are more places where people see the good in one another, even if they happen to disagree on specific political issues.

Last I heard, Lieberman, of his own accord, left the Democratic party, ran against the Democratic party candidate.

He attended the Republican Convention, and was at least vetted as a potential Republican VP candidate.

I don't think it is much of a matter of how the Democratic party treats Lieberman.

Last I checked, nobody called him a terrorist, or said he 'pals around with them', puts out ads that ask 'who is he REALLY?'.

They just say he isn't a Democrat.. which, well, officially, he isn't, by his own choice.

Speaking of RINOs:

Several months ago at a GOP gathering I made the mistake of mentioning that I thought gun manufactures should voluntarily refrain from making cheap, small caliber handguns i.e. 'Saturday Night Specials.' My argument was that I believe that since they have no legitimate purpose (police, military, hunting, target shooting, etc.) there is no reason to make them.

Well!

You would thought that I had proposed that UN troops should invade America, proceed door to door looking for any and all firearms, and execute all gun owners on sight.

So much for internal debate and discussion in the GOP. I have been a Republican since 1984, but because of the above situation I'm officially a socialist, New World Order supporting 'gun-grabber' according to my fellow Republicans.