Had been sent a link elsewhere by an old friend to a piece on how Palin’s move signaled her own personal “Declaration of Independence“:

Sarah Palin sounded just like us! We, the people, understood every single word she said. This is the reason she is wildly popular in the first place. She IS one of us!

Identity politics, right there.

My problem with Palin - one of my many - is, just what does she hope to accomplish via this “independence?” Not just in terms of bucking the existing system; but if she were successful, what then? What does she represent? People seem to think her authentic; but authentically what?

On her Facebook posting she wrote of her goal to “advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint.”

So let’s parse that.

1. Less government intervention - in the post-crash era, she’s talking not just about fewer gun laws, for instance, but also insisting that we not enact new regulations on, say, AIG or Goldman Sachs.

2. “Greater energy independence” -  would be fine if I thought she had something besides fossil fuels in mind. I’m pretty sure she doesn’t.

3. “Stronger national security” - coming from someone so obviously in the mold of Bush, this almost certainly means more war in the Mideast; war with Iran.

4. Finally, fiscal restraint - I agree with this in theory. But is she talking, for instance, reining in agricultural subsidies to multi-national corporations? Or is she talking about kicking the “undeserving” off welfare, and who gets to decide who is “undeserving” and who isn’t?

I get that ordinary Americans may be fed up with the kingmaking system, though those complaining the loudest about “dirty tricks” are, somehow, fans of Karl Rove. Which shows that they don’t really dislike “the system” - everything’s fine when they’re dishing it out; it’s only when they’re on the receiving end that life is so unfair.

Again, this is identity politics.

But just because one politician may have been the victim of that system - as John Kerry was in 2004, let’s remember - does not mean that that politicians’ ideas are good. Sarah Palin’s appeal is populist, but I have been fascinated by and studied populism. Populism is almost always knee-jerk, can be racist or nativist or jingoist, etc.

It is not always synonym for “wise” - though of course the populists themselves greatly resent bringing this up. It’s what “the people” want and “the people” are always right by virtue of the fact that they are “the people!”

Uh, no.

First, I reject the assertion that Palin’s backers/conservatives in general represent a numerically greater percentage of the population. “The people” in this case represent some people - but if they represented most people, Palin would already be vice president.

Second, “the people” in this case are the very people who elected George W. Bush. “The people” - these people - howled for war with Iraq. “The people” want to scrap environmental regulations, “the people” want to remove all restraints from business and finance and somehow trust the likes of Goldman to act in the interests of “the people.” And when that doesn’t happen, “the people” will blame not themselves - but the government. As they have.

“The people” maybe be angry. What they don’t understand is that there are millions who are angry at them. Who see that “the people” got us into this damned mess in the first place - and voted against Palin for it.