Ross Douthat’s defense of Palin in the NYT has been making the rounds, and I have to say that I don’t disagree with certain aspects of it:
One hopes that was intentional. A Sarah Palin who stepped down for the sake of her family and her media-swarmed state deserves sympathy even from the millions of Americans who despise her. A Sarah Palin who resigned in the delusional belief that it would give her a better shot at the presidency in 2012 warrants no such kindness.
It’s the next graf where we veer into trouble:
Either way, though, her 10 months on the national stage have been a dispiriting period for American democracy. …
<snip>
Palin’s popularity has as much to do with class as it does with ideology. In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard.
This ideal has had a tough 10 months. It’s been tarnished by Palin herself, obviously. With her missteps, scandals, dreadful interviews and self-pitying monologues, she’s botched an essential democratic role — the ordinary citizen who takes on the elites, the up-by-your-bootstraps role embodied by politicians from Andrew Jackson down to Harry Truman. …
<snip>
Sarah Palin is beloved by millions because her rise suggested, however temporarily, that the old American aphorism about how anyone can grow up to be president might actually be true.
But her unhappy sojourn on the national stage has had a different moral: Don’t even think about it.
A few notes.
If it was actually about “class,” Palin would have a lot more black and Latino followers.
It is, rather, about a certain subset of class - the white middle class, which is faltering and feels alienated.
But why is the white middle class alienated?
Is it because the “elite” look down upon them? Is it this which has caused the steady erosion of their standard of living?
Or is it because the deindustrialization of America has created a situation whereby people who might previously have found high-wage industrial employment are now limited to Wal-Mart jobs - with the provision that, well, all you gotta do is go back to school and get an education education education, and then we can all be systems analysts!
And if we can bring ourselves to admit that maybe - maybe - this second situation has something to do with the erosion of this white middle class’s buying power, and thus its standing in society - the next question must be: How would Palin actually change this?
And if the answer is that the policies she favors wouldn’t actually change this - then all she is is a feel-good symbol that will actually change nothing.
If abortion were outlawed, would the paychecks of average Americans increase? If the “liberals” were put down, would the erosion in the middle-class standard of living, which has contributed to the erosion of families, be reversed?
The liberals were put down during the early part of this decade, weren’t they?
Other than making her fans feel better about themselves and their own prospects, what tangible improvement in their lives do the policies backed by Sarah Palin represent?
The argument against Palin, or my core argument against Palin, has always been that the presidency of the United States, ostensibly the most important and thus complex job in the world, cannot and should not be filled by the Guy at the Backyard Barbecue. I understand that Jackson and Truman may have represented that - but theirs was a vastly different America. Jackson’s was an America still on the rise, largely uninvolved in international affairs and certainly in no position to dictate them; that aspect of the modern presidency simply didn’t exist. As for Truman, he assumed office at the end of what arguably was the most important/influential presidency in American history. Whereas one of the most unsuccessful presidencies in modern history has just concluded.
This was my core problem with the Bush presidency - people liked him, in part, because he reminded them of the Guy at the Backyard Barbecue. I don’t want the Guy at the Backyard Barbecue running my country, making economic and military decisions that are going to affect the entire globe.
Maybe you do. Maybe you think his decisions will be more in tune with what you want. And maybe you think the President of the United States ought to be someone in tune with what you want, and will give it to you. But that gets us back to: What is it you want?
Policies that will create good-paying jobs that don’t require a degree from Harvard or Yale? Or do you want those illegals kicked out of the country right now?
Affordable health care that won’t bankrupt your family? Or is your greatest desire to stick it to those elites who look down on you?
And after they get stuck - what then?
