Sarah Palin may appear an earthy cookie-baker, but the cutesy provincialism neither advances nor represents conservatism. Rather than garnering public trust, the hockey mom routine has made her primetime laughingstock.
The winks, insipid buzzphrases (“You betcha!”), and muddled policy perscriptions show Palin to be fatally flawed and not of, for, or by the real right.
Cursory review of her record may suggest otherwise. As governor of Alaska, Palin sold the gubernatorial jet on eBay. She vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars in the budget for fiscal year 2009. She talks a decent game about the constitution, opposes abortion in all cases, and defends the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.
Look deeper, however, and inconsistencies emerge.
Palin calls herself a “pro-life feminist.” A meaningless term: By denying women control over their own reproductive and mental health, she diminishes their status as equal actors.
While running for governor, she vowed clean government, and pretended that most of her campaign was financed by small donors. In reality, over half of all contributions were in excess of $500, half of the individual and a quarter of the committee limits.
Once in office, she regularly mixed the personal and the political, going so far as to arrange the firing of her ex-brother-in-law from the state police, a move later condemned by a formal ethics investigation. As for personal integrity, she has lied repeatedly to the public: Recall her obfuscation on the matter of the “Bridge the Nowhere.”
Palin makes remarks or gestures so strange that even her own party members recoil in dismay. Recently, in fine neocon fashion, she commented that a war with Iran would improve Obama’s popularity, saying that he should “play the war card.” Such thoughts reveal her manipulative qualities. During a Q&A session at a tea party gathering, she had written on her left palm: Energy, Tax Cuts, Lifting America’s Spirits. She later called these cribnotes the GOP’s simple, core values. If they are so simple, why write them on the hand? There is no shame in talking points. But why try to hide it? There’s no rhyme or reason to Palin’s habit of deception.
Palin obviously is not a logical thinker, but is she even a friend of small government philosophy? Economically, she nearly fits the bill, advocating controlled spending, open markets, and low taxes. As for privitization, it’s yea for healthcare but nay for social security. But when it comes to non-fiscal issues, Palin stands for state coercion and against the ability of people to shape their own lives. From gay marriage to drug use to sex ed, she prefers that morality be dictated by government.
She frames same-sex marriage as an attack on family but also freedom, as if the ability to engage as an adult in consensual relations with whomever you wish is a freedom not worth considering. For someone who wants intelligent design taught alongside evolution, Palin ought not be so dismissive of the possibility of pairing, saying, contraception awareness with abstinence education. And despite the myriad violations of basic freedoms associated with the war on marijuana, and despite the herb’s safety, she refuses to entertain legalization, potential tax benefits be damned. While these issues may seem trivial next to the healthcare battle, we must remember what Ronald Reagan said: The true heart of conservatism is libertarianism.
Conservatives, especially conservative women, should not care for befuddled, tongue-tied Sarah Palin. She has neither the strength of personality nor the strength of philosophy to lead our nation.
Ms. Addison clearly did not read the State of Alaska Personnel Board’s Independent Counsel report regarding “Troopergate.” In fact, the independent counsel explicitly states that there is no probable cause to believe that Governor Palin violated the state’s Ethics Act. The link to the Monegan report is here: http://doa.alaska.gov/dop/fileadmin/PersonnelBoardReports/MoneganComplaint.pdf
As for same-sex couples, unlike some public officials, Ms. Palin does not confuse her personal preferences for public policy. When I was living Alaska while she was governor, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a ruling about the State’s providing benefits to same-sex couples on an equal basis as heterosexual couples, saying that the State must do this. Governor Palin ordered the administration to ensure that they complied with the Court’s ruling, and she took quite a bit of heat from conservatives in Alaska for being quick to respond to the Court’s ruling and for complying without protest. She describes the episode in her “Going Rogue” autobiography, and I recall the way she describes it the same way according to Alaska news reports. She told her conservative supporters that if they wished the State of Alaska to stop this policy, they would have to get their legislative representatives to do something about it but that her job was to implement the law. Since the Court had ruled, she was implementing. And that is precisely how the system is supposed to work. The people vote; their legislators legislate; executives implement; courts rule on the legislation, and everybody adjusts accordingly with dissent once again thrown over to the people’s representatives to make any changes. If legislators don’t respond, there’s the next vote, and at a certain point, people need to realize that their point of view isn’t shared by enough people to make legislators change things.
Furthermore, I’m very tired of the Palin stereotype, and as a Brown alum with a degree in IR, it pains me that so many in academia used the Charlie Gibson interview to set the course of the stereotype. Palin’s responses to Charles Gibson about the Bush Doctrine were spot on, especially during a campaign. Head for the Rock, and study the back issues of Foreign Affairs following the alleged enunciation of the Bush Doctrine. You’ll find in a number of articles that the Bush Doctrine is whatever the author wants it to be (so that they could point out – in esoteric tones – how idiotic Bush was). Remember the transcript of the interview – Q: “What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?” (undefined by Gibson, and as I said, articles written on the subject include virtually nothing to everything-but-the-kitchen-sink as part of the “Bush Doctrine”). A: “In what respect?” (In other words, which “Bush Doctrine” are you talking about? The one which is “pre-emptive strike/war”, the one which is that plus “either you’re with us or against us”, etc.) Q: “Well, to what do you attribute it?” A: “His world-view.” And that last – yeah, given how much criticism of the “Bush Doctrine” there was and is, regardless of definition, it must clearly be unique! And that unique quality can only come from one place: George Bush’s world-view which is based on his experience of life and humanity. Regardless of anything you may be taught in your classes, the “Bush Doctrine” is a nebulous creature according to the articles I’ve read in Foreign Affairs and generally in op-ed pieces.
As for Palin’s “folksy” manner . . . well, children, not everyone feels the need to impress people by pseudo-intellectualism. The fact that Palin speaks like most Americans and refuses to change that to suit the elite preference for imagining themselves smarter than their fellow citizens (never confuse intelligence with education – they are two separate and distinct creatures) is not a drawback. Funny how your average citizen understands her quite clearly – it is only the “educated” who cannot.
Reply
I’m new on here, I hit upon this website I find It pretty helpful and its helped me out a lot. I will be able to contribute & aid other users like it has helped me.
Reply