Australia’s refugee problem has attracted global attention. This from the New York Times.
Sarah Palin: V-agra of the people
|
For an example of just how much Sarah Palin has terrified liberals, look no further than this hysterical piece from The Guardian from Jonathan Freedland. Freedland is one of the reliably right-on types who make up Gruniad’s commentariat, who went early, and hard for Barack Obama — although much of their primary season anti-Clinton rhetoric now looks rather inconvenient as they cheer on the Democrats. In Freedland’s view, should America fail to elect Obama, it will be due to their racism and redneckery, and grounds for ethnic hatred towards Americans, who turned their backs on a candidate who is better than Gore and Kerry combined. Then again, there’s plenty of people talking about the election with their ideologies rather than their brains, and not just amongst chai latte set. There’s a number of commentators in Australia who regard Sarah Palin as a better-dressed version of Pauline Hanson. I mean, she’s conservative and female, right? This is the sort of lazy thinking that says Kevin Rudd is Tony Blair, or that The Hollowmen is a good approximation of modern politics. Hanson’s support was strongly drawn from middle-aged, low-income males — the socio-economic group that did worst out of the economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. Despite being initially preselected as a Liberal, she was a political outsider. Her views were essentially negative — they were about what shouldn’t happen, who should be kept out, who was to blame. And her inarticulacy and lack of education enabled her supporters to strongly identify with her. Sarah Palin is none of those things. She comes from a well-established populist tradition — one shared by Democrats and Republicans, incidentally; she is all too articulate and her supporters are one of the core constituencies of the US political system. Pauline Hanson she ain’t. She’s far more dangerous than the serial electoral failure from Ipswich. On the conservative side, there’s been considerable — and partly confected — outrage that Palin’s family has endured scrutiny and rumour-mongering, particularly regarding the contrast between Palin’s religious fundamentalism and her teenage daughter’s pregnancy. Rich indeed. This is a presidential election and there are no rules — certainly not on the Republican side. Just ask John McCain. It was only eight years ago that his own party was circulating rumours he had fathered a black child. In comparison, Palin has got off lightly. Everyone can play nice once rightwingers stop claiming Obama is a Muslim with terrorist links. The outrage is also rather poorly-balanced by the reaction of conservative men. Tumescent right-wingers the world over, and in Australia, have been wolf-whistling at the hottest governor from the coldest state: “Am I the only bloke who finds something strangely appealing about a woman who is able to hunt and gather her own rabbits?” asked Liberal frontbencher Peter Dutton. “She’s an attractive woman,” Tony Abbott felt obliged to declare, although he also thinks Barack Obama is “handsome” (it’s only a couple of weeks since he declared his love for Peter Costello). “As an immigrant, I’m not saying I came to the United States purely to meet chicks like that,” said the Far Right’s village idiot, Mark Steyn, “but it was certainly high on my list of priorities.” “Palin in fact looks much as Hollywood imagined its first Commander in Chief to be when it cast Geena Davis in the role,” thrilled Steyn wannabe Andrew Bolt. Governor Palin is clearly conservative v-agra. The boys might not find her quite so attractive once they understand where she is coming from ideologically. Many of Palin’s own views require some guesswork, but the sort of Republicans she draws support from do not. She is from the populist end of the GOP, the party of the likes of Pat Buchanan (who declared about her speech “a star is born”), rather than George W. Bush – or for that matter her running mate. These Republicans tend to isolationism, even though they strongly supports the military. They regard the US military as a great career option — it offers blue-collar men and women a reliable, accessible job with good health benefits and opportunities for learning a trade. To be called to fight is a duty that is readily and patriotically accepted, but not for an extended period, and not in a pointless foreign venture like that in Iraq. And hers is a Republicanism that is also protectionist, deeply concerned about the decline in US manufacturing and the rise of China and other workshops of the world. It is also angry about illegal immigration, which much of the Republican party establishment regards as a boon for American businesses and an endless pool of cheap labour. And it is also a party that is genuinely small-government, unlike the mainstream Republicans of the Reagan-Bush era, who have blown the US budget into 12-figure deficits, primarily on defence spending. The neoconservative and big business Republicans, and their supporters in places like Australia, may find that Palin is every bit as much the outsider she claims to be. Who’s hot now? |
|
|
24 Comments
John James, why are all you single issue zealots only worried ever about life as represented by the foetus? When the US goes into Iraq and butchers tens of thousands of innocent civilians, that’s OK, because it is done in the name of your Old Testament God, I assume?
The world has gone to the pack precisely because of its obsession with absolutes - the neo-conservative Christian fundamentalists who have deformed American politics are every bit as bad as the wild-eyed Islamists who murder innocent civilians in the name of their god.
People are perfectly entitled to their private beliefs, but get your religion out of politics.
Thanks Ben. To be fair I have made the point that she is unknown. I have also said that she is a neophyte on the national and international political scene.
After a simply horribly distasteful abreaction following her appointment, she made a breathtaking speech. My characterising her intro as ‘electrifying’ has been in the main the more reasonable international and national commentator’s reaction.
Lastly I have said that “so far” I like what I see. So far she has been sensible and measured. So far she has not demonstrated the extreme views that the rabid left have attributed her.
She is a big gamble by McCain but he clearly need to do something. So far that gamble has paid off.
It is early days but I think Bernard has made a good call, win or lose she has made her mark and as long as she does not prove the foaming mouth left-wing-nutters correct she will be a significant future political leader.
’..she will be the usual non-entity VP..” No-one would reasonably describe the current VP, Dick Cheney, as a non entity, but this comment from the ‘usual suspects’ reveals much about how the Left dismissed this woman initially and continue to do so, while she goes toe to toe with the Democrtas and is currently wiping the floor with them. They just dont get it and unless they start to realise that she represents mainstream ordinary Americans they are going to pay the ultimate political price.
Palin didn’t get where she is by being a wall flower. What she says about national security, about abortion , about the relationship between faith and public life, about raising kids, about government giving people room to move, resonates with ordinary Americans. That she is attractive and articulate are bonuses but the content of her message is what is switching on the American mainstream.
People see a woman who is busy raising a family, looking after her kids, juggling the work- life balance, juggling 10 balls at once, like lots of busy and conscientious parents do (and sometimes dropping one) and they feel that this is a real person, who” walks the walk”.
These postings from Birchall and Denmore tell you so much about the visceral anti Americanism that drives the Left and their willingness to see any regime, no matter how oppressive, prevail, so long as the Americans are defeated.
James, I might be misinterpreting what you said - by substance, do you mean content? Or something else? If you were to argue that the substance is just one part of the content of a speech, I wouldn’t argue. Regards, Ben
Jonathan Freedland’s piece is about as “hysterical” as Bernard Keane’s current effort. Exaggeration does not enhance the value of your analysis, Bernard. Like night following day, we see the obligatory cheap shot at the “chai latte set”. Again, does nothing for the analysis. The reality is that, if McCain is elected, Sarah Palin does not matter at all, she will be the usual non-entity VP unless McCain dies during office. If McCain does die during office, then the world should be fearful. Palin could well accelerate the end times with her faith (aka irrational belief) driving views such as the Iraq invasion was and is “righteous”, preemptive warfare is fine, and it may be necessary to fight a war against Russia. Such thoughtless and ignorant insouciance does not befit a possible President of the United States.
Good article from Bernard Keane. We simply do not yet know her yet but what I see so far I like. She has electrified people and the election. She is clearly a leader with great potential but she is a neophyte to national and international politics
I suspect that she does not have a deep abiding political philosophy but she is populist and pragmatic. She is deeply christian and christian values are a wonderfully successful personal code to live by.
I agree with Bernard, Jonathon Friedland and to be fair many other left wing prognosticators look silly but without a doubt they fully deserve it.
It is salient that little of her extraordinarily explosive impact on the US national and international scene would have been possible without the the snide, sneering and offensively patronising left wing intelligentsia’s abreaction to McCain ‘s brave and possibly inspired gamble.
Frank Birchall “objective reality that can be demonstrated to others” is KNOWLEDGE and not a belief.
Belief could reasonably be defined as an acceptance of the existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof or direct experience.
You are quite correct in asserting that faith “does not meet the test of rational belief”. It is not meant to. That does not mean that it is an “irrational belief”. As I clearly pointed out and as you have clearly chosen to ignore (probably because it suits your dishonest purpose), faith is not a belief system at all.
Again in your next paragraph you continue your dishonesty by implying that I have said that atheists are disrespectful to their fellow man. You misrepresent me and I can only assume, in the absence of stupidity, willfully. What I said, of course, is that any individual (in this case you Frank Birchall), who chooses to label a majority of their fellow man as “irrational” because they have faith in God, does indeed demonstrate “no respect for his fellow man”
Your dishonesty becomes even sillier in your third paragraph. I like 99.99% of people have a genuine interest in “the future of humanity and peace” (and I would naturally resent any implicit arrogant tosser asserting that I do not).
Sarah Pailin has not caused me to be “fearful” of anything she has said so far and if you are referring to ABC’s Charlie Gibson interview with Pailin, there is nothing that she said that is significantly different from Obama’s foreign policy on Russia nor indeed McCain’s . You are not “questioning” Sarah Pailin, Frank Birchall, you are smearing her. As I wrote before and here repeat your assertion that we have cause to be fearful of Sarah Pailin without an iota of supporting evidence could reasonably be interpreted as “visceral anti-Americanism”.
Your last paragraph continues your slipperiness. JJ ‘s counter did not in any way “confirm the point” that you made. The assertion is idiotic.
Your whole post is dishonest
Never mind, just watch the Doogie Howser MD character in the bottom right hand corner with the American Express advert and consume, be silent, and die.
Hi JamesK,
Is this the one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-rnc-conventio_n_123703.html ?
I’m 3 minutes and 10 seconds into it, and it’s not doing it for me. She’s just told me that American “troops in Iraq … have now brought victory within sight”. Again?
There’s a shorter version of it at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om2gNE48gDI
A very nice attack on Obama at 1:04 “I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience…” It went on a bit long for my tastes, but again, the audience couldn’t get enough of it. Mind you, they also cheered when she said that the country is “so vulnerable that one storm in the gulf of mexico causes us to draw on the strategic oil reserves.”
The crowd also cheered when she backed a wide range of alternative energy sources, which was not something I expected.
That seems to be about it. Good when attacking Obama. No real stumbles, and a few nice lines. Used the word America a lot.
I’m realise I’m not the target audience, but, I don’t get it.
“The boys might not find her qiute so attractive…” Interestingly the demographic in which Sarah seems to be making significant inroads for the GOP is amongst white women. For the first time polling suggests the McCain/Palin ticket is ahead amongst this core constituency and this coincides with the turnaround in the polling overall for the Republicans.
Women. by nature, tend to focus on the more personal aspects of a candidate, how do they relate to people, how approachable are they and how well would they understand the challenges of middle America trying to be good parents and raise a family.
The “irresolvable culture wars” are perfectly resolvable. If Obama loses, and this election is his to lose, the Left liberals with their ‘if it feels good, do it’, “its my choice’ “this universe is a meaningless tragedy” rhetoric will be in complete disarray. The first liberal citadel to fall is the abortion citadel, that terrible testimony to liberal scepticism and abuse of human rights. And fall it will! The Lord of Hosts does not lose battles.
John James says “The Lord of Hosts will win”.
Spare me the god bothering mate. More lives have been lost in the history of humanity in the name of God than in the name of humanism.
Back on your bike reverend.
Bernard Keane sees an “hysterical” tone in Jonathon Friedland’s piece in The Guardian about the implications for America’s relationship with the rest of the world should the McCain-Palin ticket get up in November.
I don’t think it’s hysterical at all. Friedland is on the money. If the Republicans defy the odds and steal this election it will confirm America’s sad decline into interminable and irresolvable culture wars and the capture of its body politic by religious fundamentalism and extremist right wing ideology.
It is breath-taking to see the masterful spindoctors in the Republican Party, playing a classic pea and thimble trick, successfuly deflecting a gullible electorate’s attention from the biggest foreign policy stuff-up in modern history to focus instead on the exhausted issues of abortion, single sex marriage, creationism and all the other stalking horses of the ‘Christianists’.
The irony is that America, a country founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, is now descending into a medieval babarism as it exhausts itself fighting an unending cultural civil war between blue and red states. It is depressing to see a virtually bankrupt America, that once great bastion of economic strength, use taxpayers money to bail out speculators and keep its Chinese and Russian creditors at bay.
Obama represents their last chance to reconnect with their true ideals and re-engage with the world. If they turn their backs on him and side with the waxen McCain and the wilfuly ignorant Palin, American is doomed. And so might be the rest of us.
Of course, atheism in politics, with all its intellectual and moral bankruptcy, is fine. Looking at the calibre of the Left I must say they go well together.
Ben. I’ll assume that you are genuine in your post. By the way please do not assume that I am an apologist for Sarah Palin….I am not. However I abhor the extreme and dishonest reaction to her. There could be many telling criticisms of her nomination( some that I have nominated above) but few honest ones were made……….
Sarah Palin:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html
B.O.:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/19/bin_laden_death_penalty.php
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_also_cites_NATO_membership_for_Georgia.html
Now….what don’t you get? Or do you want to do a Frank Birchall and keep writing and writing, ignoring every accurate criticism and debating imaginary ones so long as it gives the impression that you have not failed miserably?
Thanks Ben. The substance of the speech is uninspiring, I agree. The speech as given, however, electrified millions.
I would not say I was electrified but I was greatly impressed. I think, short of her f-cking up badly, which is still a distinct possibility (and devoutly prayed for by Obama supporters), she will be a ‘player’ from now on, win or lose in November.
I still think Obama should win.
The regretable aspect to all of this is that we still do not know Obama and we really have little idea how he will govern. That is an indictment of the media.
The MSM has not been even-handed in its reporting since they turned against Hilary.
The treatment dished out to Palin starkly demonstrated the prejudice in the media, with slanderous nonsense from internet blogs repeated in the front pages of the NY Times, Washington Post and our own SMH and repeated in the Age!
The media has failed to do its job on Obama and in the end that is bad for Obama himself if he is even half as good as suggested.
Lastly, possibly because we know so little, the best thing going for Obama is not intrinsic to the man himself.
If Obama wins the view from within and from without of the US will change. It would be a seismic shift in perception for the good. It will be simply extraordinary. But he must then be a good President but with the present fawning media….how could we know?
’..in the name of humanism..” A humanism that watches idly while the unborn, innocent and the helpless, are butchered in the name of “freedom” . And if you’re going to quote me at least do it accurately.
Halleluiah. Mr Denmore. Spot on.
And John James, Palin hasn’t been going toe to toe with the Democrats - she hasn’t been going anywhere, near anybody. She has been sequestered to study and has emerged to read her script.
Meanwhile the machine has been scripting the character; moose, lipstick, hockey. Colour, not substance.
Maybe she really is an outsider, certainly she is an extremist. What she thinks? Who knows. All we’re being told is what she believes. Maybe she’s going to do her thinking with her gut, like George. And what little information has emerged about her indicates that like George, she too will see her presidential rights as unlimited, should she ever become president. Look out librarians!
JamesK, what is about her that you like?
You wrote “what I see so far I like. She has electrified people and the election. She is clearly a leader with great potential but she is a neophyte to national and international politics. I suspect that she does not have a deep abiding political philosophy but she is populist and pragmatic. She is deeply christian and christian values are a wonderfully successful personal code to live by.”
Apologies for quoting at such length, but so much of that seems negative, not positive. I agree that people have been energised by her - but I don’t see why?
Hi James,
Thanks for checking this page and responding to my comment. I’m not here to criticise her nor praise her. I’m here to try to understand why people are so moved by her.
Maybe that’s trying describe the indescribable.
On the other hand, maybe this isn’t about her - maybe it’s about us, me and you. We each react not to how well the speech was given, but to how well it pushes our buttons.
Let me pick one example: “always proud of America”. I suspect you would have liked it? It unnerves me. I can explain why if you like, but that’s not really the point.
Most of what she said was pretty generic, right wing motherhood stuff : taxes are bad, our enemies are evil, we are good. (Admittedly, two of those three beliefs are held by the left as well.)
Maybe, tell me what you think here, maybe what is happening is this. She’s reiterated what it is to be right wing. If you are, you’ll like that, because you’ll see yourself in what she says she supports. And when other people cheer her for saying it, they’re cheering you, so you like her even more, and you cheer.
And if you’re left wing, the opposite occurs. At least, examining my own first reaction to here, I think that was my first reaction - when I heard she believes something I don’t, I thought less of her. And when she said something with which I agreed, the bit about a “a servant’s heart” for example, my natural inclination was to see it as insincere or lacking self-awareness.
It’s not really her, it’s what she represents. Which is where it gets tricky. What makes a leader is having followers. If the left can find examples where she doesn’t always live up to her beliefs, it doesn’t matter, so long as she genuinely believes.
Maybe people like her because she believes what they believe?
Well. I fear I’ve just done what you accuse poor Frank of doing: keep writing and writing and fail miserably to understand.
Help me here.
Why do you like her?
Regards, Ben
Faith is not an “irrational belief” Frank Birchall except for an atheist human with no respect for his fellow man and a willingness to be condescending to others who do not share his BELIEF that there is no God. Faith is not easily defined but it constitutes an experiential trust or direct knowing of the truth of God.
You also make the wild assertion that “If McCain does die during office, then the world should be fearful” this does not in any way show open-mindedness which would be the hallmark of any genuine “questioning” of “Palin’s worth as a possible future President” but it could reasonably be interpreted as “visceral anti-Americanism”.
Lastly your assertion that JJ’s response confirms the point you made previously is just patently idiotic.
JamesK, you exhibit that trait labelled by psychologists as “perpetrator as victim”. That is, while using demeaning and rude language yourself, you accuse me of ‘having no respect for his fellow man’ because I used the word ‘irrational’ (meaning ‘without reason’) to describe religious belief. I respect the right of persons to hold such beliefs but I maintain those beliefs are “irrational”. I also mean no disrespect to them in saying so. It’s a specific way of saying ‘I think your views are wrong’.
Speaking of ‘dishonesty’, you did not say ‘any individual’, you actually said ‘an atheist human’. As you were apparently referring to me, I refer you to the first paragraph above.
I suggest you consult some dictionaries to see the meanings of “belief” and “knowledge”. In short, belief has a number of meanings including knowledge. Moreover, contrary to your assertion (‘faith is not a belief system at all’), my Oxford dictionary cites one of the meanings of “faith” as “belief in religious doctrines …” That sounds like a ‘belief system’ to me. Your logic about ‘irrational’ is confused: you say that faith ‘does not meet the test of rational belief’. It follows therefore that faith is not rational (or it is non-rational). Non-rational belief equals “irrational belief”.
I relied on media reports about what Palin said in the ABC interview and these highlighted the items on which I based the comment about being ‘fearful’. I have been fearful about what George W. Bush has gotten the world into and her foreign policy views are very supportive of Bush. If you can give me a link to Obama’s statements that are not ‘significantly’ different from Palin’s on pre-emptive strikes and Iraq, I’d appreciate it. If his statements are not significantly different, I would express the same concern.
Finally, if you can’t understand the logic of my ‘non-entity VP argument’, that’s your problem – fact is you have been unable to explain the reasons for considering it “patently idiotic”.
Hi James, I’m more confused, not less. If it wasn’t the content that wowed people, was it the delivery? Regards, Ben
Good to see John back on the case — shame about the OCD. You confirm the point I made, John, as Dick Cheney is certainly not “the usual non-entity VP”. He is unusual and Sarah Palin is most unlikely to have anything like the political clout that Cheney (regrettably) has. John, please explain why questioning Palin’s worth as a possible future President implies “visceral anti-Americanism’. Many people in the US are doing exactly the same thing. It’s called free speech. John’s moving on to rant about “any regime” prevailing “so long as the Americans are defeated” displays nothing more than obsessiveness and confusion.
JamesK, rational belief is based on evidence and the exercise of reason. It relies on objective reality that can be demonstrated to others. An individual’s “experiential trust” or “direct knowing of the truth of God” is a subjective concept that does not meet the test of rational belief. Individuals may have all kinds of subjective experiences that can result in all kinds of faith or irrational belief. I’m sure many, many people on this planet would not want a US president to be making life or death decisions about going to war driven by that person’s “knowing of the truth of God”, whichever and whoever’s God that may be.
JamesK, please explain why atheism implies “no respect for his fellow man”. That assertion is simply disrespectful and false.
At this point, one can only base an assessment of Palin’s intentions on what she says. On this basis, any person with concern for the future of humanity and peace should be fearful. How is that a “wild assertion” displaying “visceral anti-Americanism”, JamesK?
On the point about Vice Presidents, history shows that VPs almost always have had little or nothing to do with important decision-making. That is the “usual” pattern. Dick Cheney clearly has had a lot to do with important decisions. Therefore he is not “usual’. Cheney is a VP with immense experience in government and business. Sarah Palin would not be. Therefore it is very likely that her role as VP would revert to the norm or the “usual” which is to be a non-entity in terms of power and influence. JamesK, please explain how that reasoning is “patently idiotic”.