Uh Oh, maybe we are too.
Posted on 12/30/2008 8:07:53 AM PST by IrishMike
What made the Democrats hate Sarah Palin may be the key to future Republican success.
My recent participation in several Conservative on-line networks has led me to some interesting questions regarding the future of American politics, along with what has happened to the Republican Party and why. Of particular interest to some of the people I have contacted has been the question of why the Left hates Sarah Palin so much. Others were more focused on possibilities for the future and were concentrating on organizing within the Party. After some consideration of a number of issues, it occurred to me that several may be linked, and that there might be a solution to more than one question found in examining some of what we can see, post-election. Here then, are some thoughts related to my observations and what they might mean for the future.
When people wanted to know why the political left hated Sarah Palin so profoundly it me to examine carefully who Governor Palin was, or what she did that could lead to such a reaction. I believe that a significant part of the answer lies with a political philosophy known as populism. A reasonable definition of populism is a political movement by a large number of common people against a set of elites (or perhaps elitists) who deprive them of the rights, values and prosperity that they would and should enjoy under the doctrine of popular sovereignty. It has, in general, become identified with any political movement that seeks to overturn a socio/political status quo because that status quo does not serve the best interests of the people and their identification with the nation.
When I first became acquainted with Sarah Palin I was convinced thatshe could be identified as a Conservative Populist; a somewhat new itemon the political scene because populism has been identified for so longas the domain of the political left. Columnist Peggy Noonan apparentlyagrees with my identification but does not like Palin's approach to politics; perhaps because Noonan is out of touch with the Americanmainstream. I have been watching Noonan in the Wall Street Journal,for some time now, and am convinced that she has all but abandoned herconservative roots to surrender to big government as the wave of thefuture, and the good of the nation be damned.
Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee has also been identified as a Conservative Populist in, for example, The Weekly Standard where he was called the only conservative who was speaking to the needs of the lower middle class. While no one should seriously dispute this it should be noted that Huckabee was identified in this role in January 2008, early in the election year.
What Palin and Huckabee faced, was that unfortunate fact that the Democrats had grabbed hold of populism with both hands and weren’t about to let go. Their brand of populism differed from Huckabee and Palin’s because they approached the voters with promises of handouts and guarantees of security in exchange for power. This is a strain of false populism, based on further elevating a group of elites and elitists that differed from the conservative approach which, according to The Weekly Standard sought to promote a middle class that was “industrious and striving, family-oriented, culturally conservative, religious, and patriotic.” It was exactly the opposite of what the Democrats wanted; dependency, little or no regard for the family, for traditional religion or for true patriotism as was defined by men and women who backed the war effort from 1942 through 1945.
Sarah Palin was, at least in part, an antidote to the Democrat stranglehold on populist rhetoric, and Democrat Party operatives recognized that. They had to discredit her and render her ineffective as quickly as possible or she might have stolen the election. In many respects, this anti-Palin campaign manifested in the minds of many of her supporters as “hate,” and given the attitude that many hard left Democrats have demonstrated during the last quarter century; that anyone who does not share their beliefs has no legitimate right to be heard, this belief is reasonable. Also, the fact that Sarah Palin manifested as an antidote to the Democrats’ false populism, as a someone who can capture a significant following leads us to an important conclusion; that there is a market for Conservative Populism in the American Electorate, if it has the right candidate to follow.
What should also be clear is that Sarah Palin has provided Republicans and Conservatives with a roadmap. It is a roadmap that was available previously, but which the party failed to follow. It was a failure of leadership and of statesmanship, wherein the Party moved left, while failing to meaningfully address the genuine needs of the people. Instead of achieving real results they threw money around, and likely created additional problems for the future when the bills for the additional spending eventually come due. Essentially, Republicans allowed the Democrats to define the problem and the method for solving it and ended up acting like Democrat elitists. It was a no-win situation no matter how you looked at it because true conservatives would not accept this kind of behavior.
Conservative populism or true populism requires several things that many politicians are unwilling to do; they must remove unnecessary cabinet positions, deconstruct useless government departments and restore greater control to the individual citizens and to the states. They must stop incessant spending, and come to realize that there must be no such thing as an “entitlement” under the law. All of this could make a tremendous difference, but it takes statesmanship and real leadership to do it. These are qualities that are sadly lacking in most Republican politicians today. Instead of giving the people a real choice, and real differences in policy, they give voters a choice between a real Democrat and a Peggy Noonan Republican who is better defined as a Democrat pretending to be something else.
One of the most important aspects of what makes Sarah Palin different is the fact that she is not part of the traditional Eastern college, big money, Washington insider school of politics. It is likely that after two Bush family members who both fit this mold, along with John McCain who seems more at home on the Left side of the aisle than on the Right, the Republican mainstream is looking for something else. That something else appears to be someone who is from the same background they are; someone who has both feet grounded in the real world, instead of the world of elites, big money and an “inside the beltway” mentality.
In the wake of the 2008 election Conservative commentator Tammy Bruce has credited the poor Republican showing to Conservatives staying home instead of voting for John McCain. This is probably not a baseless claim. Democrats will generally vote for their candidate, regardless of circumstances. Conservatives and many Republicans will not. Despite statements by members of the talk radio crowd that John McCain had genuine conservative credentials, many people I spoke with here in the Houston area as well as those I correspond with around the nation disagreed. One of the many criticisms I heard repeatedly was that McCain was out of touch with the voters he expected to elect him. These same people were frequently of exactly the opposite opinion with respect to Palin. They saw her as someone they could trust, rather than someone likely to double-cross them.
So where does this lead us? It should lead us to the conclusion that victory in the future will most likely come by returning to the roots of the party; to middle America, and to what middle Americans want and need, instead of promising them the same things that the opposition does. It should be clear by now what they want; real differences and a real break with the do-nothing past. Senator Obama promised “change” which meant more of the same old liberal policies. Republicans can make real change by doing something different and by promoting candidates who are not insiders. It will take real efforts to do this, and it will require a shake up of the power structure that is doing its best to avoid one. This will not be easy, but it is likely the only way to restore America to what it was and pave the way for what it can and should be.
I’m hoping that she establishes a PAC to raise money for 2010 races, mobilizes her volunteer forces, and campaigns in the lower 48 in 2010. If she does that the GOP could make a substantial comeback.
If the GOP wants to win, throw Wall Street and Corporate America under the bus, and the Reagan Democrats will come back. Those two entities have destroyed economic stability and have done more damage to the GOP politically. I know some freepers will remind me of the subprime mortgages, Fanni and Freddie Mac, but our financial system could survive the bad mortgages because it represented no more than 13 percent of all the mortgages in the US. Wall Street decided to use exotic leveraging tools to invest and securitize these mortgage notes at a ratio of 1 for 40. The government never told Wall Street to do that, Wall Street schemers took advantage of a SEC loophole and assumed real estate prices will never fall. Result banks and insurance companies profits in traditional products were totally wiped out by the losses in these exotic derivative and leveraging schemes. Bankers, financiers and corporate CEO are one of the most hated figures on main street for what they did to this country. Why is the GOP still allied with them, unless they feel money is more important than political survival. When GOP advocates free trade and free markets, to the average main street guy it means let corporate America and Wall Street decide what is good for America which resulted in trade deficit, job off shoring, abuse of H-1B guest worker program, advocate for illegal immigration amnesty, lobbying against enforcement of immigration laws, political correctness, suppression of US nationalism in workplace, financial meltdown, hedge fund ponzi schemes, bubble after bubble with average Americans taking hits on their investment portfolio and 401k plan. Today Wall Street have hijacked Washington DC and both party decided that banks and insurance companies are too big to fail but the rest of us are too small to save. As the economy enters DEPRESSION, politics will be about the common man (main street) versus Wall Street who controls to two political parties and have blackmailed our country with social chaos unless the taxpayers (main street) helps Wall Street recoup their losses vis taxpayer bailout.
Populism no longer has a usable definition. That’s why poor writers will resort to its usage so they can apply their own loaded definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
It is just not MSM which hates Palin. I run into people all the time and who turn livid at the mention of Sarah Palin. I don’t understand the venom. She was never involved in Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky affair etc. Yet people on the left and even middle hate Sarah Palin like we in GOP have a thing about Hillary.
The Left does not like conservativism. Especially a conservativism that believes in a moral standard, let alone one that acknowledges God.
If you are willing to tow the line that homosexuality is normal, same sex marriage is identical to the traditional binary pair of 2 people of opposite sex, abortion as a sacrament, er necessary “not quite evil”, etc. etc. you are on your way to acceptance by the Left. Because you’ve already adopted their positions.
McCain was not favored by crossover Democrats because he spoke their language. They considered him the most friendly advisary IF he happened to win. In the end, the Democrats for McCain, who’d been staffing his campaign since 2006, went on to work for the Obama campaign after McCain got the GOP nomination, their job was done. It wasn’t the nomination of Sarah Palin that made them jump ship, they ran interference against a more conservative candidate securing the GOP presidential nomination. That was IT.
They don’t like us. They didn’t like Nixon either. Long before Watergate they despised him for opposing Communism.
Obama didn’t win on ideas. There were no specifics. McCain’s “victory” was sold by the Democrats as another 4 years of Bush. In the end, Obama’s administration IS another 4 years of Clinton figures. This is what CHANGE looks like?
He was marketed like Pepsi with a logo, a portrait, and a name all in caps OBAMA(TM).
He’s Warholian. His 15 minutes of fame will expire before his term does.
The Left had to hold their tongue on the Clintons for 16 years. It wasn’t until Hillary posed a threat against Obama’s candidacy that Democrats started to trash talk the Clintons.
And it was the media that sat on the Edwards adultery scandal all last year while he was talking up his wife’s cancer. Had to keep him viable to split the primary vote.
Media sat on their hands on the Blago scandal. The Chicago paper knew in October but they held their tongue. When it was clear that some Democrat was about to hand over money for a Senate seat, they spilled the beans ruining the investigation. There was no pressing need except to protect the party.
So since they never got to vent at Bill and Hill (and they aren’t trashing Obama for using a Clinton Cabinet and staff) they had to find a scapegoat, Sarah Palin. By golly.
It does prove the MSM is doing a great disinformation job.
Psst, those Google search suggestions are edited by staffers...
Google washes search results
The Register ^ | 012/14/2008 | andrew orlowski
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2148544/posts
Google this week admitted that its staff will pick and choose what appears in its search results. It’s a historic statement - and nobody has yet grasped its significance.
Not so very long ago, Google disclaimed responsibility for its search results by explaining that these were chosen by a computer algorithm. The disclaimer lives on at Google News, where we are assured that: The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.
Google cranks up the Consensus Engine
The Register ^ | 12/12/2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2148523/posts
Not so very long ago, Google disclaimed responsibility for its search results by explaining that these were chosen by a computer algorithm. The disclaimer lives on at Google News, where we are assured that:
The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. A few years ago, Google’s apparently unimpeachable objectivity got some people very excited, and technology utopians began to herald Google as the conduit for a new form of democracy.
*SNIP*
It wasn’t surprising, then, that when five years ago I described how a small, self-selected number of people could rig Google’s search results, the reaction from the people doing the rigging was violently antagonistic. Who lifted that rock? they cried.
But what was once Googlewashing by a select few now has Google’s active participation.
Every election is historic. And not just because it becomes “landmark” (first draft dodger, first Vietnam Vet, first African/American, first woman, first POW...).
They become historic because each president will chart a different course. It BECOMES history.
But YES, the talking point was that the election of Obama was “historic” (in a way that electing McCain/Palin would NOT have been historic) and that WITH this election, something formerly unattainable was NOW possible. Except it was always possible.
I could always win the lottery too. Of course I could always NOT win the lottery as well. But it would be historic in my life if I did, because then I would become an instant millionaire.
The article is okay but a bit of a rehash over ground already covered by many others.
I think we need to move past why the left/dems/rinos/NYTimes people hate her. Old news.
Let us revel in their hatred and wear it as a badge of honor. And to paraphrase Patrick Henry in another context when his enemies tried to frame the debate..."If this be Treason, make the most of it"....."If she is hated , make the most of it" and stop trying to win them over!
Psychologically we are way past the Reagan model. IMO we are entering a pre-revolutionary time frame...where the old tried and true way to construct the interaction between the federal Government and the States and the people is breaking down. That is what is happening in the market. That is what Paulson and the Dems/rinos are fighting to preserve. And they will fail. The jig is up on big government. For one simple reason...IT IS BANKRUPT !
Palin represents REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE in the American System....and that is why she is hated and feared by those who are now living and feasting at the public trough. The more I think about this the more I believe she needs to just move forward and recognize the revolutionary aspects of what she represents.....if you look at the history of the 1760's and early 1770's you see the same pattern with people like Thomas Hutchinson in MA. and some of the richer planters in VA.....men who were very conservative against changing the status quo...men made rich and powerful by the existing system......and this pattern shows up time and again thru out our history...just like today with Wall Street and the Unions, just to name two...
Sarah Palin, and people like us who support her, are a serious threat to the existing establishment at all levels of our society......because she is an enemy of the Current Corporate Welfare State and everything that represents and the cultural rot it has created in this wonderful land of ours.....so in that sense I guess she isn't conservative at all; but a true cultural revolutionary like Andy Jackson as mentioned on another post.
Uh Oh, maybe we are too.
Uh Oh, maybe we are too.
Vietnam>Nixon>Carter>Reagan = Iraq>Bush>Obama>Palin
War and unpopular presidents...
Conservatives love her. But the media are going to have four years to paint her in the worst colors.
She'll be unelectable in 2012 if she runs.
I don't discount the possibility that she might get experience and run at a later date. But for now, she looks like Goldwater to some Reagan who'll come along later.
This article takes a look whether or not Palin is a Populist or not. Alright, this article couldn't have come out a better time. Mick sent me a ping a few days ago asking for both me and ya'll to look at the thread that I posted the ping list on last. Well they were discussing Palin and whether or not she was a populist. I would recommend checking it out in comparison to this article. They make some valid points by GipperGal, Sally H and Al B. .
Politics in fashion: way to much bias. Michelle Obama, a goddess, Palin, worst dressed. Oh great... now it's even in the British media.
Palin would be the most desirable neighbor according to a poll from Harris Interactive . Behind her would be Oparh, Phelps, Pitt/Jolie, and Tina Fey.
We also have another article that come from our other British cousin (the Aussies) praising Palin. My favorite line:
Palin may have the last laugh. She’s gone back to Alaska but many of the media companies that attacked her are going broke. If they’re so much smarter than her, how come she’s the one with a job?
Lastly, we have an article that asks whether or not Palin should be "Conservative of the year." The two points that are brought up her original support of the Bailout and being for U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty. As I understand it, it is considered very important for Alaska. The first one I understand in the fact that Palin was going to toe the line while being McCain's Vice-president canident (sorry I couldn't figure out how to spell it). Also the fact she has not support any more bailouts, (though she still supports the first one) also speaks volumes. The other thing.. I don't understand, but I would assume that if they think it's needed for Alaska to better handle there minerals.
Have a good day! I'm going to The Right Wing Tavern for a friends B-day!
All I know is that she has the right people hating her. Makes me even MORE positive that she is who we need at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
"We don't want bigger government. We want government that does a few big things and it does them right." - Governor Sarah Palin
Fred Phelps the third most desirable neighbour!?
Micheal phelps. Sorry should have specified
On with the revolution as far as I'm concerned. The first 2 governors of my native state (VA), Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, would probably agree. Jefferson himself wrote that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing".
Happy New Year to you and GG.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.