Ok, the Republicans are not the stupid party for supporting Palin, they’re …

Dan R. writes:

The more I think about it, maybe Mr. Warren is correct that I should have thought twice about using the epithet “stupid.” My understanding of the term “stupid party” is one in which the party in question one-ups the opposition but in doing so grants the opposition the benefit of the argument and undermines its position for future battles. Palin’s remarks about shattering glass ceilings, along with her praise for Democratic luminaries Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, certainly have done that, and her supermom real-life persona doesn’t help mothers at home, so POOF—there goes the feminism issue (and of course Palin describes herself as a feminist, anyway). And then there are her comments on education, as Mr. Auster has pointed out.

But maybe “silly party” is more appropriate here, as the Palin phenomenon represents a self-delusion not significantly different from Obamamania. I will say she gave a great speech at the Republican Convention, but after that it’s been all downhill. Even conceding for bias, the interviews with Gibson and Couric were an embarrassment at best. In her friendly interviews with Sean Hannity she comes off less like a leader of the free world and more like a battered woman seeking the solace of her pastor. Her campaign speeches began to take on a tinny quality, as she repeated the same lines over and over, and in her comment about not wanting any socialism here she made the whole thing sound trite. I have yet to hear her say anything of genuine interest, let alone profundity, in that regard being very similar to our current President. And then there’s our signature VFR issue: immigration. I’m not sure how one goes about “winning her over” on the issue, but she’s already stated her support for the McCain position, and given the drift of the Republican Party this seems like a futile expenditure of energy. She is not really a leader, but a figurehead, and we would better serve ourselves by building on the grassroots action that defeated the 2007 immigration bill, letting the politicians come to us. Sarah Palin is a delusion born of desperation, and I’m enough of an optimist to believe that by 2012 she will no longer be a factor in the presidential race. Image is not everything.

- end of initial entry -

Laura W. writes:

The support of conservative men for Sarah Palin is a turning point in American history, a stunning signal that traditional women have lost the public backing of the male majority. If “conservatives” don’t see what Palin meant to traditional values, liberals do. Here’s Katha Pollitt, in a recent issue of The Nation:

Palin’s presence on the Republican ticket forced family-values conservatives to give public support to working mothers, equal marriages, pregnant teens and their much-maligned parents…. No one said she was neglecting her husband or failing to be appropriately submissive to him. No one blamed her for 17-year-old Bristol’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy or hard-partying high-school-dropout boyfriend. No one even wondered out loud why Bristol wasn’t getting married before the baby arrived. All these things have officially morphed from sins to “challenges,” just part of normal family life. No matter how strategic this newfound broadmindedness is, it will not be easy to row away from it. Thanks to Sarah, ladies, we can do just about anything we want as long as we don’t have an abortion.

LA replies:

Interesting that a leftist is grasping the Palin nomination’s obvious negative consequences to conservatism that were being decried at VFR back in September, while so many conservatives have failed to see it. I said over and over that conservatives’ embrace of Palin notwithstanding her daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy meant that for these conservatives, opposing abortion was literally the only moral issue that mattered; every behavior was ok, so long as there’s wasn’t abortion. This meant the effective end of the family-values conservative movement. And what did they get for rushing to throw their principles overboard? They betrayed their principles for an election, and they lost the election anyway.

Laura W. writes:

Dan R. is right. It’s delusion born of desperation. Conservatives don’t want to admit they’ve embraced feminism. I don’t blame them in a way. The world has changed immensely and it takes a great deal of conviction to resist the changes.

By the way, Dan R.’s comments about Palin’s poor performance said it all. She will be ridiculed to no end no matter how “seasoned” she is. She’s like George Bush: fundamentally inarticulate. A writer at American Thinker recently said anyone who complains about Palin’s gropings with words and complex thoughts is a “holier-than-thou elitest.” If that’s what you call someone who actually wants to see conservatism publicly explained and defended, then that’s what I am.

LA replies:

Yes, as the Sarah-cons see it, any conservative who criticizes Palin and considers her less than qualified is an elitist, a non-conservative —or much worse.

In this connection here is an exchange with a reader yesterday that I wasn’t going to post, but now I think it’s worth posting, as it captures how intense are the negative responses to any criticism of Palin.

Bob N. wrote

I believe Dan’s response defines the classical narcissistically hostile attitude of the RINOS (LGBT) within the Republican Party toward its socially conservative base. The Republican electorate had turned away three LGBT attorneys (Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani) as they were very concerned regarding the potential for collusion amongst the three federal branches of government to further perpetuate the agenda of the LGBT community, most recently its attempts to normalize neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias to children by knowingly promoting their placement within borderline (psychiatric term) caretaker environments, regardless of the gender or socioeconomic status of the caretaker environment using gay marriage and civil unions as its means. The end result was the last RINO standing, John McCain. I think Dan tends to engage in hyperbole if he actually believes the electorate prefers Sarah Palin over Bobby Jindal. Lest we not forget, the RINOS are reluctant to cede control with their preemptive challenge to the RNC chairmanship with the selection of former Lt. Governor of Maryland, Michael Steele.

I replied:

“classical narcissistically hostile attitude of the RINOS(LGBT) within the Republican Party toward its socially conservative base.”

I have no idea what you’re saying. “Classically narcissistically hostile”? “LGBT”? What? Lesbian gay bisexual transgendered?

This is one of the strangest e-mails I’ve ever received. Look at your e-mail and try to think how it would appear to another person.

Bob N. replied:

My mistake. I continue to forget that you believe this is a race war instead of normal (traditional) vs neurotic America.

I replied:

Come on. You know I’m not a racial reductionist and that regular traditional conservative issues a la culture war are very important to me.

But to say that Dan R.’s comment about the “stupid party” was a “classical narcissistically hostile attitude of the RINOS (LGBT) within the Republican Party toward its socially conservative base” was just over the top. Where is the narcissism? Where is the RINO? And how do you know where Dan R. is coming from politically, or even if he is a Republican? In fact he’s well to the right of that. And where is any hint of pro-homosexual? Is it your position that if someone thinks Palin is not presidential material, that person is therefore pro-homosexual?

Bob N. didn’t reply.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 18, 2008 08:18 AM | Send