Explaining criticisms of Glick and Palin
Jim C. writes (Sept 24):
When we refer to any article by Caroline Glick as “cheer-leader behavior” we might as well give up on Western civilization.
Also, Evariste says “she should not have been the VP choice…. given her family circumstances.” That should be the last thing we are worried about as we try to save this country from going the way of Europe. By the way, nobody dislikes John McCain more than I do.
LA replies:
I certainly wasn’t saying that Caroline Glick per se is a cheerleader. I quoted one passage of one column of hers and called it cheerleading. A more accurate description of her description of Palin (who, notwithstanding her great personality and winning qualities is an intellectual mediocrity) and Palin’s speech (which was of course written for her) as “an extraordinary document … a remarkable speech, prepared by a remarkable woman,” would have been “embarrassing sycophancy.” I think we can accuse a writer of a one-time indulgence in embarrassing sycophancy without threatening Western civilization. There are other conservatives, of course, who make excessive praise of their fellow conservatives and of Republican leaders their career, and they were my main target in that entry.
Re your response to Evariste, like Evariste I have the view, which I’ve been stating since September 1, that given Palin’s family circumstances and responsibilities, and, more importantly, given the example her being vice president would set, she should not have been chosen to be the nominee for vice president. Now, if I were persuaded that having Palin as vice president would literally save us from going the way of Europe, then I would change my mind and support her for vice president. But if I did so, I would do it along the lines of Clark Coleman’s suggested compromise position, of which I said:
I appreciate the nuanced statement that Mr. Coleman argues the conservative organizations should have made: “that the question of her devotion of time to her family is indeed troubling, but that support is being offered strictly to defeat Obama.” If they had done this, their actions would have been far less damaging to conservatism.
In other words, if I felt that the fate of the Republic depended on her being in national office, I would say that I was supporting her despite her family circumstances. I would still be upholding conservative principles, but treating Palin as an exception. I would not support her in the unprincipled way so many conservatives and particularly Christian conservatives have done, which was to reverse themselves 180 degrees on traditional family values and male-female differences and turn themselves into aggressive feminists.
But I don’t share your assumption that Palin’s being elected vice president is going to do the things you hope for. If elected, she will be John McCain’s lieutenant, enunciating his Bushite/neocon/globalist/open borders policies. Further, if one really admires Palin and sees her as a great conservative hope, the last thing one should want for her is that she be McCain’s VP at this stage of her development, where she will be simultaneously diminished by her lack of readiness for the national stage, and turned into a neocon clone.
Now let me ask you a question. Suppose your hopes are realized and the McCain-Palin ticket is elected. How will you feel when you see Palin as McCain’s point-man on amnesty, on spreading democracy, and on reforming Islam through “scholarships rather than smart bombs” (McCain’s own words)?
- end of initial entry -
Evariste writes:
Sarah Palin isn’t going to save America from Europe’s fate (I assume Jim C. refers to the Islamization of Europe). I think we’re allowed to worry about two things at once, Islamization and the state of our culture and politics. Refraining from expressing legitimate doubts about her elevation will do nothing to help her or us. She was plucked from near-total obscurity to become President-in-waiting. We know next to nothing about this woman! How can we anoint her our savior on such thin grounds? Her considerable personal appeal owes everything to her identity and nothing to her ideas. Our ignorance about her allows us to impute our every wish and fantasy to her. She’s the perfect pick for John McCain because we already know we hate everything he stands for, but we think—based on nothing more than Sarah Palin’s identity as a non-elite working-class white mother—that she’ll be some kind of savior of conservatism. McCain picked her for shallow reasons (he saw a parallel to himself in her confrontation of Republican corruption, and best of all, she’s a woman). [LA notes; “she’s a woman” is my subsitution for Evariste’s originally posted language. See exchange below.]
A respectful and serious question for Jim C.: is assigning our hopes and energies to this fresh face going to save this country from going the way of Europe? Do you really think that a Vice President Sarah Palin, or even President Sarah Palin, is what will make the difference? Because I wish I could believe it, but I don’t see any basis for the belief. Will John and Sarah cancel Bush’s idiotic policy of welcoming 30,000 young male Saudi students a year on our soil to attend our colleges? Will Sarah do anything about illegal immigration that goes against the wishes of her boss and partner, John McCain? What does she even stand for? Since we’re being prevented from finding out by the McCain campaign’s fear of allowing her to put her foot in her mouth, we should avoid making the error of assuming she’s an American Joan of Arc. She may be, but let’s hear something of substance from her first. All I’ve heard is warmed-over McBushism. This woman thinks it’s a smart idea to go to war with nuclear Russia over the fate of Georgia, a four-million-strong country that simply does not concern us. She sounds like a belligerent know-nothing neocon. So far I haven’t seen any fresh or good ideas, just a fresh face.
September 27
Jim C. writes:
How can you say “suppose your hopes are realized and the McCain-Palin ticket is elected” after I have said “nobody dislikes John McCain more than I do.” [LA replies: I assumed, giving your support for Palin, that you wanted the Republican ticket to be elected notwithstanding your dislike of McCain. The same would apply to many many conservatives who can’t stand McCain yet plan to vote for him.]
I was objecting to Evariste using Palin’s “family circumstances” as the reason she should not be the VP choice. There may be many reasons why she should not be the VP choice but family circumstances is not one of them. [LA replies: Well, of course, from the start I have presented at length my reasons why her family circumstances were a reason she should not have been nominated for vice president. So that’s just something we disagree on.]
No one has been more outspoken and articulate in their criticism of Bush and his twin brain than Caroline Glick so to refer to her article as “embarrassing sycophancy” is not helpful.
Evariste’s comment that “best of all, she doesn’t have a penis” is a new all time low for VFR. I thought your site had more class.
LA replies:
“Not have a penis” is simply a colorful way of saying she’s a woman. I didn’t think the word penis was vulgar, it’s a perfectly acceptable word.
Graphic language is part of our tradition. The Bible says that David ordered his men to go into a city and “kill everyone that pisseth against a wall.” Meaning all males.
I admit “penis” was unusual for VFR, but I didn’t think it was over the line.
Jim C. replies:
How about—no vaginas need apply for VP—would that be vulgar? It’s a perfectly acceptable word.
LA replies:
After I wrote my previous email to you I was walking somewhere thinking about it and realized it’s not appropriate, so I’ll change it. Thanks for pointing this out.
Evariste writes:
On reflection, Jim C. is right about my language not being right for VFR. He’s mistaken about your take on Caroline Glick’s article though. To point out an uncharacteristically sloppy lapse is not to condemn her excellent work in toto.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 26, 2008 09:30 PM | Send