Why they hate Sarah
It will not surprise you that I, a strong supporter of Rudy Giuliani in 2007-08, am also a Palin fan. The past two days, of course, have given me occasion to reflect on why this is so. I actually have a 30 plus year tradition of picking losers in contests for national office, so perhaps this is simply the latest in a long line of intellectual failures.
- end of initial entry -
But perhaps not. What Giuliani and Palin have in common is the madness they provoke in the left. Even you, the most rational and convincing Giuliani critic yet born, must admit that anyone who has both Norman Siegel and Al Sharpton crazed at the same time must be doing something right. [See VFR on Giuliani: a selection.]
You mentioned in one of your responses on the main thread that you did not pay attention in the Fall of 2008, or since, to the avalanche of crazed leftist attacks on Palin and her family. That in itself is an interesting thing—the dog that didn’t bark, so to speak.
The left had real FEAR of Rudy G., and they feared Sarah, too. They feared them because the usual New York Times-CBS news Jedi mind tricks didn’t work on them. Both of them (Rudy only in the five boroughs) were able to connect with the sort of people who have the power to turn the table over by using their votes, votes that the left believes they now own through their control of education, the media, and popular fashion.
THAT’S what the left fears most—that the comprehensive structure of tyranny they have built with words and images can still come crashing down simply by allowing peasants to vote. That’s why Reagan made them crazy. That’s why Rudy made them crazy. And that’s why they set out on a full-court press to destroy Sarah Palin. Perhaps they have succeeded. Perhaps she was simply like a dog who finally catches the car and doesn’t have a clue what to do with it.
But, if you believe that voting can fix what’s broken (and maybe Mencius Moldbug is right, and that’s an adolescent fantasy), then you need to open yourself to the possibility that someone who can actually attract voters, rather than someone with exactly correct and well reasoned positions that line up with your own, is what the moment requires.
Steve R. writes:
It’s frightening just how much the liberals in my office hate Sarah Palin. A couple of them expressed a wish that she be raped and killed. It was so disturbing that I put some effort delving into it. It seems there are a few reasons to explain why she occupies a place in their hearts and minds that was previously reserved only for Ann Coulter.
Like Justice Thomas, Sarah inhabits the body of something they worship—the victim—but by her accomplishments and confidence she makes a mockery of victimhood.
Naturally they fear all right wing Christians. For being right wing they are evil and by being Christian they assert the supernatural and impose moral judgment.
Sarah takes pleasure exposing liberal cowardice, falsity, hypocrsy and anti-American behavior. And with her “common man” approach she’s quite effective at it.
Her physical attractiveness belies their belief that what she stands for is ugly. So unlike Rush, for whom liberals can feel superior, continually attacking him as being fat, mean, ugly, and drug-addicted, Palin’s physical attractiveness makes that impossible and by their standards puts her in a somewhat superior position.
So liberal women envy her and liberal men, emasulated by all the above respond by demeaning her with sexual insults. Thus Letterman calls her a slut and her daughter the same for good measure.
Very good analysis!
Laura W. writes:
Steve R. and James N. both make excellent points in their comments on why Sarah is hated. No liberal could ever project the air of confidence and the refusal to be hounded by guilt the way Palin or Reagan or Giuliani have. That’s because it’s not just self-confidence, it’s confidence in our nation and our culture. I’ve criticized Palin at VFR, but find myself passionately defending her in the company of liberals. Their attacks are vicious and mindless. As Steve R. says, “So liberal women envy her and liberal men, emasculated by all the above, respond by demeaning her with sexual insults.” She represents their own lost happiness.
Given her popularity, I hope Palin goes on to serve some prominent Republican role if that is what she wants, but please not as a presidential candidate. If this were 1950’s America, I could maybe support her. The negative things she and her family represents would then be more the exception than the rule. Remember, almost 40 percent of children are now born to unmarried mothers. This is one of the most important issues of our time. The matriarchal lifestyle does not work as smoothly for most people as it does for Sarah Palin and her family.
Despite the excellent points made by James and Steve, I still find the extremity of the hatred for her mysterious. Maybe their explanations are sufficient after all, but I’m just not getting it.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 05, 2009 09:13 AM | Send