Palin
The problem with Sarah Palin is not her “inexperience,” her specific abuses of power as governor, her vague relationship to an Alaskan secessionist movement, her family dramas, or her apparent ignorance of the history of the Pledge of Allegiance. Nor is the problem some kind of “meta” fact about her character that these various factors reveal, in combination or separately. Nor indeed is the problem that McCain apparently chose her with that peculiar blend of cynicism and recklessness we’ve come to expect from the Republican Party and McCain in specific.
No, the problem is that she’s a right-wing nutjob. Under no circumstances should she be allowed within fifty miles of the judicial appointment process or the running of the federal bureaucracy — again, not because she’s inexperienced or has a tendency toward self-aggrandizement or might have covered up her daughter’s pregnancy, but because her views on virtually every policy issue on which she’s formed an opinion are insane and because she is being given a “crash course” on the remaining issues by a man whose views are also insane.
The fact that her selection is being hailed by a major faction of the Republican Party is further evidence that the Republican Party is a fundamentally illegitimate political organization, not because they’re incompetent or corrupt (plenty of Democrats are incompetent, corrupt, or both), but because they have insane beliefs or are willing to pay lip service to insane beliefs. It’s content, not form — would that liberal commentators could recognize that.
7 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Oscar Wilde said something like this. All our adversaries are insane.
Comment by Amish Lovelock | September 3, 2008
Yes, a thousand times yes. I’ve had similar thoughts re: a bunch of different issues (not all political) in the past few months. Liberals (or any opposition party really) must have the confidence of conviction that the most important differences between themselves and the conservative ruling party are substantive (contentful), not merely formal.
The idea might be that perhaps by focusing on seemingly neutral (in a sense unspecified), formal categories (e.g. experience, sound judgment, lack of corruption, etc.), one could construct an argument so compelling that even the most radical of right-wingers would have to acknowledge the bankruptcy of their candidates. But that’s not how it works — there is no divine light of reason available to be seen by all. The beliefs of the radical right-wing are incorrect and insane — as opposed to the beliefs of the other factions of the ruling parties, which are merely wrong (I’m optimistic here) — and, because of this, the radical right-wing is merely a force to be accounted for, not a conglomeration of equals to be addressed on commonly shared terms (there are none, or not enough to sustain a legitimate dialog).
Liberals don’t need to prove to radical right-wingers that they are correct. The sure-footedness of one’s position isn’t always dependent on one’s ability to get one’s opponents to see where one is coming from.
Comment by Currence | September 4, 2008
I quite agree that they are insane; all of their major factions are: anarcho-capitalists, Christian fundamentalists, and neoconservatives. A more interesting question is, though: how do they manage to manipulate the public opinion and win elections? In fact, how do they even manage to remain competitive? I remember in 2004 I couldn’t believe Bush would get more than 5% of the vote; he got, what, 52%?
Comment by abb11 | September 4, 2008
What an insightful analysis, Adam. Perhaps the scariest thing is that these insane people are running small towns, taking their kids to soccer games (well hockey in Alaska and even ordering mochas at Starbucks. Only thanks to Obama do we have the Hope that these people can be gathered together and placed somewhere out of sight and out of mind so they don’t trouble the sane. Kind of like homeless people.
Comment by Toadvine | September 4, 2008
Palin seems to be exactly at that intersection of judgmental self-serving ethics, prosperity theology, magical thinking, market worship, self-seeking, self-promotion, spin-doctoring, chauvinism, and authoritarianism where America shows itself at its absolute worst.
When conservative Christianity became joyful and life-affirming, that was not a good thing. It allowed people to be joyful and self-satisfied while condemning distant evil others (often effectively condemning them to poverty and bombing raids.) In all seriousness: ethicized, guilt-ridden, duty-obsessed Christianity sometimes did have a restraining influence on the baser instincts, and some forms of it made a duty out of charity.
Comment by John Emerson | September 4, 2008
Toadvine, The comparison with the homeless seems inexact, given that homeless people are by definition out in the public space all the time. What we should really be hoping for is some type of gulag system for right-wingers.
In all seriousness, though, Bonhoeffer draws a distinction between simply being incorrect and being stupid (in the morally culpable sense). Incorrectness can be fixed by argument — stupidity requires conversion. It should be clear which side of that divide I’m putting Palin.
Comment by Adam Kotsko | September 4, 2008
Check out Community Organizers for Obama
http://cosforobama.blogspot.com
There’s a link to join our facebook group as well.
Comment by Rob B | September 4, 2008