Otherness
I often enjoy Nick Cohen’s writing, not least when he upsets his readers at the Guardian and Observer. Which he does again today:
For once, the postmodern theories so many [Democrats] were taught at university are a help to the rest of us. As a Christian, conservative anti-abortionist who proved her support for the Iraq War by sending her son to fight in it, Sarah Palin was ‘the other’ – the threatening alien presence they defined themselves against…
Hatred is the most powerful emotion in politics. At present, American liberals are not fighting for an Obama presidency. I suspect that most have only the haziest idea of what it would mean for their country. The slogans that move their hearts and stir their souls are directed against their enemies: Bush, the neo-cons, the religious right…
Naturally, umbrage ensues.
Wow. The comments there are insane. They’re saying Palin’s a racist, a homophobe and she’s “denying the rights of others to exist.” And she supports incest! Cohen’s really pissed them off today.
The comments at CiF are often illuminating. I’d say about 30% of the replies are outrage at his qualified support for the Iraq invasion – which is, of course, blasphemy. (These crop up whenever one of Cohen’s articles appears, regardless of what any given article is actually about. It’s a sin that has to be mentioned at every opportunity, as if it were like child molestation and somehow invalidates anything he says.) Another 30% or so are just personal attacks and deranged screeds about Palin feeding on the flesh of newborn kittens, etc. Which, it seems to me, rather proves Cohen’s point.
“who proved her support for the Iraq War by sending her son to fight in it”
Theres Nick Cohens leftard reflex kicking in. Did it cross his mind that her son signed up on his own free will and for his own reasons? Maybe he thinks she marched him down to the recruiting office and forced him to sign up.
zL1n0x,
Yes, it’s a bit of an assumption isn’t it? I’m not sure why Cohen assumes that, but many of his readers seem to find it unimaginable that someone would volunteer for military service. Again, “otherness”.
CIF is a swamp. Look at how many comments have been deleted.
More reasons for lefties to hate Palin here– http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/target-palin/
“Enraged feminists are apparently the gatekeepers for less well-educated American women, who are supposed to have 0-1.5 children not 5! Their husbands must be professors, lawyers, CEOs, editors—not snowmobile champions, union members, oil workers, and fishermen—or, worse, all in one! And unlike a Pelosi, Quinn, or Clinton, Palin, God forbid, did not rely on a powerful, wealthy husband or father to energize her career. Worse still, she took no women’s studies class, never attended the Ivy League, and shoots moose. The danger is not just that Sarah Palin could win McCain the election, but she could expose the entire flimsy structure of doctrinaire liberalism as the hypocrisy—and chauvinism—it has become.”
“Yes, it’s a bit of an assumption isn’t it?”
I think it’s more a case of awkward phrasing than anything – “sending” takes up less space than “happily accepting his decision” or something similar.
More here: “The replies from the women on the panel – Dame Liz Fogan and Bea Campbell – were similarly dismissive of Palin. One, I think Campbell, admitted she has no rational explanation.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2065756/the-british-reaction-to-sarah-palin.thtml
“One, I think Campbell, admitted she has no rational explanation.”
We should expect nothing more from Beatrix Campbell, who long ago became a parody of a stereotype.
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2008/05/youthful-indisc.html#comment-115110640
“The slogans that move their hearts and stir their souls are directed against their enemies.”
In fairness, that’s a pretty good description of the rhetoric and reaction at the Republican convention, as well. I’ve always found both sides of the “culture war” in the U.S. alienating. Urban liberals certainly look down their noses at people like Palin, but if you’ve ever spent any time with people like her (as I, having lived much of my life in rural Texas, have) you’ll know that their self-righteousness (based on a sense of moral, rather than intellectual and aesthetic, superiority) is just as toxic and ridiculous. Palin’s holy roller church, her attempts to ban books at the Wasilla library, and her support for “teaching the controversy” over “intelligent design” are certainly creepy. Her claim to have foreign policy experience because Alaska is near Russia is certainly ludicrous. But many Democrats, predictably, are acting like enraged elitist caricatures rather than offering a rational alternative to such nonsense. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (I can be an elitist, too).
Julien,
As an onlooker from overseas, the tribalism is often striking, and the left certainly isn’t alone in harbouring oppositional sentiment. Though it’s also striking to see women who profess feminist leanings and sisterhood suddenly become venomous bitches when faced with a candidate who doesn’t fit their model of what an ambitious and capable woman should be.
And one detail from the conventions caught my attention. The most emphatic chant I heard during the Democrat convention was “O-bam-a!” while the loudest and most euphoric chant of the Republican convention was “U-S-A!” And I wonder if that difference tells us something.
Considering the blandness of the last few Democratic nominees, I’m not too surprised by the Obama chants, though I find all trappings of a cult of personality distasteful. (This endless presidential campaign and the apocalyptic rhetoric from both sides have made me think we might be better off with a parliamentary system and a powerless figurehead president, perhaps determined by phone-in vote à la American Idol.) People on the left do tend to find patriotic display embarrassing or tacky, but then again, people on the right often make it so. There’s a man here in Texas, David Barton, who’s fond of wearing big red, white, and blue Western shirts, and whose organization, WallBuilders, is dedicated to debunking the “myth” of the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution so we can bring God back into government. There are Republicans who condemn him (Arlen Specter, for instance), but he has served as vice-chairman of the Republican Party in Texas, so he’s not simply a fringe figure. When you consider that many of the delegates in St. Paul (especially those thrilled by the selection of Palin) probably share this vision, the “U.S.A.” chants become less reassuring. My fear is that both parties are turning into corporatist entities based on competing resentments rather than any discernible governing philosophy. The Republicans seem to be turning into a Christian identity party that uses free market rhetoric to justify legislation that in fact only benefits particular firms, sort of a falange lite. The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to be morphing into the most massive group therapy experiment in history, imagining that winning the presidency is important primarily because it will assuage our guilty consciences and make the world love us again, while the question of how “universal health-care” will be achieved and what interest groups will be paid off in the process is not discussed at all.
“People on the left do tend to find patriotic display embarrassing or tacky,”
Oh so that’s why all those flags were thrown into dumpsters in Denver.
The flag in the Dumpsters story is actually a good illustration of how silly both parties and their supporters have become. There’s no evidence so far that the story is true, but it’s now become a major “controversy” with angry denunciations and denials from both sides.
In case my “plague on both houses” lament is sounding too much like the hippies shrieking about the trees, I urge you to have a look at something every American can be proud of, namely Alvin Cash and the Crawlers (formerly Alvin Cash and the Registers) performing their 1965 hit, “Twine Time”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaqtYIXdZl8
Hot damn. I gotta get me those moves.
I confess that I’ve tried to get those moves after a few beers, but without much success. I commend you if you have better luck.
I’m doing them right now. Blimey, I look fabulous.
“The flag in the Dumpsters story is actually a good illustration of how silly both parties ”
No what it shows is that the Democratic Presidential nominee and noted Constitutional scholar Barack Obama and his DNC have no regards for the Federal Flag Code Public Law 94 – 344
http://usinfo.state.gov/russki/infousa/facts/flag_code.htm
The Champions of Diversity (self-declared) have a total hissy fit and seizure when actual diversity arrives in the shape of Palin. So, no surprises there. They favour diversity in everything except what actually matters, opinions and thought.
Bush has made a mess of the US economy. It’s usual in most countries most of the time, that when the incumbent party makes a mess of the economy, people vote for the other party. Even if the other party is no better
Bush has made a mess of the US economy
What did he do, pray tell, to do that?
You folks in the UK have no idea what you’re missing here. This has turned into a real Grade-A shitshow, the likes of which I have never seen before. I have no firm idea whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be vice president or not, but what the press has done to her over the past few days, I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.
There are a lot of weird dimensions to it. The oddest is that the two sides have completely flipped on certain issues, and nobody even seems to notice it. Just as a starter, the left is now attacking Palin’s ability to hold office while still being a “good mother,” and the right is defending her.
On the other hand, the reactionary left has been so, well, predictably reactionary that I can’t help wonder whether McCain knew exactly how this was going to play out when he named her. For a senior citizen with three bum limbs, the guy can start some shit.
(On a side note, I tend to think that Obama got played by McCain in his own VP choice. In the weeks leading up to his selection, McCain was pounding Obama almost daily on the experience issue. Obama responded by shooting his wad on Joe Biden, a boring old sop who is way past his sell-by date. Good going, Team Barry.)
Obama, for his part, seems to have figured out that Palin is just a distraction to him. But she is so completely fascinating and totally loathed by the media and virtually everyone on the left that they just can’t possibly stop chatting about her – she is more or less the ultimate attractive nuisance to them. This could literally go on for another 8 weeks non-stop, and by the end, nobody will remember Obama at all except that he seems to have a lot of really nasty friends in the press.
Relatedly, if you’d like Andrew Sullivan back, you can have him. We’re done with him.
“You folks in the UK have no idea what you’re missing here. This has turned into a real Grade-A shitshow…”
I wasn’t familiar with the term “shitshow” but readers in the U.S. are emailing links and giving me a taste, as it were:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/06/the-bogus-sarah-palin-banned-books-list/
http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
“…the left is now attacking Palin’s ability to hold office while still being a ‘good mother,’ and the right is defending her.”
What I’ve found eye-catching is the reaction to Palin from large parts of the feminist sisterhood. Palin’s position on non-medical abortion, for instance, has revealed an interesting assumption. I’ve seen several commentators insist that, because of this, Palin is (a ) a fundamentalist monster and (b) certainly not a feminist. But is abortion exclusively an issue of female choice? Shouldn’t it also involve the rights of male partners, for one thing? I don’t have strong feelings on the subject, but it seems to me one might oppose non-medical abortion for reasons that have nothing to do with religious fundamentalism or a disdain of women’s autonomy. I don’t know the particulars of Palin’s opposition, but it’s telling, I think, that many feminists assume women are allowed only one view on the subject.
“But is abortion exclusively an issue of female choice? ”
More to the point, should it be the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to a political choice for VP?
“…it’s telling, I think, that many feminists assume women are allowed only one view on the subject. ”
Not really. Just as ‘greens’ are watermelons at heart, most ‘radical feminists’ are haters of their own sex just as much as haters of men. The Palin affair is just bringing this to the surface and making it totally obvious now to all but the most deluded observer…
“…it’s telling, I think, that many feminists assume women are allowed only one view on the subject.”
And men who want to raise kids are allowed no view at all.
Jeff at Protein Wisdom offered the following thought experiment:
“Consider this. Women have choice. Suppose men had choice, then a husband or boyfriend could terminate his parental responsibilities by filing paperwork with the courts during the same period a woman could legally have an abortion… Also, any woman who gets pregnant and can’t support her child will be considered presumptively unfit. Her child will be taken from her and put up for adoption by the state. Under this scheme, women would be unable to force men to subsidize their reproductive choices, just as men are unable to do at present with women. Women would lose the benefits of motherhood if it’s used irresponsibly, placing opportunity costs where they belong.”
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=12817#comment-475807
Off topic, I know, but Russell Brand, thinker, philosopher, racconteur, political scientist and painfully unfunny crack, sex and heroin addict, kind of proves Cohens’ point at the MTV Music Video Awards: (via gatewaypundit)-
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=169383
“Brand, a self-described representative of the global community like Obama, pleaded with the audience to please elect Barack Obama:
“Please elect Barack Obama. Please… On behalf of the world. Some people… Some people, I think they’re called racists, say America is not ready for a black president. But, I know America to be a forward thinking country, right? Because, otherwise, you know, you would have let that retarded cowboy fellow be president for 8 years? We were very impressed. It was nice of you to let that one go because in England George Bush wouldn’t be trusted with a pair of scissors.”
But, Brand wasn’t the done. He also joked about Bristol Palin, of course, saying her pregnancy was a “PR stunt” and he warned the audience:
“Use a condom or become Republican.”
They loved him.”
Because obviously the ONLY discernable characteristic that Mr Obama has is his skin colour. I couldn’t possibly take exception to, say, his associations with Rezko or Bill Ayers, or his proto-marxism, or his employment of legal chicanery to remove his opponents from the ballots in his Senate run, or any of the actual reasons I wouldn’t support the Dem ticket.
And as for not trusting George Bush with scissors, I have just two words: Gordon Brown. And Alistair Darling. And…. well, you get the picture.
Wow – what politician wouldn’t feel BLESSED to receive the endorsement of such a model of propriety, restraint and insight. Presumably, Brand developed these stunning political insights during his exchanges of saliva with drug dealers:
“The dealers keep the bags in their mouths. When you buy one they spit it into their hand and you have to put it directly into your mouth. Even though you want the heroin, a little bit of you is thinking, “Eeugh! He’s had it in his mouth.” After a while, though, you stop thinking that. It’s a bleak day when that happens. You know that’s another little boundary that you’ve crossed, another principle chalked off to experience, another thing you’ve put behind you, because there’s so little in front of you.”
Mr Brand in his own words:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/nov/13/biography.drugsandalcohol
Now if only Obama can get the endorsement of Zombie Jeffrey Dahmer he’ll be a shoe-in
Far and away, my “favorite” attack on Palin is regarding abortion. It ran in Salon a few days ago, but I’m pressed for time right now so I can’t go find it. It goes something like this:
(1) Palin was brave by choosing to have a special-needs baby.
(2) Banning abortion would eliminate choice.
(3) We need to keep abortion legal so that we don’t deny other women the opportunity to make a choice which expresses their own bravery.
(4) Palin’s a hypocrite for her opposition to #3.
Let’s go ahead and legalize murder, hate crimes, and incest while we’re at it. Think how brave we will all suddenly be.
David,
“What I’ve found eye-catching is the reaction to Palin from large parts of the feminist sisterhood.”
Jeff’s on the case at PW: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13228
Best line from the comments:
“Sarah Palin threatens to do the thing that most frightens any sort of activist. She threatens to conclusively solve their problem and put them out of the job of trying to fix it. This will not do for those who have staked their very lives on trumpeting their oppression. How dare this bitch just go ahead and succeed?”
Anna,
Heh. There is some truth to that. Palin seems to be the antithesis of the doctrinaire harpies who search for “invisible privilege” and fret over what constitutes an “authentic” feminist. Indeed, Palin may prove to be their nemesis, in the particular sense of the word.
From Jeff’s post:
“To believe [that Palin is a step back for feminism] one must have adopted a particular view of feminism that has nothing whatever to do with legal equality, or the opinions and beliefs of women being on par with those of men and judged on their merits. Instead, such an argument relies on a view of feminism tied directly to second wave feminist orthodoxies — with those women who don’t buy into the platform labelled either anti-feminist, or else condescendingly dismissed as suffering from false consciousness.”
It reminds me of the film Indoctrinate U and the students’ reactions to black conservative speakers – for instance, Mason Weaver. Weaver is, to them, an “inauthentic” black person because he doesn’t share their leftist assumptions (say, regarding affirmative action and identity politics). Thus, we have supposedly “progressive” students denouncing a black speaker and telling him what he, a black man, should think about being black.
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2008/02/what-to-think-n.html