Charles C.W. Cooke, like a lot of conservatives, is pretty much over Sarah Palin. While the attacks on her from the left were almost entirely the sort of caustic sexism that accompanies the toxic racism that they dish out to apostates in “their” demographic groups, it’s fair to say that Palin hasn’t developed much as a politician beyond, as Cooke says, the leader of a cult following.
You can read the article for the Palin-related stuff. Because for my money, that’s not the real payoff of this piece.
The real value is its swipe at what’s become, among conservatives and libertarians, the beginnings of a very non-conservative trend (and even if you’re a Big-L libertarian who eschews the “C” word, it’s also un-Libertarian); the subscription to political personality cults, which…:
…is deeply unconservative, too. The Right will likely never agree on how best it should move forward, but we might at least unite against the belief that there exist superheroes who are able to save the country from itself; against the idea that any one person can be the official standard bearer of a whole ideological or demographic group; and against the presumption that conservatism will gain anything much at all from the promotion and advancement of its most erratic champions.
It matters not if your superhero is Palin, Ron Paul, Ben Carson, or any other candidate who’ll “fix it all” through, apparently, the strength of his or her personality and the purity of their principles.
Not only is that not the way government works, it’s not supposed to be the way representative republics work.
I guess for CCWC Reagan and Churchill and Thatcher were mere bystanders.
JPA, there can be exceptions. Also, those 3 earned it. Do you think in 1937 Americans were worshipping Churchill?
The Democrats do worship politicians. See efforts to make Cheslea Clinton into someone who deserves something.
Honestly, there are some I admire…I wouldn’t call them superheroes. Leading the list would be those that came up with the concept that a nation was comprised of self governed that elect a small body to represent them and do their bidding.
I reserve my admiration for the modern men and women that abide by the same principles and seek to lead us back to that sort of nation. I reserve my admiration for those that seek office in order to render government, and by default themselves, less significant in my life.
Regarding Reagan and Thatcher, it is worth noting that both had extensive political records before ascending to the Presidency/Prime Ministership, Reagan’s starting when he kept the Screen Actor’s Guild from becoming a wing of the Communist Party USA. There is a real point where it matters how a person stands up under fire, especially when he (she) is a Republican.
Money quote:
“For a long while now, Palin has not so much contributed arguments and ideas as she has thrown together a one-woman variety show for a band of traveling fans. One part free verse, one part Dada-laden ressentiment, and one part primal scream therapy, Palin’s appearances seem to be designed less to advance the ball for the Right and more to ensure that her name remains in the news, that her business opportunities are not entirely foreclosed, and that her hand remains strong enough to justify her role as kingmaker without portfolio. Ultimately, she isn’t really trying to change politics; she’s trying to be politics — the system and its complexities be damned. Want to find a figure to which Palin can be reasonably compared? It’s not Ronald Reagan. It’s Donald Trump.”
I completely agree.
JPA, you are engaging in a strawman through the fallacy of insufficient choices, to wit, bystander vs. cult-of-personality figure. Sure, the three persons you mentioned all had forceful personalities, but they prevailed primarily through the force of their arguments, rather than the purity of their policies or the zealousness of their true believers.
“for CCWC Reagan and Churchill and Thatcher were mere bystanders”
What Girdermen said. And neither Reagan, Thatcher nor Churchill came to office at the head of a personality cult after promising (explicitly or implicitly) that their mere presence in office would solve everything.
What Girdermen said. And neither Reagan, Thatcher nor Churchill came to office at the head of a personality cult after promising (explicitly or implicitly) that their mere presence in office would solve everything.
You mean like Obama did?
Yeah, we can’t let Sarah Palin be kingmaker without portfolio, she’d push for Conservative candidates like Scott Walker who would get the base all riled up, even if he ends up getting beaten soundly. The Boehner-McConnell Establishment wouldn’t like that at all.
We should stick with Beltway Experts like Vin Weber and Norm Coleman as kingmakers, they’ll push for Moderate candidates like Mitt Romney who will put the base to sleep . . . and then get beaten soundly. The big dogs would like that much better.
I’m not entirely sure the clown car is big enough to fit Ms. Palin’s ego. It seems to me it’s 2012 2.0 (minus Ms. Bachmann) with the addition of Bush and Carson. Although the Huckster does have a book to flog, so its pretty obvious as to why he’s riding in the clown car. Its almost time to start the popcorn…
Sure, the three persons you mentioned all had forceful personalities, but they prevailed primarily through the force of their arguments
Ergo, they were “Superheros”.
I cede points to Mr. Dokes. I admire Palin in many ways. She has had remarkable success in picking and supporting grassroots candidates that puts the well-moneyed likes of Rove to shame. McCain, a great American patriot and hero, is a very flawed statesmen in so many ways. His selection of Palin was one of thousands of indicators of his instability. Can anyone honestly say Palin was/is qualified to be President (the primary prerequisite of being Vice-President)? Had Palin exercised a modicum of wisdom, she would have declined McCain’s invitation. Eight years later of learning and governing in Alaska, she might have become a powerful force in her own right. Reagan, in his two terms as Governor, Churchill and Thatcher, in their parliamentary tenures, became steeped in the philosophy, and accustomed to the pressures, of governance. From their experiences of governing (doing, not talking) they gained the depth of wisdom, and the storehouse of knowledge necessary to become, to use JPA’s term “superheros.”
When selecting our next president, we need to identify those that who have accomplished from those that are just wrapped up in a pretty package. Ted Cruze is a brilliant man, but I would rather have the stupidest brain surgeon in the country operate on my thick skull than have Sen. Cruze sawing at my head. Similarly, Carson is a brilliant and inspiring man, but on what basis can we extrapolate from his life experiences and confidently believe he would make a successful president? Palin is a smart and feisty woman, but face it, a half term as governor of Alaska, and cutting soundbites from her home in Wasilla, does not make a statesmen. Much like a very raw athlete, Palin was brought up into the big leagues way too early, and has been irreparably harmed by that experience. (Don’t get me started on my wrath at the supine Republican machine that stood by idly while she was destroyed by her enemies.) Now she all too frequently alternates between (an understandable) defensive crouch and tossing shock value verbal bombs. Let her make her money appearing on FOX. Pay attention to her when she promotes some unheard of politician in some backwater district. But, please don’t treat her as our political savior.
Girderman: Palin was better qualified as a Vice-President candidate than the person who became President that election. A half term as US Senator does not make a statesman.
I didn’t say she wasn’t. Just because the lefties have low (if any) standards doesn’t mean we on the right only have to slightly exceed theirs.
JPA’s term “superheros.”
That is not my term. I was replyng to the post.
Superheros was not your term. You are correct. However, your analogy of the big three with Palin was specious. They are deemed superheros in retrospect because of what they accomplished in the fullness of their careers. Palin worship is little different than those fainters at Obama campaign rallies on a “Hope and Change” high.
Semantics. I want to see a person of conviction and purity of prinicple carrying a conservative flag. If that person also happens to have groupies – so be it – that alone should not be an automatic disqualification. And in no way, shape, or form am I advocating for Palin. But if Reagan rose from the grave, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat – zombie warts and all.