SPONSORED BY:
OPINION

When Atheists Attack

A noted provocateur rips Sarah Palin—and defends elitism.

Jack Dempsey / AP
Yes, I Can: Refusing to hesitate isn't a primordial truth of wise governance
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Let me confess that I was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin's performance at the Republican convention. Given her audience and the needs of the moment, I believe Governor Palin's speech was the most effective political communication I have ever witnessed. Here, finally, was a performer who—being maternal, wounded, righteous and sexy—could stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a three-inch heel directly on that limbic circuit that ceaselessly intones "God and country." If anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie, Sarah Palin could.

Then came Palin's first television interview with Charles Gibson. I was relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin's luster can be much diminished by the absence of a teleprompter. Still, the problem she poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good lady's misfortune—and, above all, upon the "liberal elites" with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.

The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface (she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world history.

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Gone Rogue
Gone Rogue

How Sarah Palin hurts the GOP … and America.

The Decade's Best Quotes
The Decade's Best Quotes

NEWSWEEK's 20/10 Project recalls the lines we'll never forget.

Best Celebrity Mugshots
Best Celebrity Mugshots

10 unforgettable arrest photos from the 2000s.

An Evolutionary Edge
An Evolutionary Edge

How grandmas may play favorites.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: drewand @ 08/24/2009 3:47:06 PM

    Yes sir Lee, you conservatives have done a bang up job running this country over the last eight years. You nearly ran us into the ground. I don't know why you think that having someone as president with the credentials Obama has is a bad thing. If McCain and Palin won the election we'd all be standing in bread lines and the unemployment rate would probably be 30%. McCain would have Sarah doing charity work and working with women's groups because obviously she could not be trusted with vital issues. Obama is actually seeking bipartisan support. Bush sent the Democrats to the corner with a box of crayons. You can talk about elitism all you want my friend but at least democrats aren't going against the constitution or the Geneva convention to have their way. The only really dangerous political group in this country are the elitist conservatives and you can take that to the bank.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/07/2009 4:08:39 PM

    The non-partisan PEW poll displays some rather odd results that run against the grain of How Liberal America Views Sarah Palin.

    In it it finds that while

    44% of Americans are ''strongly'' in disapproval with Palin,

    48% of Americans ''strongly'' support her.

    The ''why?'' can be observed in a recent New York Times article by Ross Douthat. In it, he explains that the ''anti-Palins'' are members of meritocracy ,complete with Ivy League colleges, affirmative action, and race-gender grievance, coupled with a firm belief akin to a secular Godhead, that they and only they can fix the worlds problems. The ''lesser masses'' are too stupid to figure this out,and must be guided by urbanite brainiacs who Know Better. [ you can view the results of this arrogance in NEWSWEAKS article on the late Robert Strange McNamera elsewhere on these pages].
    Not for nothing does GALLUPS brand new poll released yesterday find that more Americans are drifting ''Right''. This is due to the fact that these accurately view ''elites''[ including media] as being condescending snobs ,attitudes vindicated by their twin treatments of Palin,and Obama. Palin,and Biden, who is demonstrably the more ignorant of the two, caught red-handed meddling in Israels affairs regarding Iran to the point that he has now been muzzled by Obama. Into the mix, is the liberals religious belief in global warming [ a far from settled issue as over 700 world scientists recently admitted],healthcare, and economic socialism, all of which appear to the ''unlearned masses'' to be vehicles designed to hinder their own progress. Thus America, as divined by the mere presence of Palin pits Ivy League ''elites'' against the Rest Of Us, who BBQ, own guns, watch NASCAR, perform double-shifts and actually work for a living as opposed to grubbing on a grant or government or Tinseltown dole. The rise of unemployment will only harden these divisions.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/07/2009 3:48:25 PM

    OMAAR, who has neatly projected Le Bons crowd theory onto the rest of us, is deserving of this repeat.

    The idea of what we see with with Palin is nothing new. It forms itself into that which was recognized with the beginnings of psychoanalysis in the 1890s. Freud would become the solid leader of such theories in the 20th Century, but was not the originator of what the Frenchman Gustav Le Bon called the Herd or ''Crowd Theory''. Here, ''the mentality of men in crowds [ even ideologically] is unlike that which they possess when isolated''. Totemic symbolism as expressed by media and the nation-state which feeds into ''collective thought'' is manifested by the ''generation of illusions which have the force of truth''.[ The Wasilla Library ''book-bannings'', the refusal of these so-called ''rape kits'' to women while a mayor, the ''reduction'' of aid to the mentally challenged, Trigs baby 'as her own'', and the like which permeated the highest levels of what constitutes ''elite''media and commentary]. The prelude to destruction is not merely advanced by the targeted individual or policy. It is fed by an opposition media which uses propaganda and ridicule in a national format.[ranging from ''serious'' [yet truthfully flawed] commentary or even ''hard'' news , to comedic presentation, in order to produce a feared ''other'' the precise totemic origin of Le Bons ''herd/crowd'' theory].
    Freud, writing in 1913 and 1921 views the injection of such ''elite''sources as vital to the ''coercive character of group formation''. As opposed to capturing the imagination only of the ''lower classes'', it succeeds in grabbing and holding the attention, while working its ''mystic'' influences, upon the most ''intelligent''among us [or, curmudgeon Sam Harris' ''elites'', which he defends elsewhere here on NEWSWEAK, using these as a stick with which to beat Palin,forgetting that he himself has fallen neatly into Le Bon and Freuds trap].
    Such skills are not relegated to the alleged ''progressive'' [ who is just as trapped, as we saw,as the ''lower'' [or less ''intelligent'' class], alone. It was skillfully mastered by the rightist Achesons, Dulles' Nixons and McCarthys during the ''Red Scares'' of the 1950s and used media in order to further fear of ''the other''. The mastery of propaganda, is not writ large upon wartime posters [''Save Your Scrap To Bomb A Jap''] but dwells inside the pages and the newsrooms of the competing ideologies now present in America today.

    ''The propaganda must be presented in popular form,and it must fix its level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. It awakens imagination by appeal, and the arrest of attention. It must not investigate truth objectively and expresses itself ,as far as possible,in stereotyped formulas''

    Saul Alinsky?

    Nope.

    Adolf Hitler. MEIN KAMPH [My Struggle] 1924.




Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now