Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Ernest Gruening: war veteran, former editor of The Nation magazine, and Franklin Roosevelt's nominee for governorship of the then-territory of Alaska in 1939. Having held that post for 14 years, he was elected to the United States Senate for the transition period of Alaskan statehood and went on to hold the seat for a decade. He is best-known to posterity as having cast one of only two Senate votes against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and also for introducing a resolution to establish a nationwide 911 emergency number. (Article continued below...)
This brief historical reflection takes care of the lazy charge, made by Matthew Continetti in his new book, The Persecution of Sarah Palin,that liberal dislike of his heroine is no more than "a distaste for those who hail from outside America's coastal metropolises; a revulsion toward people who do not aspire to adopt the norms, values, politics, and attitudes of the Eastern cultural elite." Gruening's career also illustrates the major difference between a solid résumé and a perilously emaciated one.
Sarah Palin herself can apparently never tire of contrasting her folksy provincialism with the pointy-headed intellectuals, and with those in the despised city of "Washington," where her supporters want—it would seem against her own better instincts—to move her. To hear the woman talk, you would imagine that populism was a magic formula that had never been tried before (though Continetti and his colleagues at the conservative Weekly Standard eagerly compare Palin to the raucous demagogue and onetime Klan-fan William Jennings Bryan: remember—they said it, not me).
But the problem with populism is not just that it stirs prejudice against the "big cities" where most Americans actually live, or against the academies where many of them would like to send their children. No, the difficulty with populism is that it exploits the very "people" to whose grievances it claims to give vent.
Look at the charges that surfaced against Palin during the past election, and then look at how they played out. It was alleged that she was a member or supporter of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP); that she had been an endorser of Pat Buchanan's "Reform" Party candidacy in 2000; that she was a skeptic about man-made global warming; that she thought God was on our side in Iraq; that she favored the teaching of creationism in schools; that she attended a wacko church where exorcism of witches was enthusiastically celebrated. Later fact-checking modified a number of these allegations—Continetti is on better ground here—and we can now say that Palin did no more than attend a couple of conventions of the AIP, of which her husband was a member, and send it one friendly video message while she was governor of the state in question. It further turns out that she attended that Buchanan rally, wearing a pro-Buchanan button, only because she thought it was the polite thing to do. As for Iraq, all she meant was that she hoped God would be on our side, or we on his. On global warming she now splits the difference: it could be cyclical or it could be man-made. As for the theory of evolution, the most she really asks is that both sides of the discussion be taught. (On the witch-exorcism stuff, not even her stoutest apologists have been able to help her out: it's all on YouTube, as is the quasi-coherent speech with which she bid farewell to her governorship without a word of warning to her voters or backers. I would urge you to scan both links and see if they don't make you feel suddenly much more elitist.)
From 2000-2009, one photo per month.
Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.
From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.
Pia,
I believe that Chris was merely providing her two given names. It probably is still not wise thing to divulge even that much on the internet. It does seem that the truly disturbed among the population have taken to the internet like a duck to water.
Clinton is only a "victim" of his own lecherous tendencies. If the women who have experienced an encounter with him are to believed, his powers of seduction leave a lot to be desired. Bill makes Eliot [Client #9] Spitzer seem like Casanova.
The religious right does not try to use the force of law to make everyone follow their ideology, which is mostly the concept of being good to each other. You are free to join the church, or not join the church.
The two issues that most people associate with the religious right are abortion and gay marriage. Regardless of what religious people (I am not one) think about abortion, the issue is really a legal issue, rather than a religious one. The second sentence of the Declaration of Independence says that life is an unalienable right, and that it is so obvious that this is the case, that it is "self evident". There is no mention of anyone's "right to choose" in any of our founding documents. I would think that all of the ivy league educated people would know this. Instead, they bend, twist, and contort the founding documents to suit their purposes.
Marriage, on the other hand, is a religious institution. Marriage is performed in a church, by a priest, before the eyes of God. Marriages are not performed by judges, justices of the peace, or captains. Those ceremonies are sanctioned by the state, and they are civil unions. Everyone seems to be comfortable citing the first amendment of the Constitution, but the liberal side of the aisle always seems to apply it in a one sided manner. The amendment requires separation of church and state. The left is very comfortable telling the religious folks to stay out of state matters, but they don't seem to recognize that the state has no authority to define "marriage". From my perspective, the religious crowd has every right to demand that their traditions not be altered by the state. Again, I would think that ivy league educated people would be able to figure this out.
I agree with Donaldrex. The fundamental problem with liberals is that they never consider fact that they may not know what is best for everyone. The author of the News week article asserts that the smart people live in the city, and that the "hicks" as she calls them, are too stupid to understand that conservative policies wouldn't benefit them. It doesn't occur to her that these people are doing just fine without the government, and they just want to be left alone. The conservative policy is to let people make their own decisions at the individual level, rather than having some group, ivy league educated or not, make universal decisions for everyone. Tyranny is the inability of the individual to make their own choices.
donald,
I didn't know chris's name is Helga C. Really though? She should not be giving out her name on the net! Where is that girl btw? I need to have a serious talk with her about safety!
donald, my comment regarding bighappy ws about his opinion of the Bill Clinton/ Monica case. He defended Mr.Clinton labeled him as the "victim" and called Ms.Lewinsky a "predator."
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.
Discuss