In response to the discussion concerning Sarah Palin and the attacks on her qualifications, some say by a "liberal media," here are a few of my thoughts:
I am not informed enough to comment on whether the media has a bias. But, I will say that I abhor the media. Not only do I despise it because of this presidential election, but also I just generally have immense contempt for the media. This is not the post to explain why I hold this opinion, but let it suffice that I think the media prefers superficial journalism to probing the presidential candidates about their positions with depth.
However, with regard to Democrats questioning Palin's experience and qualifications, there are a few things that might be worth considering. First, I think it is simply part of how presidential elections operate. Republicans would do the same thing if the situation were reversed. Second, it could be because, in part, her pro-life stance.
More importantly, however, it is because of how she communicates. Does she have the experience to be Vice-President? Of course not. Is she qualified to be Vice-President? Again, of course not. But, I think people's perceptions of whether a candidate is qualified for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency is based a great deal on how that person communicates. Comparing Obama to Palin, yes Obama also lacks enough experience, and it is thus legitimate to question his qualifications. However, when he speaks, he seems inquisitive, knowledgeable, intelligent, and scholarly. He seems to have some grasp of the issues. Now, that does not mean he will be a great president, but at least there is evidently some substance.
However, when Palin speaks, she comes across as incurious, disinterested, unintelligent, and unknowledgeable. If she seemed to have a grasp of the issues (or, in her case, at least some basic civics or Constitutional law), then I think she would not seem as ignorant. Perception is key. Alas, but that is the rub with the Republican Party: this trend towards identity politics, of trying to appeal to ordinary Joe, to the point of disdain towards intelligence and substance. You cannot be a Republican today and be a policy wonk; you cannot be a Republican today and have a vision for the country. Instead, Republican politics is about criticizing those who do not agree with you, focusing on trivialities while ignoring those things really affecting the country, looking back not looking forward, and dividing the country between those who are with you and those who are against you. The Republican Party, as typified in their warped brand of patriotism, sees the world as a 6 year old does: in a simplistic worldview, as black and white, as good guys versus bad guys, seemingly incognizant of the true complexities. Like any 6 year old, let us hope that one day the Republican Party will grow up and see the world more as it really is.
Additionally, Republicans within the McCain campaign have referred to Palin as a diva. So even Republicans are sexist towards her as well.
With regard to Palin being some sort of representation of feminism, I think that is an insult to women everywhere. If Palin is now a symbol of feminism, then the feminist movement has gone backwards several years. How can an unqualified, incoherent, seemingly ignorant woman embody the benefits and characteristics of feminism? I have no doubt that there are better women out there than Palin, even some McCain could have chosen as his running mate.
2 comments:
There is much to comment on, but, for the moment, I will parse it down to this: your post seems to infer that how a politician delivers a speech or speaks in general should have some bearing on whether or not he (or she) is a qualified candidate. True, the public--and media--tend toward such a basically shallow requirement; but how the politican will lead should be the issue, not how well they can deliver a speech. Obama does not write his speeches. Simply because he can deliver them well--as he should, since he's been running for president much longer than he has been doing the other job he was elected for in the Senate--in no way is an indicator of what kind of leader he will be.
To judge Palin on her accent--not saying you are, but many have--is shallow and elitist judgement. She has a quirky way of talking, but so do millions of people. She may need some polishing on giving speeches, granted. I am sure she'd be as slick and polished after two years of constant speech-making as Obama currently is. Also, Obama is notorious for his "uh's" and stammers in his speech, especially when he gets off the script. But none of this should be relevant.
Your description of the Right is one of the hard Right, and the hard Left is just as destructive. As someone who used to belong to the Left, I will confidently say that the Left is becomming more and more Left, and not in any good way. America will wise up to policies and anti-democratic mindsets that they do not support. Maybe not by next week, but within the next four years.
The trouble is the hard Right and hard Left hold most of the cards, and too many supporters on either side go ahead and support their party. I won't.
"Feminism" is a slippery label, and what it means depends on who you ask. I would not exclude Sarah Palin from the list simply because she is pro-life (and she has said she does not support changing forcing her views on other women time and again) and values old-fashioned traditional things associated with women. The Gloria Steinem sort of feminist loathes the "regular" woman, the sort who cooks, cleans, bakes cookies; in other words, people like mothers and wives and grandmothers the world over. Sarah Palin has gone from "hockey mom" to mayor, governor, and now potnetial vice president. Disagreements aside, I'd think any woman would be proud of such accomplishments in women's issues. Most women in the real world are not pretentious, bitter, angry, pro-abortion, shrews. And thank God for it. The Left's general idea of a feminist sounds like a primitive she-brute.
The whole abortion thing is a bomb, obviously. Mostly the Right (and others) do not like abortion being used as an after-the-fact source of birth control by women (and men) who do not have enough responsibility to use protection when they have sex. There are a huge number of abortions in the US every year, and only a fraction of them are the result of rape, incest, or health reasons. A lot of them have been performed for young girls and women far too irresponsible to make such a decision. If someone is too lazy or ignorant to spend fifty cents for a condom, then they do not have the mental faculties to make a real moral decision such as keepig or aborting a child--to them, it's a matter of convenience or covering up a "mistake."
Many admire Palin for having a pregant daughter who will have her baby and also for raising a child with Down's Syndrome. If "feminism" entails the distance and/or lack of emotion and humanity which we as a race claim to hold in abundance, then the feminist movement has been little more than a grown up's version of a temper tantrum.
Great post, by the way!!!
I agree that how a candidate speaks should not matter in whether that candidate is qualified. It is definitely shallow. I just think that the media and the public bases a lot of their judgment about whether a candidate is qualified on how that person speaks, which I agree is unfortunate.
I certainly do not evaluate her qualifications based on how she speaks.
I think the feminism issue is interesting. I like your points!
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
Post a Comment