Sarah Palin's Bright Future and the Republican Base: The "Insurgence of the Mediocre"

The Recess Supervisor, a former Wisconsin Assembly GOP staffer, has nailed the appeal of Sarah Palin over on Playground Politics:

Great conservative apparatchiks, whether Lee Atwater or Ralph Reed or others, knew well how to manipulate undereducated, rank-and-file conservatives. It's not hard, since many of them aren't that smart.

That's not to say they aren't God-fearing or hardworking or good parents or fine citizens. But they just aren't that intelligent when it comes to matters of policy or politics. They're not sophisticated enough to have much of a view on anything outside their own community, so they tend to focus on things that can be understood simply and easily - things like morality, a morality often imparted by a local church and taken as gospel without any kind of intellectual questioning.

They don't understand foreign policy or trade policy or tax policy or the kinds of economic matters the GOP power players are interested in. But they do get gay marriage and abortion and school prayer. So for a generation, the GOP talked about the latter in an attempt to gain enough power to influence the former. (N.B. Democrats do this bait-and-switch too, but I'm not talking about them right now.)

Today's conservatives, however, aren't in on the joke. Politically, they came of age hearing these paeans to Christian fundamentalism, without understanding that these were simply techniques of convenience used to sell other parts of the GOP agenda.

They are, in other words, mistaking the sizzle for the steak.

Many modern conservatives soldier on like theocrats, trying to sell this homophobic, xenophobic, Europhobic, Islamophobic, liberal-phobic sizzle as though it's the main course. They think you win debates by proclaiming that policies are "liberal" or "socialist" and then thrusting your arms upward in triumph. Those who come from this camp are rarely interested in honest discussion because they're rarely capable of intellectually defending their positions. They like using one-word labels to dismiss contrarian worldviews, and then quickly retreat to the comfortable surroundings of those who agree with them.

Sarah Palin is tailor-made for these folks. And this is the GOP's trainwreck-in-waiting.

Sorry for the long quotes, but this post is really right on target:

Even as the breadth of her support narrows, the intensity of the support she receives grows greater, a fatal attraction for a political party whose base seems increasingly detached from anything resembling reality. To reinforce their delusion, those folks then go around talking about how the "other side" is afraid of or intimidated by Palin's superhuman political skills.

Hardly. Sarah Palin is an erratic, intemperate politician of average intelligence and below average eloquence. If she ran for President in 2012, she would undoubtedly suffer a loss worse than anyone since Walter Mondale met the Reagan steamroller in 1984. I remain confused as to why anyone would be scared of such a politician, but for the fact that lots of social conservatives are ineloquent and profoundly average and seem enamored by the notion of electing someone equally ineloquent and profoundly average to public office. Call it the insurgence of the mediocre.

-Barry Orton

Comments

[stuckert]

thanks for sharing

[antpoppa]

Hmm, at first glance one might venture an argument of logic, a simple syllogism. But, noooo, we are drenched with The Development of Absolute Idealism. Georg Hegel ,AKA Barry Orton , attempts historically to link all conservative thought to Sarah Palin. She becomes the spirit leader and her being is objectified by the conservative party which is helpless because it lacks the ownership of diversity of thought. Hmm, what say you RJ?

[Pile o' Rocks]

I hope she is pulling a Soglin: quitting, running again and losing, and then resurfacing as a lobbyist.

[Cliff K]

I have often maintained that our goal in elections should be to get fewer voters out to the polls, not more, in the sense that even as someone who considers myself fairly well-educated, who reads the papers and the internets, I rarely feel qualified to judge which candidate would be best for our future. People who only get their impressions from television ads can hardly make a more educated choice. Although I know that the TV ads appeal to the lowest common denominator, it never occurred to me to that a party would purposely craft their message and choose their issues to purposely manipulate the electorate in the way the blog describes. Makes sense, and it is indeed scary. (And I apologize for my elitist attitude.) And yes, BOTH parties are guilty. As much as the GOPers use guns, god and gays to scare people, the Democrats do the same thing with Social Security.

[R.J.]

At least she is fond of America.

She can run point, taking diversionary flak, while the heavyweights come in later and clean up.

[Stephen M. Leo]

"At least she is fond of America."

Which America is she really fond of? Judging by her comments, she doesn't have much affection for places where the majority of actual Americans live. Y'know, like cities and the coasts. Americans don't have much patience with quitters, and so Sarah Palin will fade away into well deserved obscurity. Good riddance.

"...while the heavyweights come in later and clean up"

Yeah, heavyweights like Newt Gingrich, John Ensign, and Mark Sanford? What does it say about modern Republicanism that after purging their party of its pro-choice, pro-science, and pro-secular members all they have left to offer the nation are holy rollin' hypocrites and creationist wackjobs.

Which is sad, because the US could use a responsible and thoughtful opposition party...

[R.J.]

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Abe Lincoln..."creationist wackjobs" all.

[Stephen M. Leo]

"Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Abe Lincoln..."creationist wackjobs" all."

Well...their electoral prospects in 2010 are somewhat limited by the lamentable fact that they are all dead. And one could argue that Tom, George, and John couldn't possibly be Republicans since the party didn't exist until 1843. Facts being stubborn things and all...

Further, I would suspect Thomas Jefferson would have some problems with a good part of today's Republican base. As a child of the Enlightenment, he believed man's rationality should guide governance, and championed the separation of church and state. Then there was that secret relationship with Sally Hemings. No...I don't think Old Tom would go over at all well with the creationist wackjobs that make up so much of the GOP base today.

To paraphrase the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld, sometimes a political party has to go into electoral combat with the candidates they have, not the candidates they wished they had. The sad fact is that the Party of Lincoln is now illuminated by some very dim bulbs indeed.

[R.J.]

Nice rant, but being Republican (or not) wasn't my point.

[Stephen M. Leo]

"At least she is fond of America."

"She can run point, taking diversionary flak, while the heavyweights come in later and clean up."

"Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Abe Lincoln..."creationist wackjobs" all."

"Nice rant, but being Republican (or not) wasn't my point. "

Coulda fooled me...

[R.J.]

Thick, very thick.

[Stephen M. Leo]

"Thick, very thick."

That may be, but at least I know better than to pass off "Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Abe Lincoln..." as "Republican heavyweights."

Then again, given the substance free,"hit-and-run", and ad hominem character of your comments, it's hard to know just what you are trying to say or where you stand.

[R.J.]

Well then, with that I give you the last word.

[Stephen M. Leo]

Thank you!

[R.J.]

You're welcome.