A Pilgrim’s Digression

The media saturation of Sarah Palin information, true and false, makes it difficult to write a single intelligent word about a woman who went from an unknown to a caricature in about 24 hours.  Honestly, I don’t think even Obama’s entrance into national consciousness generated this much fire and fury.

Why?

Some of the fury on the part of liberals probably stems from fear–fear that voters will respond favorably to Palin.  Some of the fury may stem from the fact that many of us don’t believe the image of her propounded by her Republican handlers.  For my wife, a liberal like myself, she resents the fact that to the Republicans, electing the most powerful leader in the world has been reduced to a cynical game of one-upsmanship.  Democrats choose a black man as their candidate—fine, we’ll choose a woman for our Vice-President.

As Maureen Dowd wrote in her column this weekend, referring not just to Palin but also to Ferraro in 1984, “Why do men only pick women as running mates when they need a Hail Mary pass? It’s a little insulting.”  Yes, it is.

It’s insulting to the intelligence of both men and women that McCain thinks we can’t recognize a blatant political ploy when we see it.

So I’ve read the liberal response to Palin.  I agree with much of it.  Previously, it was common to hear ordinary  Republicans say that the only reason Obama was chosen was because he was black.  Now will those same Republicans levy the same charge against Palin?  She was chosen because she is a woman.  Not solely because she is a woman, but primarily because she is a woman.

What I’m really interested in is the Republican response.  Palin is red meat to Democrats–there is just so much to attack.  But what are Republicans saying?

Limbaugh, of course, is in love.  He’d marry her, if she was single.  Limbaugh’s goal, now, is to turn this campaign into Obama vs. Palin, rather than Obama vs. McCain.  He is already inculcating in his callers the false premise that an attack on Palin is an attack on women.  The entire gender is being marginalized, caricatured, and ridiculed, in his view.  Women who are inclined to believe him should keep this in mind, though: he’s a man.  What does he value in Palin?  Her motherhood, her “babe” status, and her faith (which by all accounts is so far out of the mainstream it makes Obama’s friend Father Pfleger look like the Pope).

If Limbaugh’s callers are any indication (I don’t think they are; callers to his show are hand-picked), the conservative base is energized like never before.  However, as I understand this campaign, it is not conservatives that McCain has to appease, but Independents who worry that his administration would be too conservative.  This election is not going to be won on the fringes.  In fact, association with the fringes of the political spectrum is anathema, as Obama found out when his liberal associations came to light.

Why did McCain choose this woman then?  If he is to be believed, it had nothing to do with gender.  McCain said he chose her because she was his “soul mate,” an odd choice of words.  Men usually reserve that appelative for their spouse.  In other words, she is so much like him (who knows in what particular ways) as to be his twin.

Whether that is wishful thinking or not–he probably wishes he had her populist pedigree–or whether he means that they are political soul mates (not true, in terms of issues like teaching creation theory in school), choosing Palin is a risky and probably a stupid choice.

As one columnist put it (to paraphrase), at least Obama recognized his weakness in terms of experience and chose his VP on that basis.

Here’s a quote to chew on from George Will’s column today: “The man who would be the oldest to embark on a first presidential term has chosen as his possible successor a person of negligible experience.”  So as not to be charged with taking Will out of context, he also says that time will tell whether McCain’s choice of Palin was wise or not.  Will calls that choice a “a visceral judgment” but goes on to say that “the viscera are not the seat of wisdom.”

Other Republicans are equally uneasy with the choice of Palin.  To look at a more parochial response to Palin, my elderly landlady and her daughter, both die-hard Republicans, were not happy with the choice of Palin.  They supported Mitt Romney.  In talking to them last night, although they would not admit it, their concerns about Palin essentially echoed those of Democrats.

Was she chosen on the basis of her gender?  Is she too radical?  Is there more that we don’t know about her?  Is she experienced enough?

Republicans believe we live in dangerous times.  As my friend put it last night, “we need a Reagan or a Nixon in that office,” not some lightweight.  Ironically, that is also their reason for not supporting Obama!  Now the same club with which the Republicans have been whacking Obama has been passed to the Democrats.  Republicans will see it used against them.

The “experience” issue is not a rope-a-dope tactic, as Limbaugh put it today.  It won’t call attention to Obama’s inexperience, because by comparison to Palin, Obama and Biden are now familiar figures and dignified statesmen.  The experience issue is now diffused, in terms of it being used against Obama.

That’s why I am not afraid.  Republicans have blessed Democrats with something they can now rally against almost as stridently as they have rallied against George Bush: Sarah Palin.  If you want to ease your fear about the future, go to the New Republic, a respected liberal bastion (unlike the HuffPo), and read some of the thoughtful articles there.  Particularly take a look at this one: Republicans Headed for an Iceberg.

Off the air, outside the convention center, Republicans are worried.