The Savaging of Sarah Palin

picture-1.png

From The Huffington Post
by HEATHER ROBINSON

In the aftermath of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s announcement last weekend that she plans to resign from office, pundits have been scrambling for an explanation. Personally, the whole matter has left me feeling a little like I did at the end of seventh grade, after a year spent passively watching bullies ostracize and pick on one of the only black girls in the school: sick, and embarrassed for all of us.

Whatever your passionate opinions, whatever your disagreements with her views, this woman and her family were savaged in a manner that went beyond any reasonable standard. She is a public figure, but her husband and children are not. That did not stop certain members of the media and blogosphere from ridiculing them in vicious fashion, even long after the election was decided. President Obama, to his credit, spoke out against it. Would that more of his supporters had shown the same level of decency.

Instead, we got ridiculing of Mrs. Palin’s appearance, of her decades-old participation in a beauty pageant, and even of her children, which was especially cruel. Self-proclaimed “feminists” made a blood sport of hating and dehumanizing her. Personally, I do not agree with all of Governor Palin’s views, such as her absolutist pro-life position. But such vicious hatred, on the part of self-described feminists, was an embarrassment.

The Governor’s announcement, in which she offered her reasons for leaving her office, has, not surprisingly, been greeted with near-universal skepticism. But I am inclined to believe what she says. Essentially, she has been slapped with a slew of ethics complaints that have been dismissed as baseless. But, due to the nature of Alaska’s laws, her family has been required to pay legal bills to the tune of $500,000 to defend her good name.

The Palins are not wealthy, and they want to be able to afford college tuition for their children. It would appear the Governor cannot afford to hold a modestly paid position while facing such ongoing harassment from her political enemies without potentially facing personal bankruptcy. Not to mention that, although these complaints have thus far been found baseless, the time and energy required to respond to them is apparently reducing her effectiveness as Governor.

Then there is the matter of how the media treated Mrs. Palin’s family, especially her children. How sad that normal people may no longer wish to run for or hold public office due to this horrific sort of exposure, including abuse of their children.

It’s true that American politics have often been spirited, at times even vicious. During the Civil War, for instance, President Lincoln was burned in effigy in the South, and during the campaign of 1828, newspapers favorable to the National Republican Party falsely accused Democrat Andrew Jackson of having beaten up another man to steal his wife, to cite just a couple examples from history. But am I alone in feeling that ridicule of a disabled infant, and rape threats, represent a new low? How intensely cruel and hypocritical this behavior was, often coming from “feminists” and “progressives” who probably don’t realize how many conservatives they are helping to create, as anyone with a moral compass is likely to figure that, if that’s how liberals argue, maybe they’ll consider conservative ideas, thanks.

To a lesser extent, established media have embarrassed themselves and lost credibility. Since when do established feminists, for instance, dispatch with one of our nation’s only female Governors by disparaging her looks (”Caribou Barbie”).

Last month, the Governor’s husband Todd erupted angrily over David Letterman’s lewd sexual joke about one of the Palin’s teenage daughters. Clearly, Mr. Palin was angry. Placing one’s marriage ahead of one’s career ambitions may be an unthinkable in the realm of “progressive” media, but perhaps that is what Mrs. Palin is doing.

For the record, the media did not cease its savage dehumanization after the election. In the August issue of Vanity Fair magazine, a lengthy article by Todd S. Purdum entitled (italics added) “It Came from Wasilla” cites the opinions of several unnamed Alaskans that Governor Palin suffers from “narcissistic personality disorder.” Perhaps Mr. Purdum, who in a stunning feat of journalistic objectivity also asserts of Governor Palin that “no political principle or personal relationship is more sacred than her own ambition,” should be reminded of a psychological mechanism known as projection.

Is it possible her critics are projecting onto Governor Palin some of their own grasping motives?

Now that their scapegoat has simply wandered off, they are left to analyze her departure through the prism of themselves. And they don’t know what to think.

Hence, perhaps, they’re theorizing that this hyper-ambitious, moronic-yet-calculating, misogynist Lady Macbeth must be hiding something evil.

2 Comments

  1. Great points. Your unique article on Palin looks to have been picked up by a good number of sites throughout the web and the blogosphere.

    One of the most interesting places to have quoted from and analyzed your piece is on Patricia E. Bauer’s site entitled “News and Commentary on Disability Issues.”

    Here, Bauer asks:

    When Gov. Sarah Palin announced her intention to resign, among the reasons she cited was her family’s concern that her 14-month-old son Trig, who has Down Syndrome, had been “mocked and ridiculed by some pretty mean spirited adults.”

    Was this an accurate account of what took place? Commentators offer their opinions.

    She then quotes from your article and compares it with the positions taken by journalists Sally Quinn (Washington Post), John Fund (Wall Street Journal), Katherine Mangu-Ward (Los Angeles Times), Ben Voth (American Thinker), and Jim Geraghty (National Review).

    Here is the link:

    http://www.patriciaebauer.com/2009/07/09/opinions-palins-children/

    Great analysis. Congrats. There is far more to the Palin issue than many of the regular pundits have realized or want to admit.

    Erik wrote this comment on July 10, 2009 at 1:12 am.
  2. Personally I think the R’s are gonna regret the day they dissed her the way they did in the aftermath of last year’s farce of an election. The D’s never have the sense to regret anything - just a concrete conviction that everyone “that matters” thinks just the way they do.

    Alaska’s a small state (ironic statement, that!) and Alaskans have enough of a “f-you” attitude toward the lower 48 that it wouldn’t totally shock me to see her back - in the US Senate this time, and as one of those rarest of all creatures - an “I”. :)

    And if she really has had enough, good for her! This country doesn’t deserve leadership with conviction(s). It deserves the shallow, popularity-poll-based policies it’s had for years now.

    God bless the few who really can stand as individuals against the many. Someday we’ll again value character over caricature. Till then, we’ll keep buying ourselves off with our own IOUs and hope like crazy that our kids don’t watch Soylent Green too soon after calculating what the debt we ran up will do to them and their standard of living.

    Kevin wrote this comment on July 14, 2009 at 2:35 am.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*