Monday, March 29, 2010

In Defense of Sarah Palin

This is an excellent article explaining how some conservatives, many of whom are elitists, actually do not espouse the same conservative beliefs as either Reagan or the conservative citizens in America do today. These so-called conservatives seem to be failing the William F. Buckley test.



IN DEFENSE OF SARAH PALIN

By NORMAN PODHORETZ


Nothing annoys certain of my fellow conservative intellectuals more than when I remind them, as on occasion I mischievously do, that the derogatory things they say about Sarah Palin are uncannily similar to what many of their forebears once said about Ronald Reagan.


It's hard to imagine now, but 31 years ago, when I first announced that I was supporting Reagan in his bid for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination, I was routinely asked by friends on the right how I could possibly associate myself with this "airhead," this B movie star, who was not only stupid but incompetent. They readily acknowledged that his political views were on the whole close to ours, but the embarrassing primitivism with which he expressed them only served, they said, to undermine their credibility. In any case, his base was so narrow that he had no chance of rescuing us from the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter.


Now I knew Ronald Reagan, and Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan. Then again, the first time I met Reagan all he talked about was the money he had saved the taxpayers as governor of California by changing the size of the folders used for storing the state's files. So nonplussed was I by the delight he showed at this great achievement that I came close to thinking that my friends were right and that I had made a mistake in supporting him. Ultimately, of course, we all wound up regarding him as a great man, but in 1979 none of us would have dreamed that this would be how we would feel only a few years later.

What I am trying to say is not that Sarah Palin would necessarily make a great president but that the criteria by which she is being judged by her conservative critics—never mind the deranged hatred she inspires on the left—tell us next to nothing about the kind of president she would make.



Take, for example, foreign policy. True, she seems to know very little about international affairs, but expertise in this area is no guarantee of wise leadership. After all, her rival for the vice presidency, who in some sense knows a great deal, was wrong on almost every major issue that arose in the 30 years he spent in the Senate.


What she does know—and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan—is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn. Jimmy Carter also has a high IQ, which did not prevent him from becoming one of the worst presidents in American history, and so does Bill Clinton, which did not prevent him from befouling the presidential nest.


Unlike her enemies on the left, the conservative opponents of Mrs. Palin are a little puzzling. After all, except for its greater intensity, the response to her on the left is of a piece with the liberal hatred of Richard Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush. It was a hatred that had less to do with differences over policy than with the conviction that these men were usurpers who, by mobilizing all the most retrograde elements of American society, had stolen the country from its rightful (liberal) rulers. But to a much greater extent than Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush, Sarah Palin is in her very being the embodiment of those retrograde forces and therefore potentially even more dangerous.


I think that this is what, conversely, also accounts for the tremendous enthusiasm she has aroused among ordinary conservatives. They rightly see her as one of them, only better able and better positioned to stand up against the contempt and condescension of the liberal elites that were so perfectly exemplified by Mr. Obama's notorious remark in 2008 about people like them: "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." 
CONTINUED HERE

9 comments:

Christopher said...

For my part, I agree with everything Podhoretz writes in this. My position on Palin has nothing to do with her positions, knowledge or higher elective office but rather in the company she keeps.

People love to speak of loyalty and in her case to McCain. It is almost universal belief amongst conservatives that McCain is not nor ever will be one of us.

So the question remains for Palin; Is it better for the country for her loyalty for McCain to trump that of her conservative principles?

Opus #6 said...

I remember the attacks on Reagan. They said he was not smart, and ridiculed him because he had acted in "B" chimp movies. He proved them wrong.

Palin has already shown she is a competent leader, more than Obama any day. She is a courageous and amazing woman.

Amusing Bunni said...

I love Sarah, she is very smart and courageous.

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

I don't defend her ... I believe in her !

Soloman said...

Great find. Love the references to IowaHawk... somehow tells me this man really is grounded and isn't one of the elites.

Teresa said...

Opie,
Your right. She is both courageous and amazing. I would be proud to have her as our President.

Teresa said...

Amusing Bunni,
Palin is awesome! Have a wonderful Easter week :)

Teresa said...

Odie,
I believe in her, also.

Teresa said...

Soloman,
Yes, this man seems like the real deal and not an elitist. He supported Reagan and is now supporting Palin-YEA!