Some Thoughts on Palin

[catsittingstill]

1) McCain talks a lot about the importance of experience.  But down deep, in the place where actions come from, even *he* wants a change: fresh-faced youthful enthusiasm, unencumbered with political ties to beltway lobbyists and Washington insiders.  Which is great; so do I, and we all know who to vote for to get that.

2) It's absolutely *wonderful* to see the Republican party nominating a woman for the Vice-Presidential spot.  And only 20 years behind the Democrats--for Republicans that's excellent progress.  Well done!

3) It is unfortunate that, despite being female, she's neither pro-woman nor woman friendly.  I fully support her right to decline an abortion for herself--that's what choice is all about.  That she would try to constrain any other woman in the country to scream her way through labor with yet another unwanted baby--that disturbs me a lot, and it should disturb everyone.  In this far-right country, though, I'm very sorry to say that  it's only to be expected of a Republican candidate.  This is something anyone who doesn't believe in slavery might want to keep in mind.

4) It is also unfortunate that she promotes Creationism.  That's understandable, because it turns out that McCain does too. When we are scrambling to retain our world leadership in science and technology, descending into teaching proven-untrue religious stories in place of science is obviously not going to be productive.

Regarding McCain's and to some extent Palin's stances on Creationism, Thoughts From Kansas has a good article.  Regarding Palin herself, Afarensis has a good article that's more about Palin. 

Comments

[phillip2637.livejournal.com]

This is probably just paranoia, but I'll run it by you anyway.

What if the people at the head of the Republican party have accepted that this is a lost election and are using it to set up the future. Having an "unacceptable" female candidate gives them a precedent to point to while saying, "Tried that; didn't work."

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

That's their entire theory of governing....

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

That's their entire theory of governing....

Losing elections and blaming them on women on their tickets?

Methinks you need to unpack your statement a bit.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

More like, failing to solve problems and using their failure as evidence that the government cannot and should not be involved in problem-solving.

Like sitting on their fat asses during Katrina, praising Heckava Job Brownie for his non-action and then urging that the government get out of the disaster relief business.

Like giving a dime to a beggar, and calling for the end of welfare when this does not result in the end of poverty.

Like refusing to repair the highways, and then arguing, when a bridge collapses, that government is incapable of repairing highways, and we must piratize the highways for private profit.

Like pointing out that, despite spending tax dollars on prisons and police, crime still exists, and therefore we should acknowledge government law enforcement as an abyslam failure and get rid of all prisons and police. Oh, wait. They haven't actually tried that one. Wonder why.

And, yes, like adding a fringe-right Barbie doll from a thinly populated frontier state to a failed Presidential ticket, and blaming the ticket's abysmal failure on "those sexist voters, what can ya do? Better stick with the rich old white guys from states with big suburbs from now on".

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

What if the people at the head of the Republican party have accepted that this is a lost election and are using it to set up the future. Having an "unacceptable" female candidate gives them a precedent to point to while saying, "Tried that; didn't work."

First of all, it's McCain, not vague shadowy "people at the head of the Republican Party" who chose Palin for VP candidate. The Presidential candidates obviously pay attention to their party leaders, but they are most definitely in charge of their own campaigns.

Secondly, the election appears far from lost for the Republicans. McCain was closing in on Obama even before nominating Palin, and after nominating Palin he may actually have the lead now.

Thirdly, why would the Republicans be hostile to running a female candidate, especially one who is more conservative than the male at the head of the ticket? You are making the assumption that the agenda of NOW is the same as the agenda of "women," which is far from accurate.

In fact, due to McCain's health, Palin is very likely to become President. McCain may die or resign before completing even his first term, or refuse to run for a second.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thirdly, why would the Republicans be hostile to running a female candidate, especially one who is more conservative than the male at the head of the ticket? You are making the assumption that the agenda of NOW is the same as the agenda of "women," which is far from accurate.

Um? Wouldn't assuming Republicans are hostile to women candidates be an assumption about the agenda of the Republicans, not the agenda of NOW?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Thirdly, why would the Republicans be hostile to running a female candidate, especially one who is more conservative than the male at the head of the ticket? You are making the assumption that the agenda of NOW is the same as the agenda of "women," which is far from accurate.

Um? Wouldn't assuming Republicans are hostile to women candidates be an assumption about the agenda of the Republicans, not the agenda of NOW?

It's an assumption about both, because the main reason why one might think that the Republican platform is hostile to women is because one would be assuming that the agenda of "women" was the same as the agenda of NOW (i.e., pro-affirmative action, pro-abortion). This is not necessarily so: if you ignore the strong current of conservativism among women in most times and places, including modern middle America, you are missing a major factor in history.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

First of all, it's McCain, not vague shadowy "people at the head of the Republican Party" who chose Palin for VP candidate. The Presidential candidates obviously pay attention to their party leaders, but they are most definitely in charge of their own campaigns.

Right. That should have been "a shadowy person at the head of the Republican party". Sorry.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

First of all, it's McCain, not vague shadowy "people at the head of the Republican Party" who chose Palin for VP candidate. The Presidential candidates obviously pay attention to their party leaders, but they are most definitely in charge of their own campaigns.

Right. That should have been "a shadowy person at the head of the Republican party". Sorry.

McCain is a "shadowy person?" Or are you thinking of someone else?

If so, who? And why is McCain letting him govern his pick for VP?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

In this far-right country, though, I'm very sorry to say that it's only to be expected of a Republican candidate.

The country as a whole cannot be "far-right," because the spectrum is defined with reference to the national average. In fact, logically the country as a whole can't even be "conservative" -- it must by definition be "moderate."

This is something anyone who doesn't believe in slavery might want to keep in mind.

If you wish to opose the Republicans, talking about opposing slavery is a very poor strategy. Do you know why?

I agree with you on the Creationism.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

If you wish to opose the Republicans, talking about opposing slavery is a very poor strategy. Do you know why?

I think so. It's because until about 40 years ago, the Democrats and not the Republicans used to be the racist party, and it helps your argument if we agree to pretend that nothing has changed since then.

Could be useful if we're interested in time-travelling to 1948 and discussing that campaign. In 2008, not so much.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

I think jordan179 is referring to Lincoln being the president to sign the Emancipation Proclamation into law. Lincoln was a Republican.

Or at least, what used to be called Republican.

Lincoln would not recognize his party, today.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The Republicans are still the party that supports less legal distinction based on racial origins, the Democrats the one that supports more. Why should going from favoring whites to favoring nonwhites count as being "less racist?"

[ndrosen.livejournal.com]

These days, we do not, thank goodness, have a major racist party, the way the Democrats surely were the (even more) racist party in 1912. Are you going to call the Republicans racist because some of them oppose reverse discrimination and racial quotas? Remember that these largely date to that Republican, Richard "Southern Strategy" Nixon, a man whom I despise on various grounds. I certainly don't think that it's racist to want the law to be purely colorblind.

No doubt there are actual racists infesting the GOP (I remember some comments I heard from Republican prospects when I was a telephone fundraiser for the Republican Party of Texas in 1986), but they don't write the party's platform, and when one of them makes much noise, respectable Republicans denounce him. I wish that the Democrats would as loudly and unambiguously denounce their race hustlers.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I wish that the Democrats would as loudly and unambiguously denounce their race hustlers.

I still remember my disgust when the Democrats let Al Sharpton speak at their 2004 Convention. Would the Republicans give David Dukes a similar role?

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I call the Republican leadership racist because they've been appealing to racists since Barry Goldwater invented the Southern Strategy, since Reagan invoked pro-slavery Jefferson Davis at Stone Mountain, Georgia, the birthplace of the KKK, since W. Bush resurrected the custom of send a floral wreath to the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cementary in celebration of Jefferson Davis' birthday.

The Democrats have not had a racist faction since LBJ decided to support desegregation. Take your lies and venom elsewhere.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

I think the Republican party is hostile to women for other reasons other than the abortion debate.

1. Lack of females in positions of power in the party. Show me an equivalent of Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi among the Republicans and I'll reconsider.

2. Lack of family-friendly policies. "Family Values" in Republicanese means anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-government intrusion into private lives except for their sexual practices. Family values like health care for children, good and accessible day-care so working mothers can support their families, closing schools instead of perfecting them (gotta afford those tax cuts somehow)as an "improve the school system" philosophy, anti-government oversight of anything related to education, health or safety issues (let's just close all those departments; all we really need is business-friendly legislation and a military, anyway) -- all those family values belong outside of Republican mouths.

3. Growth of power in the party of those religious folks who think women are, indeed, second-class citizens since, after all, God created Adam first, and did so out of Adam's rib, so women are only partially human.

Ok. That last is highly exaggerated. But a "woman's place is subservient to her husband" is a theory evangelicals in large part not only accept, but wish to enforce. That is a true "Family Value" held by extremists with far too much influence in the party.

I know Republicans. I used to be a Republican. The current party is not Republican.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Growth of power in the party of those religious folks who think women are, indeed, second-class citizens since, after all, God created Adam first, and did so out of Adam's rib, so women are only partially human.

Actually that isn't all that exaggerated. I have seen them on the internet arguing, seriously as far as I could tell (though one must bear in mind Poe's law--that no parody of fundamentalism is ever far enough over the top that it can be reliably distinguished from fundamentalism itself), that women should not be allowed to vote. I have seen *women* (people who presented themselves as women over the internet, granted) arguing this.

It's crazy.

[hsifyppah.livejournal.com]

Looking across the border from Canada, where the stodgy right-wing party which currently holds parliamentary majority is radically more left than even the democrats, your country certainly looks to be pretty far-right. I can't think how defining right and left based on a national average would be of any use in describing an ideology - as soon as public opinion shifts, the words would mean different things! I don't see why the country couldn't be conservative on average either - if the country on average favours tradition, status quo, not changing, why then, it's conservative.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Don't take this the wrong way but ...

... why would America be defining herself in relation to Canada?

[hsifyppah.livejournal.com]

Goodness, I'm not suggesting that the problem with your definition is that it isn't based on Canada. (Although having unique America-only definitions for common words sounds a bit silly. The English language, political discourse generally, and yes, even the American political situation exist in the context of the world.)

No, what I'm suggesting is that "right" and "left" have specific ideological meanings beyond how many standard deviations you are away from the average opinion of the day; and that therefore it is not nonsensical to describe an entire country as being something other than centrist, moderate, average.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I for one am describing America as being far-right in relationship to 1) the America I grew up in and 2) any view that seems moderate to me.

It has swung *way* way over to the right. Or the wrong, depending on how you look at it. But it certainly isn't moderate.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

(rolls eyes) of course I know they're the party that opposed slavery (of blacks) first.

I'm not talking about 100 years ago. That is a long time ago even for the Republicans. I'm talking about now.

You know, now, when the Republican party wants to enslave (you know, force to labor for the good of another at the risk of their lives and without recompense? yes--that kind of enslave) women to vomit their way through pregnancy and scream their way through labor to bring yet more unwanted babies into the world.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about 100 years ago. That is a long time ago even for the Republicans. I'm talking about now.

Now, the Republicans are the ones backing color-blind governmental policies. 44 years ago, they were the ones who voted in the Civil Rights Act which made it possible for blacks to vote in the South.

You know, now, when the Republican party wants to enslave (you know, force to labor for the good of another at the risk of their lives and without recompense? yes--that kind of enslave) women to vomit their way through pregnancy and scream their way through labor to bring yet more unwanted babies into the world.

I'm actually pro-choice. But I don't care enough about the issue for it to mean more to me than the defense, foreign policy, space and tax issues on which I agree with the Republicans.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I think she's a tough, smart, charming, corrupt, photogenic fanatic, sort of like W. Bush with her shit together, and now that she's on the national stage, she has the potential to be a great deal of trouble. She also must have just about zero empathy for women unlike herself.

The wingnuts just love her. Thanks, Republican leaderhsip.

Discussion at Making Light.