Last week, a lot of hay was made over an op-ed in the National Review written by Kathleen Parker -- a staunchly conservative voice -- in which she admitted that she was convinced Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be vice president and suggested that she graciously remove herself from the ticket.
Well, you can imagine the kind of reaction this has drawn from a lot of the invariably even-tempered folks on the right.
If you read nothing else today -- read this:
The Washington Post: "The Omen in My Mail" by Kathleen Parker/10.1.08
While I'd never suggest that the heaping of outrage in the direction of those who cross party lines is exclusive to any one political faction, threats of physical violence, cries of "traitor" not simply to party but to country, and the use of subtly underhanded language intended to imply that a certain political adversary isn't "one of us" -- along with the hypocrisy inherent in claiming to put "Country First" while tormenting someone who did just that -- this is almost strictly the domain of the modern Republican.
And while I can certainly be accused of doing my part to lower the discourse on occasion, I won't deny that Kathleen Parker's willingness to step outside the razor-wire-fenced lines separating her party from its sworn enemy is a damn humbling lesson in the importance of truly speaking your mind in the face of opposition.
The sad thing is, it shouldn't be. What she did shouldn't be such a big deal -- not if all of us are truly serious about putting not simply party, or even country, but truth first.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Good article, but I take issue with her statement that the bailout we "need" is being stymied by partisanship. While many congress critters and talking heads might agree, leading economists don't...and no one in the media is talking to them:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/how-the-media-sold-their_b_130891.html
Is anyone really surprised anymore when rabid loyalists to either party go off the deep end of fanaticism?
It's not just "republican rednecks", democrats are just as bad. Even the tertiary parties have their bad apples.
As George Washington described in his farewell address:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
George Washington was afraid of the very events we see today, where a candidate for position in political office, no matter his qualifications or abilities, is considered the person for the job simply because of his party affiliation and PARTY SUPPORT from leading members of the party.
I'll conclude my thoughts with another thought of Washington's:
"Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."
Perhaps if we were more enlightened as a general population, we wouldn't think that a college-hopping journalistic hockey mom were eligible to be at the side of a crippled old man with severe mental issues who could drop dead any moment. Perhaps we would expect a junior Senator to occupy more than just that one official office, expecting at least 5-10 years of political experience before considering a person for political office.
Perhaps if we were more enlightened as a nation, we would elect those who valued the constitution, understood current events, and negotiated strong relations with other countries while keeping them at arm's length at the same time.
I'd give anything to know how this woman votes in the election because if she & others like her who have expressed similar opinions about McCain/Palin still vote with the party then they are not as smart as we are giving them credit for.
My bet is they will vote with the party, and that makes them all just a bunch of blowhards who for all their editorializing of "country first" just can't really put country before politics.
Having an enlightened nation is a good idea in theory, but that's hard, and besides, we have better things to do, like watch ANTM reruns on vH1.
That's the great thing about parties - they do the thinking for you. All you have to do is pick a color and people like Kathleen Parker, while not necessarily a party representative, can tell you in neat, 500 word segments exactly what you should think.
So lets say I'm an idiot, and I only believe what I read from conservative commentators (or liberal, whatever). What happens if those I used to trust to tell me what to think suddenly tell me that up is down, black is white, and a woman once hailed as the Messiah of the GOP is suddenly the retarded step-child?
I'd freak out, lash out. In fact, I'm sort of surprised Ms. Parker was caught so off guard by the backlash. If you spend twenty years cultivating a particular worldview in your readership, and then you turn the world on it's head, people are gonna get mad.
I agree with Anonymous #2... both sides have their rabid fanatics, and to claim "almost strictly the domain of the modern Republican" is rhetoric and spin.
If the hatred over Sarah Palin is purely based on ideology and experience (areas where Chez HAS been coloring within the lines,) then why so much bile about how Palin isn't "really a woman?"
Few argue with Clarence Thomas' qualifications and scholarship - but he was ostracized within the African-American community because he "wasn't truly black."
Won't even begin to go into the things Lieberman was called for crossing the aisle, living up to his stated and consistent conviction.
As long as we keep buying the notion that our policies should come bundled in red and blue packages, we lose the right to bitch about how too much attention is paid to the wrapping and less to the contents.
Nice of Kathleen Parker to catch up to the last eight years. Welcome aboard.
It's hard to feel sorry for her though. Anybody who even remotely cheered on the behavior of the BuCheshney administration truly deserves their day in the mud.
Duane hits the nail on the head for me.
Anon's Washington quotes are really excellent as well.
This tribalism is just as bad as religion. We must make decisions rather than vote for our "team".
I am one person who did not want Hillary to get the nomination. There was a time when McCain might have had my vote. This election has shown me Clinton would have wound up with it...I relied on the talking points image I had of McCain previously. Palin caused me to scrutinize him more carefully. I now know he is a dangerous president no matter who his running mate is......Palin just makes it *that much worse*.
People are so caught up in their team mentality that they are risking their entire futures based on "the team". It's sick. It's sad.
That said, I really have to wonder if Parker and her ilk will show the integrity to hold their noses and vote Obama for the sake of the country. The fact that Palin is their only issue---not McCain himself, makes me think they won't.
Post a Comment