View Full Version : NYT: Palin shows way to transcend political divide

09-09-2011, 08:45 AM
WOW! (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1315569719-RpR5AuX40tZqZl8xOiUg7g)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the “far left,” she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.

The next day, the “lamestream” media, as she calls it, played into her fantasy of it by ignoring the ideas she unfurled and dwelling almost entirely on the will-she-won’t-she question of her presidential ambitions.

So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin’s ideas.

There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick — words that make clear that she is not speaking to everyone but to a particular strain of American: “The working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box.”

But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something considerably more substantive to say.

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.

Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.

“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”

Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.

Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.

Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.

“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”

Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there?

The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market.

What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn’t choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time.

Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.

On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity. </div></div>

09-09-2011, 09:23 AM
Yes, shocking to many, I'm sure.

In the same way that the WaPost David Broder and another reporter published a glowingly positive article on then-VP Dan Quayle as a serious policy guy.

Could there be found a comparable against-the-normal-grain of criticism PRAISE for a Democrat in the typical right wing publishing organs?

09-09-2011, 10:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> David Broder Loves Sarah Palin…And Dan Quayle

By Ken Silverstein

“The snows that obliterated Washington in the past week interfered with many scheduled meetings, but they did not prevent the delivery of one important political message: Take Sarah Palin seriously,” David Broder writes today in the Washington Post. This was just the start of a Valentine’s Day card to Palin, who Broder described as “a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself, even with notes on her palm,” and a woman with “a pitch-perfect recital of the populist message that has worked in campaigns past.”


Then again, this is the same David Broder who back in the 1990s foresaw the emergence of the Dan Quayle presidency. Broder even co-authored a book with Bob Woodward — “The Man Who Would be President: Dan Quayle” — which attempted to curry favor with Quayle in anticipation of his expected triumph in the 1996 election. The book’s highpoint: The chapter on Quayle’s obsession with golfing, which the authors described as his means of achieving psychic balance. “I have seen him in the dark of night, jump out of his car and walk right to the putting green and start putting,” a Quayle aide told broder and Woodward. “The imposition of discipline. Or absolute order. What matters. And that’s not just relaxation. That’s his version of oriental shadow boxing.’”</div></div>

From a Harpers Magazine piece (http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006525)

Of course, this was back when a public officials' golfing was no big deal, and Dan Q was a scratch golfer.

Broder wrote his book on Quayle with another WaPost figure, Bob Woodward, and the WaPost teased the book with a lengthy encomium excerpt as an article on its front page, IIRC. (Peeving liberals and Democrats something awful.)

09-09-2011, 10:47 AM
Little remembered now is how much the NY Times reporting of W in the 2000 campaign was a sloppy wet French kiss. Seriously.

09-09-2011, 12:36 PM
That explains why the last R they endorsed was Ike.