07/15/2009 (12:59 pm)
Why is it, do you suppose, that leftists continue to obsess about the governor of a relatively unimportant state who has already announced her intent to resign?
The AP headlined the latest in an ongoing harassment exercise by a vicious Democratic party attack machine yesterday. Only, you can’t tell by the headline or the story lede that that’s what it is. By the headline, you’d think it was a serious ethics charge, and one of many. Look:
The lede sentence reads, “Outgoing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is facing yet another ethics complaint — the 18th against her and the very thing that helped to prompt her resignation.” One unfamiliar with the facts would assume that the Governor is actually resigning because of very real ethics concerns. The ambiguity of the sentence is the sort of thing any competent editor would notice and correct immediately — unless the ambiguity is intentional, in which case the editor is blatantly violating professional ethics.
The story notes — at the very bottom — that this particular complaint is the fifth launched by the same individual, and that three of the prior complaints by this individual have been dismissed. At no time does the story mention that none of the 18 ethics complaints against the governor have been substantiated, and that nearly all of them have been dismissed (there seem to be a few that are too new to have been disposed of yet.)
Sigh. Yet another in an unbroken string of deranged, dishonest vitriol, launched against a woman who arguably has achieved nothing more remarkable than the unseating of a corrupt Republican governor (although, frankly, her brief stint as Alaska governor has been impressive).
The fact that the left has gone berserk in their efforts to destroy Gov. Palin by any possible means is not news, nor is the fact that they hate her with an irrational hatred. It is important, though, to ask why. Why her? Why the rage? She’s not running for office; in fact, she’s leaving office. She was a candidate for Vice President; when is the last time a Vice Presidential candidate got mentioned by the press after losing? There is no similar attempt to demolish, say, Mitt Romney, nor was there an attempt to destroy Mark Sanford before he immolated himself. Many Republicans do not even consider her a viable candidate for public office, and if Democrats agreed, you might think they’d quietly encourage a Palin candidacy so they could trounce her. But the stream of vitriol against Palin is unbroken, even after the election.
I was not intending a long analysis, but just out of curiosity I googled “why does the left hate Sarah Palin” and discovered that there’s a cottage industry of Palin Derangement Analysis. By far the most common theme among them notes Ms. Palin as the anti-feminist: beautiful, powerful, high-achieving, and yet family-oriented with an uncastrated husband and a passel of kids, including one that most leftists think people should abort. (I addressed this one myself a while back, in response to a hard-core feminist wondering aloud why the mere sight of Gov. Palin sent her and her friends into Wolf-Woman transmogrification.) However, thoughtful commentators both left and right produce useful insights: “She made anti-liberal choices, and she’s happy and successful” (Jim Geraghty); she’s the probable contender in 2012 (John Hawkins); there’s no “D” after her name, and “this is of a piece with Dubya-hate” (The Anchoress); women envy her, especially those who chose not to have a family for professional reasons (from an astute psychologist quoted in Huffington Post, of all places, by Douglas MacKinnon); even “Trig makes us feel guilty about aborting less-than-perfect kids” (Kevin Burke). All interesting comments, all with their aspect of truth.
Still, I don’t think any of them quite have it. It’s the sheer unreason, you see. Very few of those reasons explain the extreme reactions of leftist men, for one thing, and it’s not just women who are affected. Moreover, the reaction was more or less automatic; there was no latency period, no honeymoon. She showed up, and out came the flame-throwers.
Honestly, I think The Anchoress gets closest when she observes that it’s all of a type with Bush Derangement — which was, in turn, of a type with Reagan Derangement. To take it further, though, it is also, in my humble opinion, of a type with Quayle derangement, Huckabee derangement, Pat Robertson derangement, and Jerry Falwell derangement. The thing that sets off the deepest hatred is the association with the most spiritual sorts of Christianity, the kind that draws on the power and presence of the Holy Spirit to operate. Mind you, I’m not going to defend all the actions of Pat Robertson or Mike Huckabee, or some others; none of these people are perfect human beings, and some are less perfect than others. But they have in common reliance on a Presence that is not human at all, and if what they believe about the cosmos happens to be true (which I think is the case,) then opposite, non-human presences will naturally react negatively. Those reactions, if the thesis holds, will be utterly vicious and utterly irrational — which these are. (Check.) They will also defy pat analysis, although there will sometimes be psychological processes that parallel the unreason. (Check, again.)
Short version, I think the presence of the Holy Spirit in people sets off the demonic presences in other people. And those are very, very ugly.
Allow me to say, again, that I do not posit any of these politicians as necessarily holy. The irony of Christianity is that none of its practitioners can claim personal superiority over anyone of any other belief system, or over those who have no belief system at all. The mix of the Holy Spirit with human souls is like oil and water, and the most successful Christians are those who permit the Holy Spirit to displace the most of themselves; and whatever has not been displaced, is no better than anyone else. So it’s possible — common, in fact — for practitioners of mystical Christianity to behave in an unholy fashion at times. There’s a mystery here, though, wherein the believer who permits this displacement the most, becomes more like themselves, or rather, more like the self they were supposed to be.
Nor do I posit her opponents as necessarily evil. As with the Holy Spirit, the mix of unclean spirits with human souls is like oil and water, so the reaction of the spirit is not necessarily a reflection of the character of the individual within whom it operates. When such spirits react, people are often surprised by their own actions. So the people who are reacting are intrinsically no worse than anybody else. Human is human. We’re all broken.
There. I’ve said it. Since I’m nobody, there’s no career to ruin by offering this explanation. I happen to think it’s correct. Do with it what you will.
Hat tip to Gateway Pundit for noticing the story.
5 Comments »
Comment by Mont
Ann Coulter had a good article last week on Palin Derangement Syndrome. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32635&s=rcmp
Comment by Bradley
If we’re free to to with your statement as we will; then, I think I’ll agree with it.
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
Comment by Chris
I must admit, this particular explanation had never occurred to me, and I believe in principalities and powers myself.
Well done for bringing this out into the open.
Comment by suek
>>Very few of those reasons explain the extreme reactions of leftist men>>
Feminism has made great inroads in destroying the masculinity of males. Who knows – maybe they’re even relieved to lay down some of their responsibilities as imposed by nature and society in the past, and let women carry some of the weight. Still, I think their male instincts are still there suppressed deep within, and Palin offends them because even with her obvious femininity, she’s more of a man than they are. They’re offended by their own failure.
It’s only recently that I’ve run across the recognition that Communism saw the Catholic church as its prime opponent for world control(I knew this part), and the plan established long ago to infiltrate the Church and bring it down from within(this is the part I didn’t know). Not that it should have been a surprise – but I just didn’t think about priests being “false prophets”, even though some of them seem to be. I thought it was the fault of human failings – not a planned attack. Since I believe that modern Liberals are the result of deep infiltration of Communism within our educational system way back in the 40s on, it should be no surprise then that Christianity – Catholicism in particular – should be identified as “the enemy”. I don’t know if direct demonic activity is a part of it, but that wouldn’t be surprising either.
Comment by Dale Jackson
Phil, do you remember when you wrote about the kid who formed the no cussing club? It’s the same thing. Every time someone likes this turns up they absolutely have to be smacked back down.