11/24/2010 (8:40 am)
Elizabeth Wurtzel wrote yet another “we hate Sarah Palin” piece for the Atlantic today. You’d think they’d get tired of the repetition. This one basically says “She’s hot, and that’s the whole story.” So, in the spirit of the “How To Talk To Progressives” post from a couple of days ago, I wrote a letter and posted it on the Atlantic. Here’s what it says:
You should consider just how many liberals of all stripes have reacted with the same, visceral revulsion since Sarah Palin stepped onto the national stage — and start asking some hard questions regarding why that is.
Sarah Palin was a successful, popular governor of a state that appreciated the honesty, candor, and good sense with which she managed their precious natural resources. Those are good things. So why the hate?
Yes, I understand that you’ve gone into overtime finding specious reasons to discount all that. Yes, I gather that you now think of her in very negative terms. We all saw how much labor you folks on the left put into constructing a Punch Me Palin mock-up with which to ridicule and discredit her achievements.
But, why did you do it? And don’t pretend it’s because of the Punch Me mock-up; you constructed that after you decided you needed to destroy her.
Tell the truth, now: there’s something deeply offensive to liberals about a wholesome, good-looking, non-feminist woman who loves her husband, loves her family, and succeeds — without kowtowing to your social agenda. She’s not a member of your intellectual elite. She’s not supposed to be able to do well. She proves that your entire concept of what the world needs is hollow, that you’ve got it wrong, that one does not need to renounce long-standing virtues to produce good in the world.
In fact, what she proves is the opposite — that one succeeds when one devotes oneself to developing what used to be called “virtue,” and that it was always a fool’s task to attempt to construct a new version of right and wrong. She proves what fakes you are.
And that’s why you hate her so much. Because, at the root of it all, you recognize that what the liberal social agenda produces is genuinely evil human beings, and you’re one of them.
That’s gotta hurt. I get it. But the correct response is not to destroy Sarah Palin, it’s to recover your lost virtue. Perhaps you should try that next. Just a suggestion.
I’m not on the “Draft Sarah for 2012″ bandwagon. I personally hope she doesn’t win the nomination, in fact. My vanity prefers someone more erudite. But I recognize that as vanity; I don’t pretend that it’s a virtue to be embarrassed about somebody who’s honest, capable, and trustworthy. And I’m just sick of the snippy, petty, faux intellectual dismissal of the woman. She’s a better human being than any of her critics. At the judgment, Sarah Palin will stand over the Elizabeth Wurtzels of the world and declare their unfitness for the rewards of heaven.
Until that happens, Sarah, I’ve got your 6. Not that you seem to need it…
4 Comments »
Comment by suek
From your “How to talk to Progressives” article:
“I would love to see Christie run for President,”
From your “A Letter to Elizabeth Wurzel” article:
“My vanity prefers someone more erudite.”
What erudition have you seen evidenced by Christie??
Not disagreeing with you in any way, but simply pointing out that it seems to me that there is a double standard applied to Sarah Palin. Maybe because she speaks in words of less than 4 syllables – but isn’t it a vanity to speak in terminology that the people to whom you speak don’t understand?
I’m having trouble both understanding people’s attitude and even dealing with it myself. Someone said yesterday that she shouldn’t be president because she lacks diplomatic experience etc. But so did Obama – and nobody cared. Perhaps it’s because she lacks “finish” – but that’s part of her appeal. I have a bit of the same feeling – that she’s not ready yet – but to be honest, I’m not sure why.
On the plus side…it’s making me think about just exactly what _are_ or what _should_ be the qualifications I should expect for the candidate for president (beyond the legal).
Comment by phil
Why be particular about “legal”? The Democrats seem not to care about that, either.
I guess I’m just wishing for someone who isn’t already branded “Stupid.” Not that it’s going to make a difference; to the Democrats who control the press, “stupid” and “Republican” are the same word. But a man can wish…
In Chris Christie’s case, I think I’m happier because if somebody calls him “stupid,” they’re going to get something appropriate thrown back at them without my having to lift a finger. All I’ll be required to do is laugh and post the video.
Comment by turfmann
Phil, I have to admit that I am a bit surprised that you got worked up about the Atlantic piece. It isn’t particularly good, certainly not very insightful and most assuredly not worthy of your time and attention.
Take a step back for a minute and contemplate what is going on here.
The internet is absolutely deluged with discussions pro and con about a possible Palin presidential bid. Everyone and his brother is weighing in with their opinion. Some attempts at formulating an argument aren’t worthy of Jr. High School students, others are particularly interesting.
To me what is fascinating is that we have right in front of us an political force that we have not seen the likes of in this country in a very long time. (I exclude Obama as I would exclude my kidney stones as being significant in my lifetime) We are in the process of vetting her for president absent any interference from the traditional media. We are deciding if she is worthy of the office.
This is terrific. Bring it on!
Personally, I think she should run. We need her. There is something about her that is perfectly suited to the times and the circumstances.
The only test of whether she has the right stuff to be president is for her to throw her hat into the ring and run the gauntlet.
Comment by The_Pilgrim
The problem with Sarah Palin?
Simple. She’s middle class. That doesn’t make her any less qualified, any less capable, or any less anything. She’s just not one of the privileged Harvard/Yale “upper crust” elistists that “deserve” to rule…
Sort of like another guy who was a commoner, by the name of Ronald Reagan…
And, like Mr. Reagan, she scares the bejesus willies out of the elitists – of both parties…
There’s something about Washington that makes anyone anathema if they dare to tell the truth…