The Demented Sarah Palin Debate
November 24, 2009
Andrew Sullivan proclaims in his Atlantic Monthly blog that Sarah Palin is a “delusional fantasist” and a “deeply disturbed person.” At the other extreme, a writer for the American Thinker says Palin is the victim of sexual violence by leftists.
To say Sarah Palin is a polarizing figure is an understatement. The vile attacks of her by liberals such as Sullivan are far more unhinged and demented than the remnant of fanatical support for her. But both sides have become un-glued.
Writing for the American Thinker, a writer named Robin does make a valid point: that it is Palin’s “unapologetic motherhood” that riles the left. It’s true, they hate her for her five children and her refusal to claim any kind of resentment for the duties of being a mother. You won’t hear Palin going on and on like Michelle Obama about how hard it is to take care of children or criticizing her husband for not doing his share.
But, Robin goes off the deep end in using Susan Brownmiller’s loony text on rape, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, to diagnose Palin as a victim of sexual violence because of crude attacks on her appearance. I didn’t know anyone still read the zany Brownmiller, let alone used her as an authoritative source for political analysis. Inspired by Brownmiller, Robin says conservative men have been reduced to the passive spectators of an act of rape.
—- Comments —-
Rita writes:
Thought you might get a kick out of this. According to Martha Stewart, Sarah Palin is dangerous and boring. How can one be dangerous and boring?
Laura writes:
When asked why she considers Palin “dangerous,” Stewart answers,”She speaks! She is so confused.”
Notice how Stewart grows visibly ruffled when talking about Palin and finally closes the conversation by saying she wouldn’t watch Palin if you paid her. This is more than political opposition. Palin triggers a deep-seated psychological response, perhaps because she represents the normalcy women like Stewart have long since abandoned.
Lawrence Auster writes:
You write:
Notice how Stewart grows visibly ruffled when talking about Palin and finally closes the conversation by saying she wouldn’t watch Palin if you paid her. This is more than political opposition. Palin triggers a deep-seated psychological response, perhaps because she represents the normalcy women like Stewart have long since abandoned.
But the liberals have had an insane hatred of Bush for eight years. Was that because he represented the normalcy, including the fecundity and fertility, that elite liberals have abandoned? Maybe it’s because liberals have a free-floating hatred of conservatives (or rather of those they think of as conservatives) that latches onto whoever best fits the part of evil conservative at any given moment. And since they all constantly reinforce this hatred among themselves, it can reach such an emotional pitch that they can’t even talk about the hated person or watch him or her on TV.
Laura writes:
Yes, any successful conservative will encounter serious venom today, but I think the hatred for both Bush and Palin has been intensified by specific factors. The hatred was so immediate in both their cases. It then was whipped up into a frenzy through group reinforcement. In the case of Bush, I think it was because he was such a WASP, the epitome of entrenched white male Anglo-Protestant privilege, and yet did not possess the self-effacing, apologetic manner that must now go with this profile. Also, he spoke openly of his religious faith. I don’t know how genuine Bush’s faith is, but it came off as sincere.
Lawrence continues:
Why do you think the left hates Sarah so? Do you think it’s the fertility argument so many use?
Laura writes:
Yes, I do think the hatred is fueled by the size of her family and by her Down’s Syndrome baby. If you look at some of the comments in the previous entry, The Disdain for Children, you will get a sense of the animosity that exists for fertile mothers and for large families. This is to be expected in a society that abhors motherhood. Since motherhood is natural and almost universally desired by women, mothers of many children are naturally going to trigger a strong psychological response among women – and men – who have been conditioned to place this drive in the background of their lives.
By the way our abhorrence of motherhood does not contradict another phenomenon: the glorification of motherhood occurring within certain carefully circumscribed bounds. Let me give you an example.
I don’t watch the popular women’s show The View, but I did recently run through some episodes online. The show often features discussion of parental issues, such as how to discipline children, what to get them for their birthdays, etc., and is obviously geared toward mothers at home with young children. Elisabeth Hasselbeck recently had a baby and pictures of her newborn are ooh and aahed over.
Though there is much of this cooing admiration for children on the show, motherhood is also put in its place with approving discussions of abortion and dismissive comments about the hassles of family life and the necessity of women’s freedom from it. Perhaps the most glaring and shocking example of this was a recent show in which Joy Behar brought up a documentary she had seen about large families. Mostly Behar expressed unreserved revulsion, her face literally curdling, but she tried to come up with some reason for her revulsion. The best she could do was this: These large Evangelical Christian families, Behar said, were a disservice to society because if the mothers in these families get tired “of the patriarchal life” and decide to leave their husbands, the nation will be left paying welfare for so many children.
Please don’t try to reason with Behar. Virtually no argument put forth on The View has the slightest foundation in reason. The show is the dialectical equivalent of a ping pong game with no ball. The participants swing their paddles and, if they are lucky, move air.
