-
sponsorship
Thank God our country now has bigger and better things to think about than calculating the precise degree of Sarah Palin’s venality, ignorance, and greed. Did she bilk the RNC of $150,000 in her shopping sprees, or was it tens of thousands more? (The paper trail will eventually emerge on that one, now that lawyers are descending on Alaska to confiscate the gladrags.) Is she so dim she doesn’t know Africa is a continent, or only so dim she can’t name a single newspaper or magazine she’s ever read? Did she violate ethics laws in pursuing the firing of her ex-brother-in-law, or did her petty, nepotistic despotism remain within perfectly legal bounds? Guess what: We no longer have to care! To paraphrase Jon Stewart talking about Karl Rove the other night: Sarah Palin can’t hurt me anymore.
Unless … can’t you see Palin emerging as the leader of a splinter hard-right group, possibly even a third party? A perverse part of me—the part that enjoyed this endless campaign’s operatic grotesquerie–sort of wishes she would run in ’12, because if she did manage to get the nomination (which, as Anne observes, good friggin’ luck), she would have to debate Barack Obama, which would make for one of the most entertaining spectacles American politics has ever seen.
-
sponsorship
This whole debate about Lafferty's piece in the Daily Beast raises a question for me: Does it matter whether Palin is a feminist or not? Isn't it possible that she could be a net benefit for feminism without being one? I, too, am bothered by Palin's politics on a number of women-related issues, from abortion to abstinence-only sex ed. But before I go to the "she's terrible for feminism" place, I think of two 9-year-old girls I know, and I try to see this from their perspective. This is the first election they're really going to remember. And what they'll remember is that Hillary Clinton very nearly was the Democratic presidential candidate and that Sarah Palin was a dynamic, funny, personable VP candidate. Hopefully, they'll come of age thinking such an accomplishment for women is, if not normal, at least possible. Hopefully, they WON'T remember this campaign as the moment they realized there's a profound double standard for women--namely, that female candidates are criticized with more vigor than male candidates.
The problem that Lafferty doesn't acknowledge, alas, is that all these issues are tied together. It has to be fair for liberal feminists to criticize Palin on the basis of her positions, as Emily points out. At the same time, though, there's plenty of latent sexism tinging the discourse. Lafferty lumps all this together, which doesn't help further the debate. No doubt Palin is smart; but what troubles a lot of voters is whether she's intellectually curious and whether she's open to debate and advice. And as Ann pointed out, deeming a woman a "brainiac" after one plane ride smacks of overcompensation.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?