Despite the occasional gloat that the collapse of the economy signals the end of culture war politics, at least for awhile, the culture war has been prominently on display in the past few weeks. Culture war politics are often framed in terms of moral issues, but they are just as much about identity politics. Overemphasis on identity politics in the Democratic Party constituted a key source of support for the conservative side of the emergent culture war, starting in the 1960s. In later iterations, culture war politics are not limited to the identity issues linked to gender, sexuality, race, and ethnicity. Religious and class identity inform the "other" side of the culture war coin.
As Ross Douthat points out in the NYTimes, attacks on Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign, and in light of her recent decision to resign as Governor of Alaska, have a distinct class tone. On this point, I agree with Douthat (with whom I agree on matters of analysis not infrequently). I can't really disagree, as I've engaged in such commentary myself.
I part company with commentators who take up the argument that Palin was unfairly attacked for daring to be an average American who sought the presidency. To be fair, Douthat gives blame where blame is due: "With her missteps, scandals, dreadful interviews and self-pitying monologues, she’s botched an essential democratic role — the ordinary citizen who takes on the elites, the up-by-your-bootstraps role embodied by politicians from Andrew Jackson down to Harry Truman."
This is true, but it misses the essential point about those leaders, as well as boot-strappers Nixon and Clinton. Ordinary Americans can aspire to great things, but you must accomplish something. In addition to Jackson and Truman, neither George Washington nor Dwight Eisenhower were known for piercing intellect. But both were highly accomplished generals. Truman, who at any rate ascended to the presidency accidentally, had a strong anti-corruption record. The bootstraps are missing in Palin's scenario. She took advantage of political opportunities and became governor- a clever move to be sure- but failed to turn that into any kind of real accomplishment for anyone other than herself. In a world in which it is increasingly useful to be able to name foreign leaders and match concepts (maverickiness) with actions (just cite McCain-Feingold, dammit, the example was right in front of your sculpted little face!), someone who does not possess Ivy League credentials or innate sharpness must be able to boast real capacity to produce results for other people. It's not enough to scramble up a ladder of empty rhetoric and problematic opponents. Credentials are not meaningless. There are many ways to demonstrate merit, but Sarah Palin remains utterly unconvincing. This isn't a product of a botched campaign or a elite conspiracy. It's her. Her biography, resume, and record. Not everyone can be president - it's not about class, it's about skill and achievement.
Up next: what the Mark Sanford scandal really tells us about the gay marriage debate; commentary on the Ricci decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fully agree. Palin is the type of politician who rises as far as they can by playing the game as opposed to actually achieving noteworthy accomplishments. Much like the various middle-managers that populate degenerate corporate structures, though I'm not sure that the Peter principle applies to politics.
ReplyDelete"With her missteps, scandals, dreadful interviews and self-pitying monologues, she’s botched an essential democratic role — the ordinary citizen who takes on the elites, the up-by-your-bootstraps role embodied by politicians from Andrew Jackson down to Harry Truman."
ReplyDeleteThe key word here is "role." Douthat's attempts to place her into a democratic / meritocratic framework don't quite work because she's not an average Jane, she's just playing a caricature of one on TV. Critiques of her have been class-toned because she has gone out of her way to perform and project a certain subset of "class" signifiers which are integral to movement conservative identity, but which also are increasingly detached from and nonsensical to the rest of the country.
But not nonsensical to the NY and DC press, who have somehow internalized all of these weird random culture war signifiers and projected them on the flyover states, which of course they can hardly ever be bothered to actually visit and find out about for real. (Call it the David Brooks Syndrome.) Meanwhile you can buy arugula and fancy mustard at a Wal Mart anywhere in the country, and many "average, working" folks have availed themselves of this and many of the other opportunities to expand their horizons that globalized capitalism has afforded... and suddenly you've got a reactionary culturo-political minority that is babbling nonsense to itself in public, and a media that's still willing to treat them as if they're making sense. At some point those contradictions had to get ridiculous enough to become unsustainable, and it looks like it's playing itself out in the person of Palin. It's highly entertaining if nothing else.