SPECIAL IDEAS REPORT

« The Idea of California | Main | The Idea of Obama »

06 July 2009 10:00 AM

Ideas 2009

On Class, Politics, and Bootstraps

Ross Douthat writes his latest column on Sarah Palin.

In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president represents the meritocratic ideal -- that anyone, from any background, can grow up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal -- that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard.

This ideal has had a tough 10 months. It's been tarnished by Palin herself, obviously. 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.

But it's also been tarnished by the elites themselves, in the way that the media and political establishments have treated her.

There is something about this narrative that doesn't sit right with me. This "ordinary citizen" who "takes on the elites" happened to be a sitting governor with a net worth over a million dollars, and her family enjoyed a 6-figure plus income even before she became governor. She rose to the national spotlight largely because the editor of an inside the beltway conservative magazine enjoyed meeting her during his luxury cruise ship trip to Alaska. It is true that she isn't an elite in the sense that George W. Bush and John McCain were -- they came from families with political connections -- but it is hard to see how she embodies the up-by-the-bootstraps narrative more than Barack Obama (or Joe Biden, for that matter).

In Ross's telling, what separates the meritocratic ideal from the democratic ideal is whether you can be a success story without having attended Columbia or Harvard. Okay. Well Joe Biden was born into a middle class family to a father who had a long spell of unemployment, and later found work as a used car salesman. He made a success of himself having graduated from the University of Delaware in Newark and the Syracuse University College of Law. Why isn't he the embodiment of the democratic ideal?

But I actually don't want to concede Ross's premise. Given the history of race in America, the election of a mixed race black man to the presidency -- Columbia and Harvard or not -- ought to have as much a claim to fulfilling the democratic ideal as the nomination of a woman who didn't attend an Ivy League college. We've had our Andrew Jacksons and our Jimmy Carters. Despite the frequency of Ivy League presidents, no one doubts that a candidate from a less elite educational pedigree can be elected. Which candidate caused more Americans to reconsider the kind of person who might be elected to the presidency, Barack Obama or Sarah Palin?

Ross goes on:

Here are lessons of the Sarah Palin experience, for any aspiring politician who shares her background and her sex. Your children will go through the tabloid wringer. Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented. Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith. (And no, gentle reader, Palin did not insist on abstinence-only sex education, slash funds for special-needs children or inject creationism into public schools.)

Didn't Chelsea Clinton go through the tabloid wringer? Wasn't George W. Bush's religion mocked? Wasn't Dan Quayle's political record distorted to better parody him?

Male commentators will attack you for parading your children. Female commentators will attack you for not staying home with them. You'll be sneered at for how you talk and how many colleges you attended. You'll endure gibes about your "slutty" looks and your "white trash concupiscence," while a prominent female academic declares that your "greatest hypocrisy" is the "pretense" that you're a woman. And eight months after the election, the professionals who pressed you into the service of a gimmicky, dreary, idea-free campaign will still be blaming you for their defeat.

I do think that Sarah Palin was in the unique position of running for high office as the mother of a large family, but Hillary Clinton was certainly attacked for being an ambitious careerist insufficiently focused on family, Mike Huckabee has certainly been sneered at for how he talks, and the "slutty looks" and "white trash" jokes, while unfair and in bad taste, hardly seem any more prevalent than the white trash jokes made about Bill Clinton, or the most strident criticism academics leveled at Dick Cheney.

To sum up, it seems clear to me that Sarah Palin has been criticized unfairly at times, sometimes offensively so -- and equally clear to me that every candidate on a presidential ticket in my lifetime has been mocked and misrepresented. Anyone who doubts that others have faced similarly offensive attacks have too short a memory.

Ross concludes:

All of this had something to do with ordinary partisan politics. But it had everything to do with Palin's gender and her social class.

Sarah Palin is beloved by millions because her rise suggested, however temporarily, that the old American aphorism about how anyone can grow up to be president might actually be true.

But her unhappy sojourn on the national stage has had a different moral: Don't even think about it.

There is obviously resistance to having a female president -- an unfortunate fact that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have helped to diminish by garnering support for female candidates on either side of the aisle.

As for social class, however, I am unconvinced by Ross's argument, because Sarah Palin is about as imperfect a test case as one could find. In seeking the second highest office in the land, she garnered uncommonly strident pushback not because she failed to check the Ivy League box, but because she couldn't put a check mark next to any of the boxes that qualifies one for the White House.

Ross mentioned Andrew Jackson as a historical example of the democratic ideal rising to the presidency. Prior to becoming president, Jackson fought in the American revolution, heroically commanded forces at the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812, served as military governor of Florida, was a delegate to the Tennessee constitutional convention, served in the House and in the Senate, and sat on the State Supreme Court of Tennessee. He was also a very successful businessman.

Sarah Palin served a partial term as governor of Alaska, demonstrated policy knowledge on exactly one subject, and excited the base. The message to another candidate of similar qualifications should be "don't even think about" running for the vice-presidency. It isn't about social class. It's about everything else.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://ideas.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/11182

Comments (23)

Um, what, how can you not defend Sarah The Plumber from the vile, liberal elites who tried to destroy her? I was honestly hoping McCain would get elected, just so mid-term we could slip Tina Fey in place of Palin a la Kevin Kline's "Dave".

Mike at The Big Stick

I got the impression that Douthat was talking more about the illusion of simple roots than the reality. A lot of Americans, for beter or for worse, identify with Palin. Her 'small towns verses big city' rhetoric plays very well in middle America.

"I got the impression that Douthat was talking more about the illusion of simple roots than the reality."

Really? Point me to Douthat's words that gives you that view.

Ross Douchat can't be "talking about" something he didn't write.

I have yet to see one example of the supposed brilliance that got him this job at the NYT. Everything he writes is an attack on himself - a rich East Coast private school elite - while he pretends that he's some kind of everyman. Kind of like David Brooks, who equates his own University of Chicago education with five community colleges in five years, except a hell of a lot more disingenuous.

ottovbvs (Replying to: Mark)

I have to agree. I've religiously read Douhat's NYT offerings and they are mediocre. He isn't in the same league as Sullivan or Larison. One wonders how he got the gig. Old school tie?

Didn't Chelsea Clinton go through the tabloid wringer?

Not really. There were early tasteless attempts at humor by SNL and Rush Limbaugh but the perpetrators were so soundly and immediately smacked that they immediately felt the need to apologize. Rush even disavows prior knowledge of the joke to this day. Chelsea's coverage from then on was favorable or null. Letterman, on the other hand, was encouraged to believe for a week that the whole thing would blow over.

Wasn't George W. Bush's religion mocked? Wasn't Dan Quayle's political record distorted to better parody him?

Sure, but what's your point? It's like looking at the gore in "The Passion of the Christ" and saying "Ho hum. I've seen blood before." Every politician faces haters. I've not seen haters feel so justified...even ennobled by their hate.

Palin will need political genius and a supreme will to power to make a comeback in the political arena after this. If she doesn't have it (and I am convinced she lacks the latter), that will be too bad for conservatives and conservatarians. They really don't have anyone on their bench to replace her gifts.

Persia (Replying to: James GW)

John McCain of all people once said that Chelsea Clinton was ugly because Janet Reno was her 'father.' Please don't tell me everyone was respectful to Chelsea.

ken (Replying to: Persia)

I think James does have a point about the ferocity of Palin bashing. You really do need a composite of past political figures to come up with a parallel to the reaction to Palin. But I have to agree with Frieresdorf more than Douthat. Palin was singularly unqualified to be (vice) president and to think and act otherwise was to invite not only criticism but vicious attack by people justifiably alarmed at even the distant prospect of her actually winning the presidency.

As Friersdorf points out, you can be a populist with a distinguished national record that shows you can handle office, as was Andrew Jackson. Palin did not earn criticism by being a populist. She earned criticism by thinking that she was perfectly qualified to be President of the United States despite having zero grasp of any major policy issue (she knew foreign policy by virtue of Alaska's physical proximity to Russia?).

Granted, the wisdom of the experts is looking tarnished these days. But are you really willing to claim that a natural talent with little experience can walk from small town Alaska into the Oval Office and do a bang up job? If rejecting that position is elitism, then I guess I am an elitist.

James GW (Replying to: ken)

Granted, the wisdom of the experts is looking tarnished these days. But are you really willing to claim that a natural talent with little experience can walk from small town Alaska into the Oval Office and do a bang up job? If rejecting that position is elitism, then I guess I am an elitist.

I thought the same thing about a community organizer who had done nothing in his political tenure but campaign for another office. I realize "So's your mother" is not a logical argument, but Obama's election did teach me that when it comes to political office "qualified" is a determination that can only be made through an election.

DB Cooper (Replying to: ken)

James, if you truly believe that Sarah Palin is as qualified as Barack Obama was, all I can say is - enjoy the wilderness.

James GW (Replying to: ken)

James, if you truly believe that Sarah Palin is as qualified as Barack Obama was, all I can say is - enjoy the wilderness.

DB,

Translation:
"James, I have no logic to refute your statement."

adrock66613 (Replying to: ken)

james, you seem like an intelligent guy, but DB has a point. i think that reasonable people, regardless of ideology, can agree that given what we saw of both palin and obama, there simply isn't a comparison in terms of qualification. obama clearly had an infinitely greater command of a wide variety of issues. palin, time after time, could not give a thoughtful person confidence in her grasp of nearly ANY of these issues. i don't think it was unfair to ask her what she thought of the "bush doctrine", or of supreme court decisions with which she disagreed, or what news or current events sources she used to keep abreast of issues. i remember some people getting offended when bush was asked in 2000 to name some leaders of important nations (pakistan, taiwan, etc.), having great difficulty, and claiming it was an example of "gotcha" journalism. it seems his lack of interest in preparing himself prior to asking for the job of president forewarned his complacency in acquiring the requisite knowledge prior to an ill-advised invasion and a woefully inadequate foreign policy overall. palin seemed to have a similar attitude toward learning about things important and germane to job she sought. point being, she was put on the spot again and again and failed to adequately respond nearly every time.

ken (Replying to: James GW)

James,
I am willing to accept that Americans of different political affiliations (read: Red-Blue) have different political and cultural sensibilities that cannot be reconciled or logically defended.

I look at Barack Obama and see a world-class intellect that I trust both to learn on the job and to have learned more than most politicians from his admittedly limited political experience. And when he says something about bitter men clinging to guns and religion, I think "that was impolitic and a gross generalization, but not out in left field." I know that others look at him and don't see the appeal to begin with and can't imagine how others can overlook the lack of experience and contempt for a Red American political imaginary.

When I see Sarah Palin on camera, I experience her as fingernails on a chalk board. And when she talks about foreign and economic policy, it strikes me as ignorant and further right on the spectrum than I consider tolerable. Still, I can understand intellectually--to a point--how others see her embodying common wisdom and first-hand grasp of America as they experience it (I grew up outside of a town of 5000 in the Midwest, so this is not alien to me). And I can imagine how someone could react to her blunders the way I react to Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment--unfortunate, but easily forgivable. But, still, I have trouble believing that there are too many people who really believe that her charisma (for the sizable audience that it works on) could translate into solid policy and governance.

What am I missing?

matoko_chan

Look Conor......
I just read American Lion and I can say with authority that Andy Jackson would have told Palin to stay home and take care of her children and he would have shot Glenn Beck on sight as a dirty treasonous seccessionist.
Palin blew up the myth that anyone can be president, not because she was "unfairly" attacked....but because she didn't have the substrate.
If she could have been Elle Woods the media would have adored her just like Susan Boyle.
She couldn't do it...
The failboat of the conservative movement is dead in the water until you can admit that.

Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s

Short memory indeed.

Obama is a muslim
Obama hates America
Obama refuses to wear a flag-pin
Obama pals around with terrorists
Obama is a sexist for how he treated Hillary Clinton
Obama kills babies
Obama is a socialist
Obama wasn't born in America
Obama is a crazy Christian
Obama is a reverse-racist
etc, etc.

It's nice to see the right-wing talk show hosts take a break from defaming Obama to complain about how the liberal media is defaming Palin.

Don't FART and then complain about the smell.

James,
I am willing to accept that Americans of different political affiliations (read: Red-Blue) have different political and cultural sensibilities that cannot be reconciled or logically defended.

I look at Barack Obama and see a world-class intellect that I trust both to learn on the job and to have learned more than most politicians from his admittedly limited political experience. And when he says something about bitter men clinging to guns and religion, I think "that was impolitic and a gross generalization, but not out in left field." I know that others look at him and don't see the appeal to begin with and can't imagine how others can overlook the lack of experience and contempt for a Red American political imaginary.

When I see Sarah Palin on camera, I experience her as fingernails on a chalk board. And when she talks about foreign and economic policy, it strikes me as ignorant and further right on the spectrum than I consider tolerable. Still, I can understand intellectually--to a point--how others see her embodying common wisdom and first-hand grasp of America as they experience it (I grew up outside of a town of 5000 in the Midwest, so this is not alien to me). And I can imagine how someone could react to her blunders the way I react to Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment--unfortunate, but easily forgivable. But, still, I have trouble believing that there are too many people who really believe that her charisma (for the sizable audience that it works on) could translate into solid policy and governance.

What am I missing?

Ken, you're missing the fact that you (like the rest of us) tend to judge people favorably when you agree with them.
"World class intellect"? Based on what? Since I disagree with him, he seems to me to be a World Class Incompetent, hellbent on bankrupting the country I love while trying to save its economy, and on taking away its freedom while trying to grow its government. I would have voted for Sarah Palin for President in an instant over any of the other candidates. Not because I thought she is a WCI, but because she is obviously competent and I can trust her to take steps that won't wreck the place. We conservatives want leaders who will conserve.
If someone says things you disagree with, you will think she's wrong and therefore stupid just about all of the time.

ken (Replying to: MikeR)

Mike,
I get that--I think I spelled that out plainly in my comment. To be plainer about my question: how can you watch the clip of her talking about Putin rearing his ugly head and coming into our airspace in Alaska and still think that Sarah Palin is competent? If your main concern is the deficit you don't have any lack of experienced and competent Republicans who could champion your cause. Why Palin?

ken (Replying to: MikeR)

And on the subject of WCI, I can recognize that William Buckley or Milton Friedman are World Class Intellects without agreeing with them. You don't think it is possible to be brilliant but wrong?

She is competent because she has done a pretty good job at each of the positions she's held (at least, until this week!) I strongly wish that modern politics would not be so tremendously based on dumb stuff like sound bites.
I agree with you about Buckley and Friedman; about Obama, not so much. For sure there are brilliant liberals, and every other type as well. Unfortunately, neither politics nor economics is yet a science, and bright and knowledgeable people can have all sorts of damaging opinions. But to quote Buckley, I'd rather be ruled by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. Obviously, the more competent the better, but being competent at ruining things isn't a virtue.

But to respond to your point, I do think that if you would listen to Friedman debating Krugman, you would give Friedman an IQ downgrade for saying so many dumb things, and Krugman an upgrade for refuting them so brilliantly. I might do the opposite. I think you're doing that for President Obama. I, on the other hand, read this conservative pundit and that one, shredding his every remark, and tend to wonder why anyone listens to the guy.

I can't really comment on the comments on the Douthat article, since I can't read it and don't feel like subscribing. But it's bizarre to me that the author here thinks that Palin's treatment is similar to that of those others he mentioned. Only President Bush has received anything like it in my memory. People often dislike and attack any major political figure of the opposite persuasion. But Bush and Palin, they hated with a passion.

Mike,
I understand that our fundamental political and cultural sensibilities determine our reaction to political and cultural figures more than relatively empirical data. But I think you reach a point with some figures where you have to admit that they got some/most things right or wrong.

Who would argue now that Bush was wrong about the surge? I was sure it was a waste of lives to undertake it but I was wrong. On the broader Bush presidency even many conservatives admit that it was not a success (David Brooks at least). His approval ratings support this as well. Iraq, New Orleans, tax cuts while spending money like a drunken sailor (non-counter-cyclical stimulus)...I don't see how you can spin that into a success. I can see two sides to Clinton, two sides to Bush I, but I can't see how you could say that Bush II didn't earn his drubbing by the comentariat. And Palin likewise.

Sure there will always be people who will never change their minds (the 30% that supported Bush II til the end), but I think that in some cases of success and failure it doesn't all boil down to pre-existing political inclinations--there is an undeniable, unspinnable reality. I think Palin is a case like that.

Sounds like we roughly agree on President Bush. Though I would probably judge him for different issues than you - he made a conscious decision to spend his whole presidency on Iraq, and I think that was a mistake. The saddest part of the Bush presidency for me is that he had the opportunity (control of Congress) to really get some good done for the country (from my point of view, of course), and it all got poured out on the Iraqi sand. He judged that to be his job, and I think he was wrong. But even there I think that history might eventually judge it a success - if it ultimately helps to spread freedom in the Middle East. I haven't given up on the place.
Never been sure why people bring up New Orleans, which I saw at the time as an unbelievable failure of local government, with the feds arriving late to do a job that shouldn't have been theirs. Presumably you saw it differently.
But spending too much money - for sure. But of course that makes Pres. Obama even a whole lot worse. In a whole different league. Whole different planet. California.
I'm afraid I can't believe in your unspinnable reality. If the New Deal had been unspinnable, liberals wouldn't be supporting the Keynesian stimulus, and/or conservatives wouldn't be claiming that the whole New Deal is a proof that incompetent government control extends depressions.
But Governor Palin? Near as I can tell, she was a good mayor, and a good governor. Again, I couldn't really care less if she gives good interviews. I don't see the sense in judging someone as stupid when she clearly is not based on her work. Or judging someone as a WCI because he gives very good speeches, though the rest of his record was skimpy. If the two of them were my business associates, well, you know just how much that would count. I know bright guys who can sure sound dumb. When you work with them, you find out what kind of work they do. (Caveat: Her quitting might create such an unspinnable reality. Loads of conservatives will surely say that she might have done a good job, but people who quit jobs in the middle don't get elected for bigger ones.)

Post a comment