Submitted to a Candid World

Palin’s populist message rallied a lot of voters and it was primarily just liberal thinkers like yourself who were offended. When she said ‘big cities’ you heard ‘me’. When she talked about small town values you heard ‘anti-intellectualism’ (I can only speculate on why regarding that point). A lot was read into her remarks. I disagree strongly that her RNC speech was seen by “the majority of the American people,” as “rabble-rousing.” I think McCain’s poll numbers in the weeks immediately following those remarks back me up on that point. Let’s keep in mind that if you polled former McCain supporters who switched sides because of Palin, 9 out 10 would blame it on her apparent lack of intelligence in her first few interviews, not her ‘small towns’ vs ‘big cities’ rhetoric. That’s why I don’t believe her populism has been discredited. Is it a winning message? I’m not inclined to think so…but I also don’t see anything remotely like your assesment of it’s failure.

It’s understandable why you all choose to slam her populism, which is sort of a red herring, rather than her intelligence, which is the true reason for her failure as a running mate. Slamming her populism tars a lot of conservatives. Slamming her intelligence just tars her. If I was in your shoes I would favor a similar mis-direction of blame.

And what, no compliments on my alliteration? I was so proud.

Ames, ample alliteation aside, Palin’s abundant abuse of those in uraban abodes does not amount to an absolute account of her ambivelent performance amoung the american electorate. She certainly posseses enouph imbred cunning to achive small time success in a state friendly to the further right, but she did not have the chops for the big show and it showed. The republicans wanted us to see her as relatable and down to earth. Instead they saw her for what she is, a small time politician in way over her head. I think Mike is on to something when he said she was rejected for who she is more then her retoric, though that played a part. They found her irritating and obnoxious so they sent her packing.

I view Palin’s talk as a “small town” woman with “small town” values to be her creating her persona to the national audience. I wouldn’t say it offended me, but it didn’t particularly impress me either. However, I think it’s safe to say it was code-language to the Republican base to shore up support from conservatives who were (and still are, I suspect) skeptical of McCain.

While I think one can say that Palin pitched herself to the “common man” and that she has a populist rhetorical style, I think the attempt to create a divide between Republicans (or conservatives)-as-populists and Democrats-as-elites ultimately fails with or without Palin–our country may be polarized geographically, but it’s not 95-5. There are certainly a lot of populist Democrats (the Joe Bidens of the world) and elitist (at least in the financially successful sense) Republicans (Meg Whitman).

In a sense, Palin’s rhetorical appeal to the the everyday, common American isn’t the problem. It’s her dividing the country into small town as the “best”, “real” and “pro-American” parts of the country.

Ames, isn’t that what politicians do every day when they talk about helping the ‘middle class’ or the ‘working class’? The subtext of that conversation is ‘upper class bad’. What about Edwards and his ‘two Americas’ rhetoric?

And you professed a certain admiration for Huckabee’s populism, which I can tell you from hearing in person is more ‘small towns’ vs ‘big cities’ than Palin. Her’s was a weak imitation.

Edwards populism made lower class workers believe they should blame the upper class for their woes instead of their lack of skills. That’s ‘rabble rousing’ by my judgement.

There is an element of truth to both their versions of populism. But obviously both could be picked apart. I would contend that Edward’s populism is deeply flawed because it positions the middle class as victims of unfair tax policy when they aren’t. It mostly ignores the lower class which is the group that is most in need of help and as i said earlier, it ignores their own role in their upwards mobility.

Palin’s rhetoric is flawed because it makes generalizations about small towns verses big cities. Obviously they are more complicated than that, but it’s worth repeating that attitudes towards guns, for example, are much different in small towns as opposed to big cities. No doubt Obama’s urban upbringing postioned him to think differently about guns that Palin or myself, both of whom grew up around guns and using guns.

I’m not a big fan of populism in general because no matter how you slice it, it’s ultimately an ‘us vs them’ message. It positions one group as the victim and another group as the culprit. I actually think Palin’s was slightly more mild in that respect because it was contrasting values, whereas Edwards was playing the victim card. That’s not to say i agree with palin’s message, but i think it’s a fair assesment.

I’m not a big fan of populism in general because no matter how you slice it, it’s ultimately an ‘us vs them’ message. It positions one group as the victim and another group as the culprit.

The problem, though, is that sometimes there is a culprit and a victim. The populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th century were largely based around the fact that small groups with far too much power really were oppressing and exploiting large groups of people. The “us-versus-them” dynamic can be very, very dangerous given how our species is, but it can also be useful in getting oppressed majorities to realize their power and correct severe power imbalances. Further, the thing to keep in mind is that “us-versus-them” is also a mentality held by those populist movements went against. I don’t think it can be argued that the robber barons thought farmers or laborers were like them and had to thus be given respect and a fair deal. Nor do I think that the Louisiana establishment that opened the door to Huey Long thought the vast majority of the state’s population to which it denied roads, schools, and services (and even more if you look at the aftermath of the 1928 Great Flood), and which gave him power deserved any consideration.
So, populism has its place, and I think you can argue whether or not Edwards’ populism is appropriate, but Palin’s faux-populism certainly isn’t appropriate.

As to the gun thing, I think you hit the nail on the head. People who grow up in different contexts do end up with different attitudes toward guns. We need more dialog between the different sides of the issue so that a good, satisfactory, and useful set of policies on guns can be worked out and diffuse the idiotic acrimony of the past that has done nothing but make people angry.

Really?

I know I grew up in a suburb of Dallas and almost everyone I knew identified themselves as being from Dallas.

Maybe it’s just Texas or the merging cities of Dallas, but I felt like you definitely knew if you were from Dallas/suburbs or from beyond the city walls.

I guess it just differs a lot from area to area. People here keep moving into the surrounding counties to escape Louisville but they like to leave the rural areas the way they are, not bring the city with them. We like our horse farms.