Sarah Palin

The Problem of the Palin Ponzi Scheme

Sarah Palin’s decision not to run could push her to the top of the vice presidential slate, where (with the right nominee) she could reprise her role as the extremist spoiler that tanked a mainstream candidate. Here’s hoping.

But in the interim, all that’s certain is that she’s managed to successfully cash in on the uncertainty surrounding her potential presidential bid without going through the hard work of actually running for something, holding public office, or making a difference. Jon Stewart details the absurdity of it all — especially in light of misleading fundraising letters her personal PAC has put out over the past few months. From one:

Someone has to save our nation from this road to European Socialism. Do you think it should be [ex-]Governor Palin?

If so, can you send your best, one-time gift to SarahPAC today to help her elect more common-sense conservatives — and show her that we support her if she decides to run?

Now there’s certainly nothing illegal in any of this fundraising — when I use the word “Ponzi Scheme,” I use it as loosely as Governor Perry — but this sort of inducement to give someone money, to perform a discretionary act that they have no intention of ever performing, feels a lot like the kind of securities fraud that gets companies investigated, and directors thrown in jail. At the very least, it’s slimy. Voters spend money to “convince” Sarah to run, and in exchange, get nothing more than another visit from the Grifter Express, and the peace of knowing that someone cares enough about their loose cultural beliefs to take their money and use it to write Facebook posts. I suppose that’s something, but it’s not much.

What Sarah Palin has become, and what we’ve allowed her to become through this “will she or won’t she” dance, is a political version of Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton, “famous because she’s famous,” consuming public money and attention in exchange for the sheer joy of knowing she exists, and witnessing her wacky hijinks. She’s an entertainer, taking in the political energy of her supporters and converting it into spectacle. We should ignore her, until she decides to do something useful.

That we don’t, though, says something. It speaks to a vacuum on both sides of the aisle — of ideas on the Republican side, and of leadership on the Democratic side. There’s no space for such demagogues in a healthy democracy.

On Gratuitous Invocations of “Terrorists”: Or, How Joe Biden Broke Jonah Goldberg’s Brain

…such as it is.

Goldberg, the boy who cried “Nazi,” flies into a rage over Democratic lawmakers’ reference to congressional Republicans as “hostage-takers,” budgetary “terrorists,” etc., and the media’s relative silence, compared to their heightened interest in recent overwrought Republican zealotry. Why the double standard, he asks?

Because Republicans call Democrats “terrorists” all the damn time. Biden’s quip hasn’t gotten coverage because we’re just used to it from the other side of the aisle. That’s sad, and feels true. But: examples, please?

*     *     *     *     *

A fair request. I set out to write this post wondering how hard it would be to dredge up quotes of Republicans calling their fellow citizens — especially Democrats — terrorists, disloyal, un-American, etcetera, based only on those citizens’ failure to subscribe to the GOP’s vision of a white, straight, upper-class Christian America. Probably pretty hard. I mean, we can start with Michael Savage (“The Enemy Within,” which casts all liberals as traitors) and Ann Coulter (“Treason,” same). Then there’s always Glenn Beck (who says Obama is “sympathetic” to terrorist causes) and Rush Limbaugh. The latter, of course, claims that Democrats actually are terrorists! But after that, where would I look?

Well, there’s also President Bush. Who made a large part of his regular stump speech the claim that any Democratic electoral victories would mean that “the terrorists win.” And Karl Rove, who equated habeas corpus, which is apparently now a liberal part of the Constitution, with terrorist “hand-holding.”

That’s probably it, right? Too bad. If only there was one more example of Republicans regularly debasing their political opponents, preferably from a party operative who commands media attention like none other, ran on a mainline ticket, and may again. But who!?

Well, thank God for Sarah Palin. She just went ahead and gathered up all those little tropes, rolled ‘em into a nice, tight little sound clip, and positively ran to Fox News to deliver it, making my job so much easier.

It’s really quite offensive. And remarkable, in that Palin’s larger point is actually tone deaf to itself. She gets to the undoubtedly correct argument, that it’s not nice to call fellow citizens “terrorists” based exclusively on their nonviolent political advocacy, but runs right past it to remind us of the official Republican position, that “liberals” are, actually, no better than terrorists. Or want the terrorists to win. Or hate America. Or aren’t even American in the first place.

*     *     *     *     *

So let’s return to the original question. Why hasn’t Biden’s admittedly offensive quip gotten more coverage? Because it’s boring. Thanks to a steady stream of abuse from the right, it’s now acceptable to refer to one’s political opponent as a “terrorist.” Biden chose not to try to change that tone. And Palin, in response, affirmatively perpetuated it, while feigning offense, and giving the obligatory nod to decency. I’ll be the first to admit, both sides need to cut it out. Us and them. But I’d like to see the party that started this trope make the first move. Even if the box can never be closed, Pandora is in the best position to try.

Internet Culture: Popularity, Conspiracies, and Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

Last week, Conor Friedsdorf of The Atlantic wrote what I thought was a fairly charming vignette, of obviously limited factual value, about how he, along with two girls denied Harry Potter tickets, were the only attendees at the Orange County premiere of Sarah Palin’s comically titled new biopic, The Undefeated.

Seriously, she lost in 2008. We all remember that, right?

Anyways, this puff-piece, dashed off at 3 AM PST, has since become the most popular (and controversial) piece of Conor’s short career at The Atlantic. In a post yesterday, he chronicles his shock, responds to his detractors, and in the process, pens an abnormally all-encompassing story of life, culture, and writing in the internet age. Let’s investigate.

Popularity: as American magazines go, The Atlantic is fairly highbrow — exceedingly, even– and Conor’s writing is no exception. As he notes, he’s written a number of pieces sharply critical of the left, of the right, and several excruciatingly well-researched pieces, some of which took months, and one of which — on the best long-form journalism of 2010 — I will certainly now read. Yet he’s become “famous” for a hastily penned gag post that, while very clever, bears little relationship to the reason we value publications like The Atlantic, and writers like him. Why?

Because we read for sensationalism, not for substance, and the internet rewards writers who understand this.

My experience is similar (though on a lesser scale). As of this writing, this site’s most widely read post, at 28,1256 page views, questions whether Birther queen Orly Taitz is, or was likely to remain, a lawyer. And the premise of that post was ultimately disproved! She was properly admitted to the Supreme Court’s bar, though I still maintain that she fairly clearly committed several grave violations of the rules of professional conduct. My favorite post, on Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, actually took a long time to write, holds up well, but clocks in at the #3 slot, with a comparably dismal 12,158 views. (My second favorite, on science fiction’s moral authority, comes in at #12). If we construe exposure as a “payoff” in blogging, the effort-to-payoff model this sampling suggests discourages talent, insight, and substance, to instead reward well-timed hackery and snark.

Some blogs defy the odds. Andrew Sullivan supplies consistent quality content and, by all estimates, is widely read for it. But he’s the exception, and his stats probably admit of similarly disturbing trends. This is a serious Problem For The Internet, probably compelled by the breadth of available content, and the frequency/necessity of on-the-go reading. Both pressures combine to create the internet as a medium exclusively designed for rapid consumption.   I’m as guilty as the next man, but it’s something we need to confront, because the alternative, of an internet where information is sought only for entertainment, feels disastrous.

Conspiracies: call it a corollary of the last point. Any world where sensationalism rules becomes, naturally, a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. Just so, Conor’s critics latched onto a provably false fact pattern where Conor didn’t just invent the whole story of the empty theater — no. He made it a reality by conspiring with theaters, newspapers… everyone… to bring about the downfall of Sarah Palin, by underreporting attendance at a fictitious theater. Naturally, the theory was picked up, and run into the ground, by Andrew Breitbart, who us did the favor of even reporting the lie incorrectly.

From “death panels” to birthers, here, too, is a poignant representation of political discourse in the internet age. “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on” and, because it sounds better, is more widely read, sits more prominently in the public consciousness, and controls the conversation moving forwards.

Numbers, numbers, numbers: Finally, Conor flags one of the stranger points about this entire exchange. How many people attended Palin’s little panegyric is, literally, irrelevant. He says:

But what is ultimately at stake? Say it earns billions. Is that going to shrink the federal government? Or reform entitlements? Or affect the foreign policy America adopts? Why would an ideological movement that insists the country is going down the tubes waste so much time and energy complaining about their perception that a movie is doing better than the MSM says?

A good question, which becomes better when you realize that this isn’t an isolated incident. Time and again the conservative media have instigated, or suborned, attempts to artificially inflate attendance numbers at rallies, and general caucus strength. The movement seems more obsessed with proving its relevance, rather than earning it with policy victories. The tea party has always been more heat than light, and based on the battles they pick — like this one — that’s how they like it.

*     *     *     *     *

Sensationalism, conspiracy, and an obsession with status. Such is the state of political discourse on the internet, and therefore, the go-to style of the conservative grassroots. It’s strange to see these three ills so close together, and in a situation where they’re so clearly problematic, but we have Conor, and the Palin camp’s reflexive need to overreact to damn everything, to thank for this rare opportunity. Now, what can be done about it?

History as Myth

In light of Sarah Palin’s, well, “interesting” interpretation of American history — which describes Paul Revere galloping down the causeway, ringing bells and firing wildly into the air, to attract as much British attention as possible – Andrew Sullivan argues that history, to the Republicans, is just another creation myth to be manipulated for social purposes.

For once, I don’t think this is entirely fair. Sure, Palin’s third-grade understanding of American history is hilarious, especially in light of how proudly her followers proclaim themselves to be the direct and exclusive heirs to the colonial tradition. And the halting, confused explanation is especially stunning in light of the simple question that preceded it:

What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?

I would pay a lot of money to see this woman in a presidential debate.

But we all co-opt, mythologize, and exploit history. It’s practically a Western tradition, at least as old as Rome, where personal histories were wildly distorted to serve as useful morality plays. American democracy is founded on a similar premise: that Rome republicanism — which actually masked a brutal, unequal, and authoritarian society — could form the model for a government where all men are actually equal before the law. It’s a conceit that most of the Founders candidly acknowledged to each other as false. Jefferson especially was well-versed in the classics, and knew what he was doing, but the image was (and remains) valuable.

This is to say, if we’re to upbraid Sarah for this latest catastrophe, we should focus on the ineptitude of her historical appropriation, not the fact of the appropriation. Query, for example, whether Paul Revere riding a horse to protect the militia’s stockpiled arms from the invading British is in any way analogous to Sarah Palin riding a hideously tacky bus to protect your right to unnecessarily shoot animals with AK-47s.

Fabius the Fool: Choosing a Roman Analogy for Today’s GOP

Jonah Goldberg does his level best to exhort the Republican Party to greatness, comparing the Democrats’ win in NY-26 to Caesar crossing the Rubicon — because, apparently, a great battle looms. But who’s Pompey? And who’s Caesar? Jonah’s not so sure. The analogy goes amiss because Pompey’s flaw wasn’t just waiting to take up arms against his consular brother — it was being tricked into waiting. Caesar outplayed Pompey; it wasn’t moxie (which is totally a word). It was brains. Similarly, by the time Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he’d already struck first, and therefore, already won. I’m pretty sure that makes us Caesar.

Anyways, exhorting today’s Republican Party to greatness is like leading a dead horse to water. It’s just not going to take. Partially because today’s Republicans aren’t reading out of the kind of playbook that’s influenced by stories of when and how to strike. Most are still tied up deciding whether to strike at all.

For two solid years, Republicans never engaged on the merits, preferring to win by invective, rather than offering anything resembling a policy counter-proposal. Their first real policy initiative — the Ryan budget — continues in its long, slow death. The first debate of the Republican presidential “primary” drew only one candidate with any real chance (Pawlenty). Wonkish moderates are dropping out of the race left and right (Daniels, Pence, Thune) as extremists rise and fall (Gingrich, Trump). Should Palin enter, which now seems likely, it will only perpetuate that trend.

This isn’t a march on Rome. It’s craven hiding behind a walled city, while (if you believe the party’s rhetoric) the countryside burns around them. If anything, the Republicans’ is a Fabian strategy: wait out the enemy, apparently until 2016. But this plan of delay was at arrived at by default, and based on the individual, selfish calculations of the generals, rather than by design. More, it’s a Fabian strategy without an endgame. They have no Scipio, and without Scipio, there will be no Zuma.

Sarah Palin’s Linguistic Trap: or, How to Score Off Your Colleague’s Mistakes

Subtle racism is a funny thing. When Newt Gingrich called Barack Obama the “food stamp president,” I think we all reasonably understood that he meant one of two things, orpossibly both. First, that the economy tanked on Obama’s watch, which isn’t really fair, but a Republican trope nonetheless. And second, we thought he might be trying to use Obama’s race to equate him with the urban poor, largely dependent on food stamps, and indulge the background racism we so commonly see in the Republican base.

The genius of Gingrich’s line is that, like the best examples of “dog-whistle” racism, it can be interpreted as but does not depend for its existence on a harmful stereotype, like “lots of urban African Americans are on food stamps.” Overly sensitive? Maybe. But the best statesmen — something no-one has ever accused Gingrich of being — tend to avoid integrating background stereotypes into their speech, even by accident. So, adding to the candidate’s terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week, we called Gingrich on it.

Enter Sarah Palin, the natural defender of rhetorical temperance. Responding to David Gregory, who also called Gingrich on it:

[David Gregory] made it sound like that if you’re black you’re on food stamps and the president is referring to you being on food stamps. I think that’s racist. And you know, enough is enough of this calling out, this racism, these false charges.

Beautiful. By acknowledging the premise at the right moment, Sarah makes it sound like, if Newt’s comment implied racism, it’s only because of Gregory’s built-in prejudices. But isn’t this how language works? We express symbols which conjure, in the listener, separate images depending on background cultural meaning. Isn’t it the speaker’s job — not the listener’s — to avoid linguistic landmines? If Newt had used the “n-word,” would it be Gregory’s fault, too, for associating the world with a negative portrayal of African Americans, even if it’s a portrayal that Gregory did not himself believe?

Who knows. But if we needed any further proof on this point, it should now be clear: Palin’s ignorance on things that matter is matched only by her truly impressive talent for sophistry.

Catch-22

To Republicans, when the White House responds to trumped-up conspiracy theories, kept alive only by prospective 2012-ers desperate for relevance…

…it’s their fault for trying to “distract” us.

What To Make of Donald Trump?

Forgetting for a moment that he’s crazy — a birther “politician” leading the Republican field, really? — there’s little that Trump adds to the ticket, and a lot he subtracts. The only thing I can tell that he adds, as the New York Post’s headliner for today seems to concede, is that he has just an ungodly sum of money.

On the other hand, the danger he presents seems much greater. To get an idea of why, picture this event described by Politico: a tea party event, headlined by Donald Trump. Doesn’t that feel wrong? But why?

As the avatar of the super-rich, Trump, to me at least, points out an uncomfortable (inconvenient?) truth for the tea party. It’s an ideology that disproportionately benefits the super-rich, on the backs of the super-poor, with homophobia and sexism tacked on as a sort of enteric coating to make the whole package palatable to some subset of the latter. Trump is a Galt-type hero of capitalism (YouTube), but it’s not clear what those who aren’t similarly situated gain at the end of Atlas Shrugged, aside from the gift of observing a human apotheosis in which they can claim no share. Perhaps tea party conservatism has a populist element. Sarah Palin certainly seems to think so. But the Galts of the world — and the massive, entangling corporations they represent — were the populists’ traditional enemies. To the extent that post-Reagan conservatism has transmuted populism into some loose coalition aligned against the morals rather than the power of the “elites,” meaning, people who live in cities, I wonder if that’s a reaction the right wants to test in the crucible of presidential politics.

I think no. Which leads one to wonder, how nervous are real politicians about this latest stunt? And when will a real frontrunner emerge, to put a definite end to it?

Prognosticating Palin’s Presidential Plans

This is a tough one to read, because there’s just too much data to incorporate. On the one hand (and about a thousand other people have made this point), it doesn’t make sense for Sarah Palin to run, because to do so, she’d have to give up both a heap of cash, and renounce her decidedly unpresidential, but otherwise influential punditry platforms. (We’re running this alliteration to the ground.) Note, too, that Fox suspended Gingrich and Santorum’s contracts, until they decide whether or not they’ll run, but not Palin’s.

On the other hand, if you frame this question as a battle between Palin’s ego and her intellect, it’s pretty clear which one comes out on top. HotAir is taking that side, and rationalizes away this particularly damning point: she’s planned to skip the first primary debate at the Reagan library!

The kind-of-creepy Allahpundit explains this move away as particularly good posturing: it looks better to honor the memory of fallen soldiers, doesn’t it, than it does to stroke your own ego to a national audience, especially when the field is likely to remain fairly nebulous for some time. Well sure, but it’s the rare pro ball team that lets spring training run through the first game of the season. At some point, you have to actually take a swing.

For now, InTrade puts her chance of running at 45%. It’s almost worth buying, for the sheer hilarity of taking a short position against American democracy. If you’re buying, maybe hedge by picking Pawlenty, a likely draw for Palin voters in her absence, as the eventual nominee.

By the way, InTrade also gives her 9% to win the nomination, and 3% to win the office.

Radicalizing on the Right: Collective Bargaining, as an Antitrust Violation?

Elections have consequences, we say. But exactly what consequences? To listen to the right’s increasingly radical agenda, from repealing birthright citizenship to dictating spending cuts based exclusively on hot-button social issues, you’d think no Democrat had ever won elected office, or none ever would again. Can a “historic” midterm election wipe away a decidedly more historic presidential election, even as it becomes increasingly clear that Republicans have failed to win the public’s trust, and that Democrats will retain the White House in 2012?

The Wall Street Journal thinks so, as they take aim unions, not specifically, but generally, characterizing them as a restraint on trade tantamount to a monopoly. This conclusion, while not without some superficial appeal, Congress expressly rejected in the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, a gloss on the earlier Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, not as a concession to the power of the unions — which, remember, had almost no power, after 1890! — but as a recognition of the real goal of the Sherman Act. Antitrust law clearly concerns itself not with the general problem of aggregate action, but aggregate action as it impacts customers and capitalist theory by undermining the proper functioning of the free market. Union activity does not come within that prohibition or that theory, rightly understood.

But let’s step back and appreciate the, for lack of a better word, balls on Murdoch’s Journal (mixed, as always, with hilarious hackery). They’re not hitting back at Wisconsin unions, or the Wisconsin problem, or public employee unions, or even unions generally (I revise my above commentary). They’re striking at the core of collective bargaining theory. Absent the Clayton Act’s exemption, collective bargaining — boycotts, picketing, strikes — becomes illegal. Modern conservatism would consign us again to the abyss of pre-1900 “free markets,” robber barons, Hessian strikebreakers, filled milk, all in the name of some warped conception of liberty. And this continues unless we stop it in 2012.

Grim omens aside, enjoy this Simpsons clip of Burns-brand strikebreakers (hulu).