Palin and Obama
In a post on why there is so much hatred directed toward Sarah Palin, (Not Hating Sarah Palin) Henry Neufeld make the following comment,
“If the left had really wanted to see Palin diminish as an issue, they should have stayed away from exaggerated attacks and rumors. But the right should have done the same thing with Barack Obama. Despite huge differences in personalities, stories, and political views, I think very similar frustration has fueled hysterical anti-Obama rhetoric on the right. Those on the right simply could not and cannot understand Obama’s personal popularity.”
Frankly, this is the sort of intellectual equivalence that drives me nuts. Let me first stipulate that certain aspects of the left and right are equivalent. There are thoughtful people on both sides and kooks on both sides. That given, there is little equivalence between the “average” liberal opposing Palin, and the average conservative opposing Obama.
Nor do I think that the average conservative “simply could not and cannot understand Obama’s personal popularity.” They understand it all too well, which granted, probably is a source of frustration.
Concerning the liberal attacks on Palin, they are quite simple. ANY Republican, and especially any conservative who might reach a position of power is savagely and personally attacked by the left with some combination of: dumb, heartless, greedy, uncaring, racist, bigot, homophobe, etc. The facts are irrelevant. Not only will these attacks not be questioned by the mainstream media, the mainstream media will for the most part join the chorus.
Thus many liberal still think that Reagan was an “amiable dunce” despite the fact that those who have actually studied his writings know that he was a serious political thinker. Another example, is the common claim that George W. Bush is likewise dumb. According to one report, “Indeed, Bush is known to read… little – both for official business and for diversion.” Like so much of the lefts attacks the facts are somewhat different. By virtually any standard Bush is a very serious reader, reading on average about 100 books a year of which about half are non-fiction. In comparison it looks as if Obama reads less than 10 a year.
The list of other examples is long. Bork, Thomas, Bush 41, Quayle, Gingrich, and now Palin, to name but a few. Whoever the Republicans nominate in 2012 is, that person will likewise be savaged.
What was surprising about Palin was not that she was viciously attacked, but that she generated such a strong ground swell of support so quickly. This is a testament as to why she was seen as one of the rising stars in the party, and was on many conservatives short list for potential VP candidates, including mine.
But context is important, and frankly another part of the groundswell of support was that, for many she brought hope to the campaign, especially given the fact the party seems to have lost its conservative principles, and frankly, so many republicans were having a great deal of trouble voting for McCain, even in light of Obama.
For example, when it became clear that McCain would be the nominee, I wrote a column outlining the problems I had with him. I ended by writing, “For me, my current plan is to vote for McCain in November, and I will detail my reasons why in a future post.” While I did vote for him, I never could quite get around to writing that future post.
For those who think she was a drag on the ticket, the simple fact is that from the time of her announcement to when McCain suspended his campaign because of the housing induced financial crisis, was the only time since McCain’s nomination that it looked like Republican might actually have a chance to win.
As for Obama, the “average” conservative knows very well why Obama is so popular: his media image. It is just a fact that if all you hear about someone is positive you will tend to have a positive view of them. Virtually the entire entertainment and new media has fallen for Obama, a young, black, good looking , relatively unknown politician who, at least when using a teleprompter, gives good speeches.
He has never been seriously challenged by the press, and instead sends tingles down their legs. Thus Obama is allowed to make sweeping generalities and vague but nice sounding policy statements without having to get down into the actually details that might alienate voters. Thus for the most part his campaign was simply hope and change, without having to actually fill in any details.
Even now what do we know about him? Actually very little. For the press often seem more anxious to defend him than to question him. As I cite in my book Preserving Democracy, reporters when over Palin with a fine tooth comb, while taking Obama at face value. Perhaps if reporters had asked Obama some of the questions they asked Palin, things may have been different.
More importantly, it is not so much that conservatives “hate” Obama, but that they strongly oppose his policies, I don’t think the reverse is true for liberals and Palin. This goes to a core difference between liberals and conservatives. Whereas conservatives tend on average to think that liberals are wrong, liberal tend to think conservatives are bad. For example, while conservatives think that Obama’s handling of the economy is seriously misguided, and will lead to even greater problems, liberals tended to see Bush’s handling of the economy as corrupt and aimed at “helping his buddies.”
I would also say there is a greater degree of partisanship on the left. Over the last eight years conservative had many strong disagreements with Bush’s domestic policies, in particular Campaign Finance Reform, Spending, Immigration, and the Stimulus bill to name just a few. In short they were guided by principles and supported him when they agreed with him, and opposed him when they didn’t. This is continuing with Obama. While there is much for conservatives to oppose with Obama, many give him generally good marks on his handling of the war so far.
Liberals, on the other hand, seem more driven by partisanship. One clear example, they opposed the increase of the debt under Bush, but are ok with an much greater increase now that Obama is in charge. In short it is clear that while they complained about “Bush’s debt” the focus of their complaint was Bush, not the debt.
Thus while at the fringes there may be a correspondence at the extremes, there is a significant divergence between mainstream liberal and conservative attacks.
The Defense of Marriage Part II
When looking at the issue of the government sanction of marriage, the first question to ask is: should government even get involved at all? Why shouldn’t marriage simply be a private matter between those involved to arrange their relationships in whatever way they want to arrange them? In short, why should government care in the first place? This is essentially the Libertarian argument. It’s a private matter and government should stay out of it all together.
At first glance, this seems to be a good argument. But the key words here are “first glance” and “seems.” As I pointed out last time, government does have a clear interest in self-preservation, and thus in the development of future citizens.
More than this, there is a clear link (e.g. Orr , Anderson, Medved, Gilder, Gallagher ) between the breakdown of the family structure and the rise of social problems, problems that not only cost government a great deal of money, but also cause a great deal of pain and suffering throughout society as a whole. Nor should this be any surprise.
A key problem critics need to address is: If the family unit is so optional, so much a matter of personal choice, why has it been so universal? Why has the basic family unit of a man and a woman been the norm for virtually every culture in every period of human history? The closest runner up would be polygamy, but that has been more an option for rich and powerful men, than any norm. As for same sex marriage that has been unknown. Even in cultures that approved of, and even encouraged, homosexuality, such as ancient Greece, marriage was still between a man and a woman. This would indicate that there is far more going on in marriage than just personal choice.
Historically the family unit has been the bedrock of civilization. The historian Will Durant wrote “The family has been the ultimate foundation of every civilization known to history. It was the economic and productive unit of society, tilling the land together; it was the political unit of society, with parental authority as the supporting microcosm of the State. It was the cultural unit, transmitting letters and arts, rearing and teaching the young; and it was the moral unit, inculcating through cooperative work and discipline, those social dispositions which are the psychological basis and cement of civilized society” (Mansions of Philosophy)
If it truly plays such a key and foundational role, then if the foundation is weakened, one could reasonably expect the society to suffer; and it has. As Gallagher wrote, “The overthrow of the marriage culture and its replacement by a postmarital culture is the driving force behind almost all the gravest problems facing America – crime, poverty, welfare dependence, homelessness, educational stagnation, even child abuse.” (p 4) For example:
The US Department of Health/Census reports that children from fatherless homes are 5 times more likely to commit suicide. The Center for Disease Control reports that they are 20 times more likely to show behavior disorders.
The statistics are really overwhelming. Children who do not have a mother and a father in a loving stable relationship are at greater risk, often dramatically greater risk for: teen sexual activity, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, teen pregnancy, child abuse, emotional problems, depression, sleep disturbances, expulsion or suspension from school, antisocial behavior, impulsive behavior, violent behavior, mental illness, psychiatric hospital admission, and incarceration.
Even if these problems were simply limited to the children themselves, there would be justification enough on humanitarian grounds for government to take an interest in marriage. But these problems are not limited to the children. These problems affect others and cost the government literally billions of dollars.
So government does have an interests. But that they have an interest does not automatically mean that they should get involved. While at first this may seem to be a much harder question to answer, in reality it is a false question. This is because it implies that government could still be neutral, and uninvolved. Yet government is rarely, if ever, neutral as in fact true neutrality is very difficult to achieve. More importantly government is already is involved, and as such any action will either support or detract from marriage.
The evidence from the last few decades strongly demonstrates this. Much of the last half of the last century could be seen as government reducing its support for marriage and becoming more neutral. As a result a very good case can be made that government has not taken a strong enough role. Back in the mid-nineties, long before same-sex marriage became a major issue, Maggie Gallagher wrote that “Over the past thirty years, quietly, and largely unremarked outside a narrow group of specialists, American family law has been rewritten to dilute both the rights and obligations of marriage.” (p 131)
As we have seen in the statistics cited above, the affects of this move to neutrality are also pretty clear, even if often ignored. So it would appear that government, has a strong enough interest to play a role in marriage. Yet government has for decades been abdicating its role, weakening and devaluing marriage, with serious and detrimental effects on children and society. Based on this, what is needed is a strengthening of marriage, not a further weakening, which will lead to even more problems and suffering.
Wausau Tea Party Update
Their efforts to impede the Tea Party having been a bust, anonymous callers have started to call local businesses who supported the Tea Party calling the Tea Party Patriots a “Racist Group.” They must be very worried. If the Tea Parties were as unimportant and insignificant as they like to claim then why the effort to stop them?
It also says a lot about the entire situation. The message of the Tea Party is a simple one. Government is growing too big, taxing and borrowing too much. We simply have to tell the truth about what Government is doing and these people get all upset and start lying.
If nothing else, the incredible leap of illogic to go from thinking Government is too big and spending too much to being somehow racist is astounding. Especially given that many of those who support the current massive borrowing, opposed a much lower level of borrowing by the prior administration. I agreed with their criticism of Republicans who spent too much even if I did doubt their sincerity. Now it is clear that I was right to do so.
Wausau Tea Party Update
The Wausau Tea Party held on the 4th, despite some minor opposition came off very well. On Thursday, I received a call from a friend about an article in City Pages, a local weekly, warning about the tea party. She was complaining because the article made it seem as if a group of Right wing extremist had hijacked the American Legion’s Flag raising ceremony. The truth of the matter is that there was only a loose link between the Legion’s ceremony at Noon, and the Tea Party that began an hour and half later. The Tea party was using the same permit “with the understanding that their events were separate.” In addition the Tea party was donating a share of the proceeds to the Legion for the support of troops serving overseas and their families.
Following City Page’s inaccurate story, the Legion received “anonymous callers” who threatened a boycott of the Legion and so late on Friday the Legion cancel their fourth of July events. When Tea Party supporters arrived to set up they discovered that somehow the sprinklers had been left on all night. But they were able to get them turned off and by noon, the ground was reasonable dry.
The crowd started showing up around 11:00 and by the 1:30 start time was pretty large. They were not the extremists City Pages had warned about, but rather a just a group of Americans concerned about their country, but still upbeat having a good time. There was no hate or anger in the speeches that were given, but concern and love of country. And despite the reaction of the Legion to the anonymous callers the Tea Party will still be donating a share of the money raised to the Legions fund for the support of servicemen and their families serving overseas. All and all a good day.
Wausau Tea Party
I will be a speaker at the July 4th Tea Party here in Wausau. The “Let Freedom Ring” Independence Day Celebration & Tea Party Event will be held to benefit our soldiers overseas and their families, and will be from noon till 4:00 PM. I provide more details as they become available.
