Abandoning Ship
Miss Noonan’s unconscious fear may be that it will be precisely Mrs. Palin (and others like her) who will be among the leaders of the about to be re-born conservative movement. ~Tony Blankley
I think the fear is quite conscious. She is explicit about her desire that Palin not be in such a leadership position. In my view, this fear is unnecessary for some of the reasons I have given below, but there is no question that critics of Palin have various reasons to dread Palin becoming one of the leaders of the zombified re-born conservative movement. Some of this has to do with weariness with or lack of interest in culture war issues (I would say this describes Frum’s reaction), some of it is opportunistic at this late stage in the game, some of it is a deep aversion to anything that resembles uninformed populism (that’s Brooks’ reason), some of it is stylistic (professional writers cannot take much satisfaction when a public figure so badly butchers the language), but a large part of the hostile reception of Palin by Palin’s critics on the right is a genuine objection to an unqualified candidate unprepared for the post she seeks. While her critics may have engaged in some self-serving rhetorical overkill, as I think Brooks certainly has, and even though most or all of them raised no such objections to Mr. Bush, they do seem to have learned something from the experience of the Bush administration in that they have concluded that “good instincts,” folksiness and ignorance are not what is needed.
In the end, the selection of Palin was not only a desperate and cynical move designed mainly to mobilize core constituencies, but her candidacy quickly turned into nothing more than a vehicle for riling up the remaining true believers who still approve of Mr. Bush’s job performance. If recognizing this obvious truth makes one a “me-too” conservative, you’re going to find a lot of people clamoring to acquire that designation. Obama endorsers are a somewhat different story, as they are trying to jump on the popular bandwagon, but rather than wailing about the perfidy of the defectors and demanding to know what side people are on one might want to consider what it is about one’s own side that seems to have become so radioactive. It’s all very well to say that the critics and defectors are rats deserting a sinking ship, but instead of worrying about that one might spend a bit more time considering how the ship came to be in this situation. When in an imploding political system or an imploding political movement, it is usually more important to change conditions inside to keep people from fleeing than to wish them all good riddance while building higher walls.
Introspection is for sissies! :p
her candidacy quickly turned into nothing more than a vehicle for riling up the remaining true believers who still approve of Mr. Bush’s job performance.
A-yep.
Funny, though, that Blankley or anyone should want to attempt to rebuild a political movement with the “true believers” at the foundation.
Not wanting to wish ill on my conservative friends, but my guess is that we have not seen the nadir of the GOP decline into bathos. I know a rational party would look at these last two elections and think things have to be dramatically changed, but this is not a rational party. I don’t think these people are exhausted yet, nor will they be soon. Palin, unfortunately, is their new Goldwater, and they just aren’t going to settle for another compromise. Look to see slavish attention lavished upon her over the next four years, driven by the resentment that she was torpedoed by the MSM and libruls. I would be surprised if she doesn’t emerge as the leading candidate for 2012, this time much better coached and protected from scrutiny. Who else is there, honestly speaking, for these people to rally around?
conradg said: “Palin, unfortunately, is their new Goldwater, and they just aren’t going to settle for another compromise.”
My father was a Goldwater conservative, a rock-ribbed son of Arkansas.
And he agreed with Goldwater who said, in 1981: “I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”"
Sarah Palin, you are no Barry Goldwater.
@conradg -
“Palin, unfortunately, is their new Goldwater”.
As a librul (which I am too by present definitions, though I’m probably right of you on the whole), you’d better hope that you’re dead wrong about that. You do know that Goldwater’s campaign/movement was the direct progenitor of the Reaganite movement, yes? (which Reaganite movement eventually begat us Karl Rove and his spawn – Barry, I love and honor ya and in no way hold you responsible for Feldmarschal Karl, but if only you could have somehow pushed things a little differently).
If you really want want to say that about 2028 a Palin-spawn is going to bestride the rightosphere like a colossus, well I tremble for you when I think that Ghod is just.
Also, what JoeMax93 said.
I guess I didn’t make it clear that I meant Palin is to today’s conservative base what Goldwater was to his day’s conservative base. This in no way implies that Palin is Goldwater. It means that today’s conservative base is entirely different than it was in Goldwater’s day. We all know that Goldwater himself would never, ever be considered an acceptable conservative candidate today, given his socially liberal views, his general congeniality with the opposition, and of course his pro-choice views (Did you see the revelation recently that he arranged for his own daughter to have an illegal abortion in the 1950s?).
What Palin shares with Goldwater is the obsessive sense among the base of the conservative movement that she represents the core values they care most about. That their values are very different means only that the core values of movement conservatives have greatly changed. And yes, I’m well aware of the history of the conservative movement (my father was a devout Goldwater conservative), and how it led to Reagan, Bush, and now Palin. Not a pretty development to be sure. The point is that this movement has degenerated to the point where Palin is actually its best representative, just as Goldwater was its best representative in 1964, and the base is simply not going to put up with anything but the true and pure thing next time around. McCain could be seen as the Nixon of 1960 – a republican without conservative base credentials who won the nomination because he seemed safer to the establishment and more likely to win. Goldwater was denied the 1960 nomination because he was too rough and crude, it was thought. So in 1964 the party went with him as a gesture of purity in the face of a hudely popular President of the opposite party. Goldwater became a virgin sacrifice to the base in 1964, when everyone knew he had no chance to win. My guess is that Obama will prove popular and successful, and the GOP will nominate Palin as their sacrifical goat to appease the conservative base.
Now, it may be taking this too far to extrapolate what the future development of the Palin movement might bring us. Sullivan brought up the possibility of using CGI design to create a totally virtual Palin candidate who can be programmed to repeat GOP talking points flawlessly, and look absolutely fabulous while doing so. Now, that’s a joke, of course, but I think the reality is closer than we might think. My guess is that there are GOP operatives out there as we speak scouting beauty pagents, cheerleading squads, and modeling agencies looking for conservative women with no sense of shame who can be molded into potentially devastating candidates for the future. You know, the kind of women who currently embark on successful careers as pharmaceutical sales reps and Fox News fembots. I’m telling you, Palin is the future of the GOP, the model that will simply require upgrading and retooling until they find the right agent, the new “Reagan” to replace the crude and sometimes offensive “Goldwater” that is the current Palin. And yes, someday even that will degenerate further, until the GOP slouches towards an even newer Bethlehem, looking for a new monster to be born.
I don’t believe that we are about to see the end of the GOP or of the conservative movement in this country – people who believe that lack all historical perspective – but it’s hard to see what form a revival will take. The current alternatives on offer are unattractive not merely to liberals or libertarians, but to a significant majority of the population. If the Palinites really do take the party over, the GOP is going to face many years out of power, absent an implosion by the Dems that makes the Bush administration look like good governance by comparison, And whatever reservations one may have about Obama, that kind of implosion looks unlikely.
But who else is there? The Brooks-Noonan axis, if they had their way, might … might … be able to produce a GOP with some appeal to independents and conservative Dems – but I don’t see them winning any battles within the party any time soon. Who else is there. The Paleos? Not going to happen. Sincere small government types? Are there any of them left, aside from the Paleos? And how do they craft a message that works given the dynamics of the modern welfare state?
FYI, several Goldwaters have endorsed Obama.