Glenn A Knight

Glenn A Knight
In my study

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Why Are These People So Excited?

Why Are These People So Excited?

I think it is remarkable how many people got all excited about the nomination of Sarah Palin to be the Republican Party’s candidate for Vice-President of the United States. On the one hand, some people on the left were apparently so outraged (or panicked) that they launched into all sorts of ridiculous, and sometimes inappropriate, attacks on Governor Palin. On the other hand, the Republican Party’s “base” seems to be all excited about McCain’s reportedly reluctant choice of a running mate. The crowds are bigger and more enthusiastic for McCain-Palin than they ever were for plain old John McCain. Are these people right? Is this a big deal?

First, let me say that I think it’s a good thing that the Republican Party finally put a woman on the national ticket, only 24 years after Geraldine Ferraro found a place on the Democratic ticket. And, I must say, Fritz Mondale’s choice of Representative Ferraro to join him in what was almost certainly a losing campaign could be viewed as an empty gesture. I don’t think it was an empty gesture, however, for a party and a candidate to commit to trying to put a woman a heartbeat away from the presidency, and I don’t think it is an empty gesture this time, either.

On that note, for all those who are disappointed that we’re not seeing a woman at the top of the Democratic ticket, I think the day will come. Some people reacted to Senator Obama’s victory on the Democratic side as if to an apocalyptic event for women in politics. There was a lot of talk about the last chance to have a woman president. I think this may represent, in part, a certain depth of commitment to Senator Clinton, combined with the Baby Boomers’ famous self-centeredness. Yes, it may have been our last chance to see a Baby Boomer woman nominated for the presidency, but there are plenty of younger women out there working there way up the political ladder. Some day, one of them will discover the fire in the belly to make a serious run for the brass ring.

I think that part of the Democrat’s discomfort, to use no stronger word, with the nomination of Sarah Palin has been a direct result of their denial of the nomination to Senator Clinton. Take a little guilt, a sense of having been one-upped, and frustration at having a woman on the ticket from the wrong party, and add to that the very sharp contrasts between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, and you have a recipe for some very agitated Democrats, especially in the feminist camp.

There has been a lot of talk about feminists’ opposition to Palin, attempts to redefine feminism, and whether opposition to Palin is per se sexist. Strip away a lot of the verbiage which is solely intended to promote the chances of one set of candidates over the other, and what I see is that, to members of the established feminist movement (another Baby Boomer phenomenon), Palin may be a woman, but she’s not one of us.

I have often pointed out that there are several kinds of conservative, in the most general kind of categorization. There are those who are of conservative temperament, and then there are those who have a shopping list of “conservative” issues held close to their hearts. (I use the quote marks around “conservative” because the issues on the list change from time to time. Remember when balancing the budget was a conservative shibboleth?) Similarly, there are feminists who would define feminism in terms of support for certain issues, and even for certain lifestyle choices. Governor Palin may be a woman, but she is not on the “feminist” side of many of these issues. She opposes abortion rights. She opposes gay marriage. She doesn’t talk about equal pay for equal work. And so on.

By the way, just as Sarah Palin is a disappointment to many in the feminist movement, so, I think, is Barack Obama something of a letdown for many in the traditional civil rights movement. He has shown that a black man can run for president, can be a serious candidate, can even win a major party nomination, which ought to make the Jesse Jacksons very happy. But he has also shown that the way for a black man to do these things is to focus on issues which are not particularly black issues.

With all of the emotion aroused in the various movements, interest groups, and social groupings by this campaign, it’s no wonder that there has been a lot of “acting out.” But now, let’s get serious about what’s at stake here.

First, what are the consequences of McCain selecting Sarah Palin for his running mate? Well, in the first place, the Republican “base” is, indeed, energized. This can be very good for the campaign, in fund-raising, in door-belling, in staffing all the get-out-the-vote efforts needed for a successful campaign. In some places, the nomination of Governor Palin has certainly nailed down the Christian right vote, the pro-life vote, the anti-gay vote, and the conservative vote generally. Moreover, it may make it harder for the Obama campaign to make headway in some of the “purple” states, like Colorado.

On the other hand, a lot of that conservative vote is in states that McCain was going to carry anyway. Alabama wasn’t going to go for Obama if Mitt Romney had been the Vice Presidential nominee. And California, New York and Illinois aren’t going over into Senator McCain’s column because Sarah Palin is on the Republican ticket. In most places, most of the time, Governor Palin isn’t going to add to Senator McCain’s electoral vote total.

Moreover, in a few states – Washington, for example, and maybe Oregon, New Hampshire, and New Jersey, the Palin selection is going to guarantee that McCain won’t be taking those electoral votes away from the Democratic ticket. Just as the Republicans wanted to run against Hillary Clinton because she energized their base, so the nomination of Sarah Palin has energized a lot of the Democratic base. For one thing, I think that the idea, which, indeed, may never have been a serious purpose of the McCain camp, that the nomination of Sarah Palin would persuade women who supported Hillary Clinton to vote for McCain is seriously misguided. I think that most of the women who were disappointed by Senator Clinton’s defeat will realize that the Obama-Biden ticket is the one that best represents Senator Clinton.

In brief, I don’t think this election is going anywhere because of Sarah Palin that it wasn’t already going to go.

But let’s suppose it does. The major consequence of the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin to be the Vice President of the United States is that she might actually become the Vice President. And then what?

The Constitution of the United States mentions the Vice President only a few times. It mentions that the Vice President is elected along with the President, and for the same term of office. It states that the Vice President can be impeached, using the same procedures as apply to the President. Article II, Section 1 (as amended by the 24th Amendment) explains that the Vice President may assume the office of the President upon the death of the same, or under certain other circumstances. And it has these two paragraphs in Article I, Section 3:

“The vice president of the United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

“The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a president pro tempore, in the absence of the vice president, or when he shall exercise the office of president of the United States.”

In other words, as long as the President is alive and conscious, the Vice President’s sole responsibility is to preside over the Senate. And the president pro tempore can take care of that in the absence of the Vice President. This is a job which is, as I believe John Adams said of it, in actuality nothing, in potential everything.

But isn’t the Vice President a major adviser to the President? Doesn’t the Vice President have a lot of influence in Washington? Dahlia Lithwick points out, in a recent article in Slate, that Dick Cheney and Al Gore were powerful Vice Presidents because of their intimate knowledge of Washington, and their many contacts in Congress and the bureaucracy, not because of the powers of their office. Lyndon Johnson, that great political operator, was frustrated and resentful in the vice presidency, because he was shut out of key decisions. In the first hundred years of the republic, we spent many of them without a Vice President, due to the deaths of Presidents Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, and Garfield, and Vice President King.

I note, in conclusion, that the furor over the Palin nomination seems to have died down, the Obama campaign has wised up, and they no longer mention Governor Palin in their speeches, and Obama is again (narrowly) ahead in the polls. This was a political nine-days’ wonder. It knocked Senator Obama off the front page for a while, and now it has been knocked out of the news in its turn by the financial crisis. And that is as it should be. The nomination of a vice presidential candidate is not, and should not be, critical to the presidential campaigns.

In the end, if elected (which appears doubtful), John McCain could make great use of Sarah Palin to promote various policies, and she, in turn, could use that time and opportunity to make herself into a national political figure. Or he could send her over to the Vice President’s office off the Senate floor, from which she could carry out her Constitutional duties, unremarked, and far from the public eye.

15 comments:

Agim Zabeli said...

Glenn:

Good post, well thought out as always.

A couple thoughts: Anyone that believes Joe Biden was an acceptable, let alone a 'good', pick for VP for the Democratic ticket has already, I think, conceded the actual Constitutional role of Vice President is no big deal.

I don't think the furor over Palin will die down, though it will certainly move up and down in the public consciousness depending on other events.

You're right that feminists don't see Palin as "one of us" but I don't believe that quite covers the intensity. Palin is a threat to the current "brand" of feminism, perhaps even an existential threat, and as such she must be destroyed, a stake driven through her heart, and the corpse burned. To quote Churchill (from memory): "Embalm, cremate, and bury. Take no chances."

No more than 50% (if that) of women in the United States are pro-abortion yet that position is a third rail of the feminist movement. Touch it and you fry (or so everyone thought). Palin not only touches it, she does so with bare hands, field-strips it, and leaves the gut-pile laying around for coyotes. The old canard of 'a woman needing a man like a fish needs a bicycle' is, when held up to Palin, shown for the idiotic non sequiter it always was.

The current feminist movement has been selling a "Sex in the City" archetype as its brand and suddenly here is Sarah Palin re-branding the archetype as a cross between Ellen Ripley in "Aliens" ("Nuke 'em. Only way to be sure.") and June Cleaver. This is some visceral stuff brother. I'm trying to picture a future NOW convention with a break-out session titled: "How to turn on and satisfy your man when you have a cabinet meeting in an hour and the kids are screaming for dinner."

The attacks on Palin are guerre a mort and make no mistake.

Ken Roberts said...

Interesting article. As said in email Glenn, yours is the only article I've seen that discusses Palin without going over the top. Suppose there are others; I'm not keeping up with all the writings.

Here in Canada, the election goes on. The reports in national polls are way different from what we are seeing on the ground. In this riding, NDP is imploding and we are picking up some high-activity people for our campaign. Might just put us over the top. Greens are a major unknown; the idealism that used to support NDP has gone to Greens, I think, and pragmatists are going to Liberals. I tell people that Liberals are only party who do not have an ideology to impose; Liberals have ideals not ideologies.

Best of luck guys.

Glenn Knight said...

The problem with terms like "pro-abortion," "pro-life," "pro-choice," "anti-abortion," and so on, is that they are vague. Relatively few people believe that abortion should be legal all the time, under all circumstances. The number was around 19% in one poll I found today. (I didn't get a gender breakdown in that poll, so I can't really address your assertion about 50% of women.)

On the other hand, relatively few people believe that abortion should be illegal all the time, under all circumstances. Again, the same poll had about 19% in that camp.

There are a lot of people who oppose abortions under some circumstances, but would allow them in many cases. There are also a lot of people who approve of abortions under some circumstances, but would like to see some limitations on the practice.

If you set the standard for "pro-abortion" at "approves of abortion under all or nearly all circumstances," then not many women (or men) come out as "pro-abortion." If the standard is "approves of abortion under any circumstance," then there are lots of "pro-abortion" women.

A lot goes into how you ask the question, and lot goes into the second-level question: Who decides? The reason the "pro-abortion" movement likes to call itself "pro-choice," is that they'd like to frame the issue in terms of a woman's right to choose what happens to her body. A lot of women oppose abortion, but also believe that the choice is up to the woman, and should not be imposed by the government or other authority.

Naturally, the feminist movement, which is about empowering women, and which has not been very sympathetic to the June Cleaver lifestyle, doesn't see any reason to concede a woman's autonomy over her body in the case of abortion.

Finally, in a poll I found regarding the Democratic presidential candidates - only the Democrats, mind, the respondents were asked about which issue was most important to them in choosing a President. About 1% said that abortion was the most important issue, and another 1% said that abortion in second place. So that's another factor: If 20% of women are strongly pro-abortion, 30% are somewhat pro-abortion, 30% are somewhat anti-abortion, and 20% are strongly pro-life, but only 2% are going to consider that in making their choice for President, how much of an impact does that issue have?

Ken Roberts said...

There are people who select whom to vote for based upon an issue/platform but do you think they are a majority of actual voters? I think there is much more emotion and comfortableness involved - believing so-and-so is one of "us" or can be trusted or fits some other category of personality we have encountered.

So if I use that approach to comment on the four candidates in US election here is what results. This is NOT my political views vis a vis issues, economics, who might be best in government, etc.

McCain ... I've known a couple of people with prison camp or torture experiences. Broken people prone to strange outbursts of anger. No one I would want to be close to. Sorry for their difficulties but would never hire them for something that required reliable personality.

Obama ... Keener, lots of ambition, a bit frightening because of that. Does he ever just kick back and watch the tube with the guys/beer? Would wear me out to be around him.

Palin ... know someone with her sort of focus, not for me, thanks. Would rather have someone I could have a conversation with, not list of talking points they have to trot out.

Biden ... old pro pol, but closest to "common man" despite experience of priviledge. The only one of the four I might really understand and trust if I got to know him better.

Of course your perceptions of those people may differ. And importance you attach to those qualities may also differ. Some people like the keener type, others the know what you've got type, etc. Interesting though.

Agim Zabeli said...

Glenn:

I think I agree with everything in your comment about the abortion debate. I don’t know about the actual numbers but I understand you’re not vouching for them. Let’s assume they are correct for discussion’s sake. The point I was trying to make – and possibly I managed to miss as I often do – is that no issue in and of itself should be enough to explain the over-the-top reaction to Palin. In fact, no number or combination of real issues concerning her qualifications, record, personal history, etc., can account for the reactions – positive or negative - to Palin. Especially when we consider that those reactions were just as extreme mere hours after the announcement of her being picked. No one knew anything about her but what she looked like. The Sarah Palin phenomenon isn’t about abortion per se, any more than it is about guns or foreign policy. It’s about what she looks like.

As you ask: “Why are these people so excited”? It’s not the politician herself. It’s the image. It’s the brand. It’s the narrative; the world-view. Palin as the first female Vice President of the United States (a position which would make her the smart money favorite for first female President of the United States) is a potential rejection of the entire leftist agenda.

Feminism today isn’t about women’s rights. Ask Tammy Bruce who left NOW over the OJ trial when the feminist establishment refused to express any outrage about a violent, jealous rich man getting away with killing his ex-wife. Feminism, like “African-American community”, “organized labor” and “academia” are simply trademarked group distinctions whose copyrights are owned and licensed by the political left. If you’re not a leftist (by which I mean socialist, which is simply the PG name for communist) you are not considered a true woman, or black man, or representative of workers. you are like a guy from Glasgow that drinks Pinot Grigio: no true Scotsman.

Well women are 50% of the population. If you are a leftist you do NOT want to lose the assumed right to speak for this group. You cannot. If the perceived right to speak on behalf of this group falls out of your grasp, how are you going to get it back? And then, since those darned women are everywhere, even in those other groups, how do you afterwards hang on to THOSE groups? This is like the weak spot in the Death Star.

There will be no let up on Sarah Palin. Not only must the left destroy her, they must make an example out of her so that no other non-leftist woman ever dares to try this sort of thing again.

Regards,
Zabeli

dmdaley said...

Agim,

It's sad to say, but I think you might be correct. Your explanation is the best I've seen to the vitriol that has meet Sarah Palin's nomination.

Lloyd said...

"Pro-abortion"?

The only people I've ever heard say they were pro-abortion were a couple of bozos from among that small group that considers humankind to be a sort of cancer destroying the earth, with would be better off without us.

I only know two people who have had abortions, and neither one of them was pro-abortion. One was making a medical choice, since her baby had severe defects, and the other was a victim of incest. I think it would be accurate to say they were pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.

I'm increasingly puzzled by the whole pro-life/pro-choice situation. In a sense, aren't both sides pro-choice? The choices are certainly different, but they are, nonetheless, choices.

My personal position on this issue is that I don't have any right to make or even advocate a choice for any other person. In my perfect world, abortion would be as rare as possible and performed only when there is some kind of real need. But I'm just not in a position to determine the reality of another person's need.

Agim Zabeli said...

Lloyd:

Fair enough point on "pro-abortion". Both sides attempt to frame the issue with the title. What reasonable person after all could be 'pro-abortion'? What reasonable person could be 'anti-choice'?

Simply by the title one uses for the issue one can take comfort in believing the other side is unreasonable right from the start.

It seems to me the missing piece in your own view is the consideration of any rights of the fetus. If abortion is viewed simply as a matter of choice any 'rights' of the fetus are not a consideration. If it's viewed as a matter of abortion, the fetus' rights are considered the major issue (no pun intended).

Lloyd said...

Adam--

> It seems to me the missing piece
> in your own view is the
> consideration of any rights of
> the fetus. If abortion is viewed
> simply as a matter of choice
> any 'rights' of the fetus are
> not a consideration.

I'm not considering the "rights" of the fetus because I don't think a fetus has any rights. People have rights.

To me, there is a significant gray area in between the status of a fetus and the status of a person. Clearly, at some point, a fetus can survive outside of the womb. But in my view, the issue isn't merely survival, it's "meaningful" survival. For example, a severely brain-damaged fetus or a fetus with severely underdeveloped lungs is doomed to a life of suffering. In my view, this is not meaningful survival, and in many ways isn't really any sort of life. Such a fetus would be better off not being born.

Am I not taking on godlike powers to predetermine the potential "meaning" of someone's life? Not really; I'm simply asserting the responsibilities of us living persons to minimize the amount of suffering in the world.

Please note that I'm not asserting any right for a person to have an abortion for any reason, no matter how trivial. I think abortion should be reserved for only those cases where there is a nearly-certain chance that the fetus will be born severely compromised.

Now, to turn your question upside down, aren't you in effect saying that the fetus has rights that take precedence over the rights of its parents? If every potentially viable fetus must be born, regardless of the severity of any problems it may have, aren't you potentially sacrificing the rights of the parents to live productive lives-- and even possibly to provide adequately for any siblings the fetus may have-- to the interests of the fetus?

Agim Zabeli said...

Lloyd:

1. People do, as you state, have rights. My thinking on the matter starts with the scientific: a fetus is an individual organism of the human species (I take as given that we are not discussing, for instance, canine fetuses or those of other species). An individual organism is, as far as I can make out, a “being’ and since, again, the species is human it must be a human being.
Now (and only after this point) I bring my sense of morality into it: a human being should have rights. You and I disagree on this point. This part I understand.

2. “Meaningful survival” is an ambiguous term to use to justify the power of life and death over someone. If I understand you correctly on this point I completely disagree that a decision as to whether we kill others should be based on whether we think their survival would meet whatever our definition of “meaningful” happened to be.

3. I strongly disagree that killing those who will suffer is a legitimate (or even sane) approach to our responsibility to “minimize the amount of suffering in the world.” The idea is barbaric and I’m afraid a simple declaration to the contrary does not clear up suspicion that one who suggests it is attempting to assume “godlike powers".

4. I will grant there’s a legitimate question about a fetus that will clearly live in agonizing pain for a short period of time and die a hideous death. But if abortion is chosen in this sort of case (and let’s face it, this is not statistically where the vast majorities of abortion come from) there is still an individual human we are talking about. This is a very special case and deserves a discussion of its own; it shouldn’t be used as a stalking horse to justify the other 99% of abortions performed.

5. To your last point, “upside down” is not a precise phrase. I’m not sure if you did that to my question or not. I never stated the fetus has more rights than the mother, or that rights of the fetus outweigh rights of the mother. That depends on particulars. If the fetus’s right to live is up against the mother’s “right” to not be bothered having a baby, well then, yes, it seems commonsense that the right to life trumps the right to convenience resulting from your ability to kill someone bothersome. If the question is between the life of the baby and the life of the mother I would definitely recommend the mother get an abortion (and fast) but that would be her risk to decide upon.

dmdaley said...

Lloyd,

I always find it interesting when people refer to the woman's right to choose whether she has that baby or not. I would argue she has made that choice ahead of time when she chose to have sex, generally speaking unprotected sex (given the high rate of success with contraceptives.)

If you have already made a decision to do something risky, have you not exercised your right to choose? This would be a bit like going to Vegas, putting $10,000 down on black on the roulette wheel and then wanting the right to decide if the house keeps the money when the spin comes up non-black. You made a choice, you live with the consequences.

That said, I no of no one who is pro-life that will argue a woman should not be able to have an abortion in case of risk to the mother's life.

Lloyd said...

Adam--

It probably obvious to both of us that we have diametrically opposed viewpoints on this issue, and there is no chance at all that either of us will change the other's mind. In particular, I find your notion that a fetus is "an individual organism of the human species" nonsensical.

However, there is one thing in your last entry that I must comment on:

> I never stated the fetus has
> more rights than the mother, or
> that rights of the fetus
> outweigh rights of the mother.
> That depends on particulars.

While you didn't explicitly say it, that is the the inevitable consequence of your position. If the fetus has any sort of right to be born, then its rights supersede whatever rights the mother has, simply because the mother has enormous responsibilities imposed upon her to nurture her baby until at least late adolescence. (Or do you think that since the fetus is "an individual organism," it will somehow assume the responsibility of raising itself?)

Further, since a severely defective fetus will obviously require many more resources than a non-defective one, an inevitable consequence of your position is that any siblings that fetus has will sacrifice at least some of their shares of the mother's available resources to the interests of the fetus.

> If the fetus’s right to live is
> up against the mother’s “right”
> to not be bothered having a
> baby, well then, yes, it seems
> commonsense that the right to
> life trumps the right to
> convenience resulting from your
> ability to kill someone
> bothersome.

First, I clearly said that I did NOT think anyone should have a right to abortion for non-serious reasons, and convenience or bother are most certainly a non-serious reasons.

More importantly, your notion that women who choose to have abortions are exercising some sort of right not to be bothered is absolutely outrageous to me. You really need to speak to a woman who has made that agonizing choice before you say that anywhere again. And, yes, I have spoken to two such women.

Lloyd said...

Agim--

Glenn points out that I've misread your name as "Adam." Much worse, I've addressed you as "Adam" in my posts. Please accept my apologies for my error.

Glenn Knight said...

This thread has gotten quite long, and we have wandered away from the topic of Governor Palin, her qualifications to be Vice President, and her potential influence in that role. Moreover, a new month has begun. Therefore, I'm picking up from point #1 in Agim's post of September 29, 2008, with a new post in its own space.

Glenn Knight said...

In response to Doug's comment of September 30, 2008, at 1:50 PM, I intend, for the reasons given in my previous comment here, to post a full answer as the beginning of a separate thread. Briefly, let me just note that you seem to be rejecting the entire concept of Western medicine, Doug, along with the idea of insurance. One of the great advantages of being human is that we can prevent some of the consequences of our actions from ruining our lives. At the moment in which a man has unprotected sex, has he irrevocably decided that he will suffer the horrors of untreated syphilis? Do doctors refuse to treat patients injured in automobile accidents in which they were at fault? If you eat too much candy, are you prohibited from seeking dental care?

Think about it. I know that the argument you made is current in the pro-life community; it, too, showed up in a letter to the Gazette. That doesn't make it a valid argument.