I hate to bring up Sarah Palin again, but I think it’s kind of interesting that she’s so mad at Katie Couric (as are so many of Palin’s supporters) for asking what newspapers she reads. Let me stipulate up front that no one would have asked such a question of Joe Biden or Evan Bayh or Mitt Romney. I don’t say that because they are men. No one would ask Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey Hutchison or Barbara Mikulski that question either. I think the reason Couric asked Palin that question was because she was so inexperienced, so remote from Washington DC, and that she’d come across as badly underinformed in the prior Charlie Gibson interview. She left the impression that she just wasn’t conversant with the national political dialogue, so Couric wanted to test her out to see if she kept up with the news out of the capital.
It turned out that Couric was onto something. Palin didn’t read newspapers or political journals or blogs or anything else that covers national politics, and her inability to even name such an outlet came out in her preposterous lie that she reads ‘all of them.’
But why does this incident irritate Palin and her throng so much? Why do they see the question as so condescending? Because, here’s the key…I get that it’s insulting to suggest that you don’t know anything if you don’t read the New York Times. But Palin lied and said she did read it. Shouldn’t she be mad at herself for not being truthful and saying that in her realm of ‘Real America’ no one reads that elitist pap?
It seems like her feelings were hurt when she was called out for being an unsophisticated rube from the sticks. Where’s the pride in being an authentic everywoman who doesn’t buy into all that Beltway status bullshit?
But this is precisely how the battle between Left and Right is played out – as a culture of disparagement. Deep down, it’s not that they disagree, it’s that they each take affront at what they believe to be the condescension from the other side.
The Right sets up the straw man of the Intellectual Hippie Elite who have the temerity to look down their noses at the people who live in the “real” world and do all the “real” work.
The Left in turn paints a picture of a Right wing as consisting solely of ignorant moralizing blow hards who are too dumb to pass judgement on their “betters”.
The things they share in common are the feelings of being judged, and the need to de-legitimize the judgement of the other. It’s the classic chip on the shoulder response, and round and round it goes.
I characterize this as: “at least I’m not you”. It’s the essence of hierarchical societies. People do not derive their sense of self from who they are, but from who they are not (and above). I.e. I may not be the best person, but at least I’m not Queer (and thus I clearly deserve better than ‘those’ people). Or I may have my flaws, but at least I’m not pig-ignorant (and thus I clearly deserve more public acknowledgment than ‘those’ people).
It’s also about legitimizing one’s access to more material wealth by painting the “other” as stupid or lazy, and therefore not as deserving.
For the real elites it servers to divide and conquer.
Keres,
Amen. You absolutely nailed it.
Thanks eagleye. I should also point out that this is an inter-ideology occurrence as well.
I edit and publish a magazine for the Tasmanian Greens Party and I spend much of my time trying to deflect the subtle and not-so-subtle digs between the “greener than thous” and the “those ‘ferals’ give us a bad name” contingents.
I write editorials about how each of us has different constraints on our lives, and that there is no one-size-suits-all way of being a member of the Party. I also point out how my bogan (Australian for redneck) neighbors have more in common with me, and us, than most idological purists would care to admit.
And the so-called purity test of Republicans are just one more example.
I really have little patience for anyone of any belief who uses their membership in some club or another as justification for their (usually privileged-in-some-way) existence. Which is not to say that I don’t understand, or fall into the same trap – it’s just that I know when I’m doing it (and at those time, I even don’t have much sympathy for me).
WE is the only ideology that has any chance of reclaiming the power that a few sociopaths have wrested from the vast majority of humanity (who as far as I can tell, can’t help being who they are, and should be dealt with honestly [i.e. controlled], and without “our” having to demonize “them”].
If we each learned to let go of bit of our atavistic need to belong to a pack of some sort (so as to better our chance of survival), it would go a long way towards creating a culture of equals.
My problem is not how to divvy up and justify who get what share of the spoils. My problem is that there are spoils to be divvied. And no, there is no way to even remotely maintain our Western lifestyles without the down-trodden masses. Just nudging our governments a bit to the left may make us “lefties” feel better, but it won’t change the underlying problems.
That should read “intra-ideological”. Maybe I should change my handle to “everyone knows I’m dyslexic”.
Putting aside for the moment the actual reality of what papers Palin actually reads/doesn’t read, it is telling that she was unable to craft even a small lie in the manner of I read several national newspapers. Such a statement would likely have ended that line of questioning or perhaps, at worst, have required Palin to name (and lie) a few well known titles. Or, may I be so bold to suggest that perhaps she could have actually prepared for a race for national office by actually starting to read a few national newspapers. Then her answer would have been an easy one.
A bit too optimistic there, boran;
..or perhaps, at worst, have required Palin to name (and lie) a few well known titles.
That would assume she actually knew the titles of some national titles.
What, not even the Moonie Times?
It is also telling that Palin and her handlers seem to have expected that, as a woman, Couric would want to talk about babies and mothers and how, gosh darnit, does Sarah find the time to be both a Supermom and a vice presidential candidate? They were deeply sexist in expecting Couric to do a softball interview.
The problem was that she didn’t even need to ask hard questions to totally fluster Palin. Remember this?
link
This is the type of embarrassing response that I would just find indefensible in any candidate which I felt compelled to support. I don’t give a shit how liberal their views or seriously they take themselves. And this was not, by any measure, an isolated incident for her. I just don’t know how any objective and remotely thinking person could read that response as anything other than being totally indicative of her complete incompetence for the job for which she was vying.
Coming to the national table for what is potentially the most important job on the planet and giving a response like this should be an automatic disqualification in the mind of anyone other than a complete cult follower.
How anyone could maintain any enthusiasm for her after the barrage of such incidents speaks volumes of the larger voluntary and conscious ignorance of which so many in this country are so proud.
In other words, the reason Palin’s is mad at Katie Couric is not because of a supposedly insulting implication that if Palin doesn’t read the right newspapers she doesn’t know anything. Rather, she’s mad at Couric for getting her to reveal to the world that she really doesn’t know anything. Pretending to find the question insulting is simply her attempt to get back at Couric.
Shouldn’t Palin be mad at herself? Yes, of course, if she were someone else; but we already know that Palin is the kind of person who NEVER blames herself for anything, but always finds a scapegoat.
Off topic ~ yet related
Charles Johnson from Little Green Footballs yesterday, Andrew Sullivan today. Though you could argue that Andrew left the right a long time ago, it will be interesting to see if this exodus of thinking conservatives will build. It’s been fun to witness the transformation of LGF in particular over the past 6ish months.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/leaving-the-right.html
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right
The LGF transformation is quite amazing. I was actually over there a bit earlier to read an entry slamming climate skeptics.
It is fascinating. His 10 points in that post are exactly what I have been arguing about with my teabagging friends and relatives. But they see all of those things as badges of honor. It is impossible to even have rational discussion with any of them on these things.
They’re irritated because Couric exposed Palin – not by direct accusation but by giving her enough rope to draw and quarter herself.