Sarah Palin spoke last night at the Republican Convention, and at the end of the speech I had an argument with a group of people with whom I have everything in common politically. Why? Because I don’t think on Newsgang Live Last night, there was enough respect for the sheer power of words, even words that are twisted. Last night, the Republicans wrested possession of “Change we can believe in” from Obama.
In one of the most bizarre, Orwellian syntactical flip flops of my lifetime, the Democrats have become elitists, the Republicans the party of the people, and Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are speaking at the Republican Convention on the same night as Sandra, whoops that’s Sarah, Palin, a complete outsider. Words no longer mean what they did.
We, the people who believe in the need for economic and political “change” (and you know I’m a change junkie who thinks everything that can be changed should be changed), often don’t recognize change coming when we see it, because we have a pre-conceived notion of what change should encompass in terms of actions.
How can anyone know who or what to support, when language is used the way it has been used in this election, with Barack Obama tilting to the right as John McCain becomes the Maverick bringing change? It’s like Alice in Wonderland – or better yet, Through the Looking Glass. The Obamas, although black and “liberal,” are the Brady Bunch, while the conservatives have the DUI and the pregnant teen-ager.
What does this all demonstrate? That no ideology is pure, no set of principles too sacrosanct to compromise to the realities of life. The Republican platform said no gay marriage, but Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter has a civil union with her partner, and the Vice President hasn’t rejected her.
In human situations, people are both better and worse than political ideologies. Worse: John Edwards and abstinence only programs. Better: the Palin family’s support of their pregnant daughter, and the Clintons’ support of each other.
Everyone knows what has to be done in America: reduce dependence on foreign oil, spend less, educate more and better, provide health care affordably, recycle more and consume less, get out of Iraq and keep the nation safe for democracy. That’s change from both sides. Unfortunately or fortunately, these changes come with other things also lumped into the same word. For Republicans, change may also include appointing Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
For the past twenty years, we have heard Roe v. Wade as defending “a woman’s right to choose.” Last night that term was co-opted by the Republicans, celebrating a woman’s right to choose to keep a child with Down’s syndrome. New meaning for a fmiliar term. An that’s what the Republicans are doing to ALL the words we have come to find familiar and comforting and symbolic of the American’s ship’s ability to navigate itself through the stormy waters of history. Very four years, we get to say “throw the bastards out.”
We are now arguing the rearrangement of the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic of America. I read all day long – political commentary, economics and financial newsletters, technology blogs, health care blogs. In every article, mainstream or basement blogger, on both sides of every issue, one belief stands out: as a nation, we’re in trouble. On the decline. In debt. Off the moral high ground.
How do we get back there? Certainly not by arguing over Sarah Palin’s grandchild, abstinence, gay marriage, or any of the minor issues we used to have the luxury to debate. And yet, if both sides claim “change,” with different ideas of what that means, we’re in the tower of Babel.
Only by deciding that as a nation, we have to put our oars into the water together (which means electing people who can work together rather than divide us further) to find ways to solve the big problems first, leaving the little ones to be solved in our own family rooms.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Since the announcement of Palin I have been reading and thinking about the various aspects of this decision and how I should feel about it. In the end, I came out where you are, which is our government should focus on running the country, effectively and efficiently. And we should all focus on “running” our families. The two don’t really have much to do with each other- unfortunately when politics get involved the only way to evoke emotion is to involve family issues with running the country issues. Thanks for putting this in perspective, I only hope the rest of the voting public can do the same??
you are brilliant again –
my observations –
the delivery of her speech was brilliant
choosing a women to be VP brilliant
she has an ability to connect with rural Americans who are feeling isolated and overrun with “way too much stuff I just don’t understand” going on
the question of the day “now what?”
Hello Francine- hope you are settling in back in AZ- I’m liking the weather here in HMB this time of year.
Well written and thoughtful piece. I would only add that there are of course many types of elitism- one extreme found in the land barons of AZ- another in universities and beltway.
Regarding change, John certainly does represent change within the R party- I am surprised he made it frankly, and Sarah represents enormous change on the political scene IMO- when was the last time a P ticket spoke about small towns FROM small town America. You want to talk about prejudice and bias- try Gov/Corp/University all power brokers against rural America.
While I am deeply concerned about both candidates- particularly economics- I do believe both represent a significant change in the direction of the U.S. For example, we’ll see more alt energy and conservation either way.
What isn’t change? The debate on abortion lasting my entire adult life that I am totally sick of- Gov should stay out of personal life; and mixing org religion with politics- spirituality is great- love to hear about candidates personal views- keep them the hell out of Gov.
What isn’t change- an enormous industry cluster that depends on partisan polar politics, and abuses and manipulates the real needs and not so real needs through FUD in applying FUD. Both parties are guilty- BO deserves credit for rising above it a bit- JM should do more of it.
For the first time in a long time, I actually respect all four. I thought Sarah’s speech was refreshing. She was under huge pressure from the media- I’ve rarely seen that level of attack. Regardless of who I vote for, she won my support so far anyway. .02- MM
Well Put. Isn’t it all so sad, silly and frightening?
Well Put. Isn’t it all so sad, silly and frightening?
Francine: Although I am newly familiar with your writing, an mostly from micro-blog posts, I was a little surprised about the negative tone. I imagine that you are not essentially negative. I am a conservative, and generally speaking, I am an optimistic person, as I think is true of most conservatives. It is a fundamental difference between the Left and Right.
That said, I agree with much of what you have written in this post. In many ways, it is ‘A pox on both your houses’, that is probably always true, to one degree or another. But I have a couple of questions and or thoughts. What is the “Change we can believe in” that Barack Obama would bring about> What would he change and how> What is Sarah Plain “a complete outsider” of, in what group should she be>
Barack Obama is tilting to the right, which belies his entire career as a solid far-left politician. So Obama is campaigning espousing views that are entirely inconsistent with his record. But McCain is not “becoming” a maverick, it is what he has been throughout his entire political career. So he is campaigning is consistent with his record.
Why would Cheney ever have rejected his daughter> Most conservatives are not opposed to civil unions.
What is wrong with practicing abstinence only>
More important to conservatives than the overturning of Roe v. Wade, is the principal that decisions such as these should not be made by five people who have not been elected by the people. These decisions should be left to the state legislatures, over whom the citizens of the state wield considerable power, which is the way it should be in a republic such as ours.
The reason conservatives celebrate the choice by the Palins to keep their child who is a downs baby is because we believe strongly that that child’s right to live is in no way diminished by his malady. How could any reasonable person argue against that proposition>
As for the theme that has attached itself to this campaign, i.e. “change”, this is a straw-man issue; it is a word for a slogan, by itself it is not a policy. To argue that one is either for or against change is nonsensical. It would be similar to saying that one is for or against food. What is, exactly, the “Change we can believe in”, other than a poster slogan> What policies will Barack change and to what will he change them> This is a significant point, because I do not know what to expect from Obama. Obama is a man who has thus far in this campaign been treated like a concept.
You have expressed a belief that it is desirable that government spend less. Do you think an Obama administration will spend less> Judging by his record, Barack Obama will neither spend less, nor change much. He is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Chicago machine-politician, who has never expressed nor demonstrated that spending less is a priority, and he flourished in the oldest crony-political machine city in the U.S., without any particular distinction, and never once did he try to rage against the machine.
As for both John McCain and Sarah Palin, each has a well documented record of shrinking the size of government, ergo spending less, and each has a very distinguished record, consistently made notable by a propensity to change the way business is done in their respective jurisdictions, and of doing so by engaging in political battle with the powers that be, even if they were Republicans. Palin took on without flinching the old-boy Republican machine in Alaska, and beat it against all odds. Now you can pooh-pooh that as success in a small state, but relatively speaking, neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden can point to similar success on any scale.
It seems quite evident what the choices are if we want to produce meaningful positive changes.
Francine: Although I am newly familiar with your writing, an mostly from micro-blog posts, I was a little surprised about the negative tone. I imagine that you are not essentially negative. I am a conservative, and generally speaking, I am an optimistic person, as I think is true of most conservatives. It is a fundamental difference between the Left and Right.
That said, I agree with much of what you have written in this post. In many ways, it is ‘A pox on both your houses’, that is probably always true, to one degree or another. But I have a couple of questions and or thoughts. What is the “Change we can believe in” that Barack Obama would bring about> What would he change and how> What is Sarah Plain “a complete outsider” of, in what group should she be>
Barack Obama is tilting to the right, which belies his entire career as a solid far-left politician. So Obama is campaigning espousing views that are entirely inconsistent with his record. But McCain is not “becoming” a maverick, it is what he has been throughout his entire political career. So he is campaigning is consistent with his record.
Why would Cheney ever have rejected his daughter> Most conservatives are not opposed to civil unions.
What is wrong with practicing abstinence only>
More important to conservatives than the overturning of Roe v. Wade, is the principal that decisions such as these should not be made by five people who have not been elected by the people. These decisions should be left to the state legislatures, over whom the citizens of the state wield considerable power, which is the way it should be in a republic such as ours.
The reason conservatives celebrate the choice by the Palins to keep their child who is a downs baby is because we believe strongly that that child’s right to live is in no way diminished by his malady. How could any reasonable person argue against that proposition>
As for the theme that has attached itself to this campaign, i.e. “change”, this is a straw-man issue; it is a word for a slogan, by itself it is not a policy. To argue that one is either for or against change is nonsensical. It would be similar to saying that one is for or against food. What is, exactly, the “Change we can believe in”, other than a poster slogan> What policies will Barack change and to what will he change them> This is a significant point, because I do not know what to expect from Obama. Obama is a man who has thus far in this campaign been treated like a concept.
You have expressed a belief that it is desirable that government spend less. Do you think an Obama administration will spend less> Judging by his record, Barack Obama will neither spend less, nor change much. He is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Chicago machine-politician, who has never expressed nor demonstrated that spending less is a priority, and he flourished in the oldest crony-political machine city in the U.S., without any particular distinction, and never once did he try to rage against the machine.
As for both John McCain and Sarah Palin, each has a well documented record of shrinking the size of government, ergo spending less, and each has a very distinguished record, consistently made notable by a propensity to change the way business is done in their respective jurisdictions, and of doing so by engaging in political battle with the powers that be, even if they were Republicans. Palin took on without flinching the old-boy Republican machine in Alaska, and beat it against all odds. Now you can pooh-pooh that as success in a small state, but relatively speaking, neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden can point to similar success on any scale.
It seems quite evident what the choices are if we want to produce meaningful positive changes.
Rural Americans who are feeling how, Ms. Loyd?
I have respect for the sheer power of words. So much respect, in fact, that I’m willing to say what needs to be said to combat the lies, rather than being afraid of them.
I can’t remember when I’ve had so much fun in an election year as the ‘Palin watch’ that is currently ongoing. Words not withstanding, who’da guessed we’d have our very own Princess Di? G.