- ‹ previous
- 780 of 2796
- next ›
Chart of the Day
Ross Douthat says that both Sarah Palin's popularity and her notoriety are heavily class-based:
Palin’s popularity has as much to do with class as it does with ideology....Here are lessons of the Sarah Palin experience, for any aspiring politician who shares her background and her sex. Your children will go through the tabloid wringer. Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented. Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith....All of this had something to do with ordinary partisan politics. But it had everything to do with Palin’s gender and her social class.
Well, look: Bristol and Levi went through the tabloid wringer because they were practically sent from Jerry Springer central casting. If you're an unknown candidate for national office sprung on the American public, and a few days later that public discovers that your teenage daughter has gotten pregnant out of wedlock, the tabloids are going to go nuts. Maybe that doesn't reflect well on America, but it's got nothing to do with class.
As for Palin's religion being mocked and misrepresented, Barack Obama got a wee taste of that too last year, didn't he? And Palin's political record wasn't distorted any more than anyone else's. Hell, maybe less. 
When you base your whole political persona on an obvious lie about being a sworn enemy of federal earmarks — in a state that's practically the earmark capital of the country — and repeatedly claim to have opposed a bridge to nowhere that you were plainly in favor of, well, the distortion started right at home, didn't it?
Still, all that said, I'd agree that Palin's appeal is essentially based on class resentment. She gets her biggest applause lines when she talks about liberal elites who look down on regular people; the mainstream media peddling lies and propaganda; government bureaucrats who think they know better than you; and big city intellectuals and their contempt for small town values. That's all heavily class based. And yet —
Then some facts intrude. John Sides presents this chart today showing where Palin's base of support comes from. And it turns out that there's very little difference between her support among the college educated and her support among high school grads. That's not a perfect proxy for class, and it doesn't show strength of support, which might well be more fervent in the lower SES groups. Still, it's not too bad a proxy, either. Class might have less to do with this than Douthat thinks. Maybe she's just a loon after all.
Oh there you go again, you liberal meanie,
picking on poor Sarah with your pesky "facts."
Palin
For some reason, when I think about Palin, Willie Stark comes to mind. Resentments motivate voters.
Brass Tacks
"Still, all that said, I'd agree that Palin's appeal is basically based on class resentment."
Getting down to it, aren’t most political movements somehow about “us versus them”? The more base the movement, the more elemental the rhetoric. Just thinking out loud, as it were.
Glenn Beck's a good example
Glenn Beck's a good example of rightwing populist/classist rage. In fact the whole rightwing radio crew (Hannity, Limbaugh, et. al.) like to couch their arguments in populist terms. The principle issue is that their populist rage is completely incoherent, since it's often targeted at things like financial regulation and the estate tax.
How much variation do other
How much variation do other pols have between people of these education levels?
And what if you only looked at "Whites"?
I suspect that if you only consider "White" citizens the trend will be clearer.
And I further suspect if you narrow it to "Whites" who are not Jewish, Catholic, Muslim or Eastern Orthodox, the trend gets even more pronounced.
So, from the Right Wing worldview that non-WASPs are somehow less legitimate as citizens, Palin is a populist among the less educated.
And people don't adhere to the "real Americans" worldview are left scratching their heads wondering what the Right is talking about.
And what they are talking about is their usual racist nonsense, dressed-up sufficiently that Kevin didn't see it.
Damn I'm a broken record
Palin appeals to authoritarian followers. Period. That group always feel victimized and afraid and that the world is going to hell. That group will support anyone who supports that world-view. At this time the authoritarian followers are generally clustered in certain religions and political party, but that is not always the case and it is irrelevant. They will be drawn to any group that seems to support their woldview.
One reason I was so glad to learn about authoritarian followers is because so many, many pundits, when trying to figure this out, latch onto other groupings such as class or religion or party or economic status. None of these is completely accurate, and it simply pisses off other people of a certain class or religion or income level that do NOT have the authoritarian worldview.
In other words, non-authoritarian followers get pissed off when they get lumped in with the authoritarian followers simply because they are Republican, or Christian, or religious, or poor, or lower class, or anything else that is not pertinent.
Kevin, I beg you to continue to dispute the 'class' thing or 'religion' thing because those are obviously incorrect but please also champion the authoritarian follower thing because the sooner we view things correctly and precisely the better off our discussions and policies will be.
Tripp
Gotta agree with Nyberg.
Gotta agree with Nyberg.
What do you expect that the argument against this graph will be that if you remove the pesky "minorities" from these categories, you'll see the class bias come through loud and clear?
But, uh, knock out that many people and you're not looking at class differences in the United States. You're looking at something else entirely.
Column A and Column B
Nyberg(racism) and Tripp(authoritarianism) are probably both right. History shows the two perspectives to be perfectly, horribly compatible.
[shallow notice here]
Bristol and Levi, though certainly a trashy scandal that was none of our business, were definitely not from Jerry Springer central casting. Both of them were far too attractive for that. If they were real folks from the world where "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!" was chanted, nobody would have let them slide for their indiscretions, Levi would never have been on Tyra or Larry King, and Bristol never would have been on the cover of People. Beauty opens lots more doors than just modeling.
Culture Warrior
Wait a minute. Democrats and Republicans have different demographic profiles, right? And Sarah Palin's single political triumph was a long, strident speech about how terrible Democrats are and how enthusiastically she would attack them. I don't buy this crap about how Palin was uniquely attacked by the media or the Democrats or anyone. Palin does and especially says whatever the moment requires, without any connection to anything else. In the late summer of 2008 it suited her to be the attacker. And ever since it has suited her to be the victim. But it's all just masks, none of it is real. If you stake your political career on the premise that you can attack the contemptible opposition better than anyone else, then you forfeit the ability to say "but I didn't do anything."
I am going to have to
I am going to have to respectfully disagree with Kevin here. It is based on class; indeed I'd say that a comment like "casting call for Jerry Springer" is a classist comment.
Of course, I say this as a liberal Dem who comes from a family of pentecostal hillbillies with accents so thick you can cut them with a knife, which, as you know, we all carry around with us. I'm pretty well education, however, so I just blend in a little better than the Palins could. But yeah, I see the class issue. Wish I didn't, but no chart or comment is going to change my mind.
That's cause I'm cussedly stubborn.
Graduate Degrees
I imagine that the support would drop off sharply for those with graduate degrees. I agree with Tripp's authoritarian theory; Troopergate sheds some light on the former governor's true nature, I think.
Are you saying...
...that Ross Douthat made stuff up without providing any evidence? Surely he didn't.
hypocrisy
"If you're an unknown candidate for national office sprung on the American public, and a few days later that public discovers that your teenage daughter has gotten pregnant out of wedlock,"
Don't forget being in the party that wants to force their warped view of morality onto everyone via laws.
Why Libs Like Drum Focus on Palin
Nothing personal. It's just a matter of shooting the closest wolf to the sled. Courtesy, much less decency, has no bearing on the mandate to isolate, demean, and destroy each enemy in turn. Alinsky's lessons have been well absorbed.
Beware, these folks want to guide our lives in ways great and small.
Focus on Palin
Or maybe it's because she keeps putting herself in front of the cameras.
Just wondering if you've ever actually read Saul Alinsky or just hear his name invoked to scare people. He and Mr. Drum have almost as much in common as, say, Colin Powell and Rush Limbaugh.
it's the malign influence of witches?
I don't even remember what her religion was supposed to be except something about how she was blessed against the malign influence of witches.
I loathed her before I saw that and I've loathed her just as much afterward, and I've seen nothing else about her religion.
obsession
And the obsession with Palin rages on..... Maybe LogopolisMike is correct, maybe it is just a matter of her (and her family's) looks? Or is Rush Limbaugh right, and it's 'cause liberals are mortally afraid of her populist appeal? Or are both saying the same thing?
Afraid?
What is this constant accusation that liberals are "afraid" of Palin?
I would admit to being afraid of some of the individual hair-trigger nutcases who love her, but I'm not afraid of Palin herself. She may have many fervent admirers, but she has just as many, if not more, people who not only "disapprove" of her, but --worse-- LAUGH at her.
Right wing delusions aside (they always think there are far more of them than there really are), she's just not credible as a national candidate, and her lack of brainpower guarantees that she never would be, especially against a guy like Obama. The woman can't even understand/process the gist of the questions she is being asked in real time (which is the main reason that she doesn't ANSWER them well). She can't even put together a coherent PREPARED statement. That's just...pathetic. And she doesn't have the temperament for a long fight. She gets bored. She gets irritable. She can't concentrate. She doesn't want to educate herself or do the work.
So we liberals might be disgusted with her. Amused by her. Appalled at her narcissism. Baffled by her thought processes. We might even be angry with her for the way she deliberately inflames hate and resentment, and her championing of ignorance and dah craitzy. But AFRAID?
Not. even.
I agree with this: "She may
I agree with this: "She may have many fervent admirers, but she has just as many, if not more, people who not only "disapprove" of her, but --worse-- LAUGH at her." But, in modern politics, having a base of fervent admirers is what wins elections. Right-wingers know it, that's how George W. won - he certainly wasn't a unifying candidate. Left-wingers know it too, because that's how Obama won - mass media support notwithstanding - very large numbers of Americans never liked him much. But both of them had a very fervent core of supporters, getting out the vote, getting media attention, etc. Sarah Palin is somebody who can do that, that's why right-wingers are excited, and left-wingers want to destroy her.
That's the logical explanation. There is also a visceral reaction to Palin on the left that I don't quite understand, although her sex and her social class probably have a lot to do with it.
Wingers seem to think that
Wingers seem to think that liberals are "afraid" of Palin, or want to destroy her. Nope. She is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the republican party, and at this point having her in the spotlight is in the interests of democrats. She's proudly ignorant, incoherent, completely unqualified, a quitter, and out of her league. Oh, and she's a vindictive bully who also manages to whine a lot about being a victim. For all of these reasons I'd pick her as the GOP candidate in 2012 in a heartbeat; too bad she flaked out too early.
Kevin writes: Still, all
Kevin writes:
But those are the resentments of upper-middle class conservatives. I very much doubt that the poor and working class (at least those who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh 5 hours a day) are resentful of government bureaucrats, or of the mainstream media, or of the contempt for small town values when only a small minority of anyone lives in a small town. You have to be a tax-hating, regulation-hating, liberal-hating conservative to obsess over that stuff. These are bromides of the culture war, not genuine class distinctions.
George W. Bush was male,
George W. Bush was male, upper-class and a graduate of Yale College and Harvard Business School. All he shares with Palin are his conservative ideology and the born-again Christian thing. Oh, and his stupidity and ignorance.
Yet when he ran for president, the reaction both from left and right was quite similar: the right adored him, the left mocked his stupidity and ignorance unmercifully, and distrusted his religious leanings and conservative ideology.
Think back a few years. Is Douthat really right that Palin, female, middle class and with undistinguished alma mater(s), has been mocked and disitrusted more than Bush by liberal "elites"?
And your point is, Ross?
Hell yes it's class-based! We let the lowest common denominator run the country for eight years and ended up upside-down in a drainage canal. I have zero sympathy for The Willfully Ignorant, and I'm not the least bit shy about calling them what they are: Wilfully. Ignorant. She's proud of it? Great. I'm proud to call it out. If you want The Stupid to run things, vote GOP. If not, don't. Please, Republicans, prove me wrong.