September 9, 2011  NY Times

Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide


By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/anand_giridhar
adas/index.html?inline=nyt-per> 


CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS - Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin
<http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/sarah-palin?inline=n
yt-per>  surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the
present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it. 

That is not how we're primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer?
Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha. 

But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last
weekend at a Tea Party
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_mo
vement/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>  event in Indianola, Iowa. Along
with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the
"far left," she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S.
political establishment - left, right and center - and pointed toward a way
of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide. 

The next day, the "lamestream" media, as she calls it, played into her
fantasy of it by ignoring the ideas she unfurled and dwelling almost
entirely on the will-she-won't-she question of her presidential ambitions. 

So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah
Palin's ideas. 

There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick - words that make clear that she
is not speaking to everyone but to a particular strain of American: "The
working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came
down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the
John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and
we ended up at the ballot box." 

But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something
considerably more substantive to say. 

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now
governed by a "permanent political class," drawn from both parties, that is
increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these
Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage
to create what she called "corporate crony capitalism." Third, that the real
political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and
foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote,
unaccountable institutions (both public and private). 

In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she
attacked both parties' tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more
and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a
vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow
ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10
wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the
nation's capital. 

Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The
permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep
troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big
companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more
money. 

"Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?" she said, referring
to politicians. "It's because there's nothing in it for them. They've got a
lot of mouths to feed - a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special
interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money
rolling along." 

Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in
politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some
quarters as sacrilegious words. 

Ms. Palin's third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping
paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican
presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make
a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her
telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the
churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live
off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs. 

Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms.
Palin's having said them. 

"This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and
hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk," she said of the crony
variety. She added: "It's the collusion of big government and big business
and big finance to the detriment of all the rest - to the little guys. It's
a slap in the face to our small business owners - the true entrepreneurs,
the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America." 

Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there? 

The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic
division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that
is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans
protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big
government and enhanced by the free market. 

What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate
thing, and that we needn't choose whether government or the market
jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time. 

Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a
vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism. 

On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast,
well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General
Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world
better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether
public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more
anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained,
self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity. 

No one knows yet whether Ms. Palin will actually run for president. But she
did just get more interesting. 

Join an online conversation at http://anand.ly 

 

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to