Hmmm....things get interesting when you dig a little deeper and go
beyond the surface stuff:
An Ex-Beauty Queen for VP: Political Risk or Political Genius?
By Heather Gehlert, AlterNet. Posted August 30, 2008.
Sarah Palin may be more of a threat to Obama than Democrats are
recognizing. Dismissing her would be just as dangerous as dismissing
women voters.
With no foreign policy experience and a political resume that could
fit on my pinky fingernail, Sarah Palin is an absurd choice for vice
president. Yet it should come as no surprise to the public --
especially to Democrats -- that John McCain chose her anyway.
That's because the very issues that Democrats say make her a
political risk -- her newness to the political world stage, her anti-
choice stance, her opposition to gay marriage, her support of capital
punishment, her disregard for the environment -- matter very little
in determining the outcome of elections. Voters -- some of whom
dissect policy issues daily, but most of whom don't -- ultimately
cast their ballots based on emotion. Not logic. Not knowledge of "the
issues."
This was supposed to have been the big take-away lesson of 2004. That
debate, perhaps more so than any other since the first televised
presidential showdown between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon,
showed that appearance, charisma, personality and likeability matter.
Smarts are mostly a bonus and a distant second.
In 2004, John Kerry was the champion debater. He was sharp, focused,
intelligent. He could call B.S. on George W. Bush and poke holes in
nearly any of his arguments. But he was also stiff. He seemed cool
and disconnected, not just because of his body language but also
because of his words. His policy prescriptions, detailed as they
were, didn't connect with his audience. Four years after hearing him
speak, I can only recall that, on an intellectual level, I agreed
with his points. But I don't remember what he said. His words didn't
resonate with me. They didn't stick with me in my gut.
Bush, on the other hand, was the dunce. He wore a goofy smile and
dodged questions in each debate. But he was the man people could
imagine having a beer with. He drew crowds in with his drawl, spoke
in a simple, unintimidating way, and so could get away with covering
up four years of abysmal domestic and foreign policy. I probably
disagreed with 99 percent of what Bush said, but I can at least
remember some of his talking points. He said he worked hard and
promised to work hard for American families. He said he understood
American families. He said he would protect American families.
Was that a load of bull? Of course. But it sure was delivered in
pretty packaging. And, most importantly, it made a large number of
voters feel good.
Drew Westen, a clinical, personality and political psychologist who
teaches at Emory University, explains this phenomenon in his recent
book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate
of the Nation. "(T)he vision of mind that has captured the
imagination of philosophers, cognitive scientists, economists, and
political scientists since the eighteenth century -- a dispassionate
mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to
the most valid conclusions -- bears no relation to how the mind and
brain actually work," Westen writes. "When campaign strategists start
from this vision of mind, their candidates typically lose."
Simply put, people don't always vote for the candidate or the policy
that serves their own best interests. That concept should be no more
surprising in politics than in other parts of people's lives. If
individuals always did what was best for them, they would
consistently choose broccoli over cake; they would enter into
relationships with the good guy (or gal) instead of the charming jerk
who never calls; they would stick to purchasing necessities and use
credit cards as a last resort -- only when there's not enough money
at the end of the month to pay for groceries or utility bills.
But we all know people who eat more sweets than they should, date
charismatic yet inconsiderate cretins, and shop on impulse. Those
behaviors might be unhealthy, but they sure can feel good at the
time. That's the campaign strategy Republicans have perfected:
manipulating our senses and emotions to make us act in ways that
we'll later regret.
******
In the short while since the news about McCain's choice for VP broke,
we've learned a lot about Sarah Palin. We know that she played point
guard on her high school's state champion basketball team. She's
worked as a sports reporter. Her favorite food is moose stew. She's
outdoorsy and comes from a family of hunters. She rides snowmobiles.
She's a mother of five and a member of the PTA. She's a self-
described "hockey mom."
Sarah Palin is also young. At 44, she's three years younger than
Barack Obama. And she's beautiful. In 1984, she was runner-up for
Miss Alaska.
But as New York Times reporter Timothy Egan writes, "Palin brings a
bit of the "Legally Blonde" aspect to the race -- you underestimate
her at your peril."
It's been barely a day since the media introduced us to Palin, and
those are the details that are easily overshadowing -- or at least
obscuring -- the more serious news about her regressive politics or
the ethics investigation she's under.
These basketball-playing, snowmobile-riding details are what could
easily give Palin broad appeal. She appeals to men because she
doesn't threaten their way of life. She's a former beauty queen who
also, according to the media's narrative, knows how to be one of the
guys.
But what about the questions that female voters, the media and no
small number of female bloggers have been asking? McCain almost
certainly picked Palin to try to rope in the female vote, a plan that
Democrats are arguing won't work. Hillary Clinton may have gotten 18
million votes, but Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton.
Trouble is, she doesn't have to be. Clinton supporters do not have to
cross over and vote for Palin for her to be effective on the
Republican ticket. With such a close race between McCain and Obama,
Palin may need only to motivate conservative women or independents
who weren't sold on McCain or persuade those who hadn't planned on
voting to show up at the polls.
And Palin is likely to use every emotional ploy possible to bring in
more female voters. She's already co-opting Hillary Clinton's remarks
on having 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling --
a ceiling that Palin says women can still shatter "once and for all."
*****
Already a flurry of conservative and independent women have been
rallying behind Palin. Policy aside, on a personal level, she
represents work-life balance -- something that resonates with women
of all political affiliations. She's also popular among blue-collar
voters, the Republican party base and Evangelicals, particularly
because of her staunch position against abortion. She, like McCain,
favors overturning Roe v. Wade.
And if Democrats aren't careful, that could easily become their
Achilles heel this year. Elections are about emotion, and if there's
any topic that's sure to stir emotion, it's abortion.
Despite the majority of the public supporting family planning and
comprehensive sex education -- both effective ways to reduce
unplanned pregnancies -- and despite the fact that Democrats champion
federal funding for these programs, the Dems still haven't figured
out how to defend a woman's right to choose in a way that voters can
identify with on a gut level. If Democrats have historically had
trouble defending their abortion position against male candidates,
they will have triple the problem doing so against a woman. And Palin
is a slick one.
Palin vehemently apposes abortion, even in the case of rape or
incest, a fact that the public may miss while she's busy touting
membership in Feminists for Life, a group that focuses on
alternatives to abortion, particularly for college-age women. The
organization works under the guise of providing women choices, as
long as abortion isn't one of them.
Besides her Feminists for Life affiliation, Palin is herself a
mother. In fact, she decided to keep her fifth child even after
knowing it would be born with developmental disabilities. Imagine it:
debating a female candidate -- a mother -- who can say, "I had a
choice, and I chose life." That's the challenge Biden will face. He
must defend a woman's right to choose while avoiding coming across as
callous or attacking the mother of a disabled child. Simply
explaining that Palin is an "anti-woman woman" isn't enough. That
kind of message assumes voters will respond with logic and reason.
But for those who aren't steeped in gender issues, it risks either
sounding loony or being dismissed.
*****
Democrats are only too eager to argue that this election will be
different from the last two, that people have finally had enough of
the Bush brand of conservatism. I hope they're right. But Democrats
need to be realistic about the challenges they face with a Palin VP,
because abortion is just one of them.
Having a woman on the GOP side will make it easy, perhaps tempting,
for the media to resort to sexist attacks. Then feminists will be
forced to walk a line, defending Palin against sexism without looking
as though they're supporting an anti-choice candidate. Even women who
didn't like Hillary Clinton recoiled at watching her become the
target of media-driven sexism. Clinton polled the best when women
perceived that she was being treated unfairly. Palin will likely be
no different. Worse yet, if Palin gets bullied, McCain will swoop
down and protect her, pretending to be women's biggest advocate when
he is anything but. The public will see Palin being attacked and will
watch as the Republican Party comes to her rescue.
And having a young, inexperienced woman on the Republican ticket
could do more to underscore people's existing concerns about Obama
than it does to undercut their confidence in Palin. How can
Democrats, without appearing hypocritical, level serious charges
against Palin for being "untested," when that's the word that's still
hovering over their own candidate? Palin may not have foreign policy
expertise, but she has a son who is a soldier. That's no small detail
in a country obsessed with patriotism. And it's one that voters can
connect with emotionally.
Unlike Obama, Palin is not a change agent. But perception matters in
politics, and Palin looks the part. She represents a first for the
Republican Party, and her relative youth could dilute Obama's change
message -- the very message that, for the first time in many years,
has allowed voters to identify in an emotional way with a Democratic
presidential candidate.
Will Obama be able to keep that emotional connection with voters? His
campaign has only two precious months to figure it out.
Heather Gehlert is a managing editor at AlterNet.
-cm
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
On Aug 30, 2008, at 4:18 PM, Glenn moyer wrote:
Thanks Karen,
I'm glad you provided this info to the list. It's such a very
important development.
I was shocked when I heard Palin's basic background and lack of
experience. With McCain's health history and age the chance that
she could be President is far too high for such an outlandish
choice. I felt that way before these additional scary details.
It is obviously a bizzare attempt to get Hilary supporters. To me,
it seems inconceivable that any women for Hilary would be swayed by
a choice like her.
This was a frightening choice.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
