Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water…. there she is again! This time, though, some of what she says is creepily unsettling. This loads slowly but is worth the wait – we can talk about it after you watch it.
Here’s the thing: Do you really think people, especially journalists, would have been so cruel to an “unwed mother” whose parents were progressive politicians? Or to a Rockefeller or even a Bush? Throughout the interview, Palin raises the issue of class, and of the attacks on her kids; we’ll touch on that in a minute.
During the campaign, I wrote about Palin and the class issue, and the sad parallels to Paula Jones. The fact is that Sarah Palin isn’t sophisticated, that she’ be a popular Girl Scout leader or Women’s Club president in the life that existed when I was a kid – around the Mad Men era. Maybe that would have been OK if she’d known more, or been less cruel and incendiary in her speeches. Her inherent lack of sophistication and experience, what William Galston has called “a celebration of ignorance” enabled much of the class snobbery the followed. But follow it did; not in the “she’s not our kind” sort of way – it was far more subtle than that. More in the collective realization of the “cool people” that she was a WalMart, polyester lady thrust into a J Crew sort of world.
Now. Let’s think about the kids. The family itself was kind of a throwback I guess. And their omnipresence – thrust onto the stage – was weird. But when Elizabeth Edwards was criticized for taking the kids on the road during the campaign, feminists and others leapt to her defense. When Al Gore Jr. was arrested in a DUI it was a “private family matter,” not a continuing object of ridicule. Somehow though, the way this pregnancy and relationship has been portrayed has been cruel and tawdry without casting much light on Palin, her tenure or her philosophy.* And remember the whole “mommy wars” thing – did Palin put her career ahead of her kids? One person who wrote consistently well about this is PunditMom. Take a look.
None of what I’m saying here justifies what Palin stood for or did as a candidate. She was, and is, a scary person hiding behind “adorableness.” But we need to think about the mainstream coverage of her campaign and how much of it derided matters of class and family, not policy and ideology. There was certainly enough of that substantial stuff to keep any reporter busy.
What do you think?
*I am not talking about conversations concerning issues of choice, sex education or contraception but of the less substantial, more visible harumphing.