SCARY TIMES: DO WE FACE A NEW GREAT DEPRESSION (AND DOES SARAH PALIN STILL MATTER?)

Depression1Every decision my parents ever made was influenced by the Depression.  What we ate, what we wore, where we shopped, when and how we took vacations, what we "needed" vs what we "wanted" and, in their own lives, what careers they followed and where we all lived.  They had been teenagers in the Depression, and although both went to college (on scholarships and several jobs at once) neither studied what they’d wanted to.  I’ve talked about all this before – my mother refusing even to talk about her life then, my dad so concerned when any of us made a job change or took any professional risk.

I felt it too.  I still read menus from the price to the item, skipping the ones that are too expensive.  Ditto with price tags on clothes.  I’ve always clipped coupons and bought things on sale, shopped at big box stores and always, always read the unit prices of things. And, as an American Studies major I took several courses dealing with the Depression.  I needed to know more about it not only as a student but as a daughter.

I know that this is not the Great Depression.  I know that there are more protections in place, even if too many of them have been removed in the past eight years.  But the economic chaos of the past week has been scary on more than one level.  Of course I worry about us, getting near retirement age.  But my bigger worry is the impact such a colossal change will have on the lives of the younger people we love.  Our sons, first of all, at the beginning of their careers.  And all the families in this community who mean so much to us – just starting families and facing years of tuitions and outgrown winter coats and activity fees.  I also think about just-retired or nearly retired "elders" so well represented by Ronni Bennett’s blog, and all the people living from paycheck to paycheck — who will be endangered by cuts in hours and devastated by the loss of their jobs. 

Usacoughlinf
And this is where Sarah Palin comes in.  And John McCain.  Because every day the level of negative language rises, the indulgent response to enraged constituents yelling things that should not be spoken in an American election or any other time: threats and  bigoted characterizations and more.  This kind of language is far more dangerous in a bad economy.  Hitler was successful partially because the German economy had so badly frightened people, men like "Father Coughlin" (that’s his picture) preached racism and anti-Semitism on the radio during the Depression with substantial response.  There other, less prominent hate-mongers too – and they had a real following.  People needed someone to be angry at and were vulnerable to that sort of demagogery.  It’s a very scary shadow over the economic crisis, the campaign, and the souls of the American people.   NOW, go read Josh Marshall on why the ghost of Father Coughlin haunts him, too.  And read this very thoughtful post about a tough electoral decision.

The consider what sort of leader allows such things – and doesn’t stand up and tell his/her supporters to cut it out?  What does that say about their leadership once they’re in office?

Sarah Palin, Rape Kits and Birth Control

When you first heard that Wasilla, AK and its then-mayor Sarah Palin were charging rape victims for the cost of their rape kits (evidence collecting) you didn’t quite believe it, right?  This video is the first of a series being produced by "The Wasilla Project" and was called to my attention by Nerdette, a sharp cookie whose blog "Not My Gal" is usually on top of these things.  After I watched it I went back to this CNN version of the story: 

It’s kind of slippery but, partly because I’ve been working on the issue of very scary threats to the right to planning ones pregnancies, and to actual birth control and family planning, I’ve very aware of the Palin perspective on these important life decisions.  Watch both videos and see what you think.  And if you want to learn more, stop by Birth Control Watch and see for yourself what informs a lot of the thinking behind Sarah Palin and that guy she’s running with.   

SARAH PALIN, SARAH PALIN, SARAH PALIN AND THE DANGERS OF A DESPERATE PARTY

Palin_house_4This photo says it all.  I took it yesterday, on our second Sunday canvassing for Obama in Virginia.  When I got home I decided to review the stats for this blog and discovered that no post has drawn either the traffic or comments as those I’ve written about Sarah Palin.  Friends tell me the same is true of theirs.  I don’t think it’s brilliant writing that’s doing it.  Sarah Palin has captured a large chunk of this presidential campaign as well as either the imagination or the rage (depending on perspective) of many American voters.

The Tina Fey stuff is funny, and effective, as I’ve mentioned before.   The mean stuff is plenty mean.  The "middle-class hockey mom" stuff is more effective than I wish it were, especially since the Palin family is worth over $2M and they made close to $200,000 last year.  None of this matters as much as it should.  She draws huge crowds.  She’s cute.  Those who support her either believe she is a wonder of accessibility and straight talk or have twisted themselves like pretzels to find reasons to justify her presence.  For me, at least, it’s kind of sad. 

What makes so many people prefer a less-educated, less-experienced candidate with a limited academic past, no curiosity or sense of exploration, untrammeled ambition and not much of a history over far more capable, experienced leadership?   I remember when I was a kid and my mother’s adored Adlai Stevenson ran for president in 1952 and 1956, people called him an egghead, he was accused of being too cold and not able to connect to voters.  And some analysts have compared him to Obama – two Illinois candidates too smart for the room. 

I don’t see it.  Obama appears to me far looser and more accessible- and more well-rounded in experience and education – and he’s younger and more available to young voters; Stevenson was a different man at a very different time and he was running against the man who, at least partially, won World War II.  Even so, the question really is, how far have we evolved since then?  AND how much have we learned from voting for the guy we’d "rather have a beer with" when that guy was George W Bush?  AND in times so very dangerous that by the time each post is replaced at the top of the que, markets around the world have gone down once more and international tensions risen – will we still, as a country, opt for the "mavericky mom" who is not, at least on paper and on the stump, capable of understanding, much less solving, our problems?  (OH and that guy who’s running with her…..)

As I write this, Palin, just introduced by Joe Lieberman (%#@!!**&) to a huge Florida crowd screaming "Sarah, Sarah, Sarah", continues to draw the faithful to great emotional response.  It’s hard to know if, when people go into the voting booth, this emotion will translate into votes – or the reality will hit them and they won’t be able to do it.

My other fear is that because the race is moving toward Obama, acts of desperate chicanery will be part of the election day landscape.  Here are some things that are already happening;

If you’re an attorney or law student, you can help with these things and the others that will happen.

We Americans will be tested in many ways in the next few years: economically, militarily, educationally, diplomatically and more.  The first test, though, is this:  As we face these challenges and all the others certain to emerge, and we think about our kids and what we want to leave for them, will we be able to take a deep breath and vote for "the smart guy" or is the phenomenon that is Sarah Palin the canary in our coal mine – warning us that our electorate is, even after W, not ready to choose the most capable and visionary, who has inspired so very many of our next generation to enter the fray,  when they can elect Tina Fey light and her "old guy" running mate instead?

SARAH PALIN, JOE SIXPACK AND GEORGE ORWELL

081002_palinmccain21I used to run a TV news show, and I told my staff (literally) that using the term "Joe Six Pack" in a script or interview was a firing offense.  I probably couldn’t have gotten away with firing them but it made the point.  I grew up just outside a mill town along the Monongahela River — it was the same town so brilliantly portrayed in The Deer Hunter —  and I  went to school with kids whose parents worked in steel mills and coke plants and river locks.  Some of them lived in trailers.  I was the Jewish Girl – a bit of an outsider but usually part of the gang – parties, sleepovers, crazy afternoons sneaking cigarettes in pine-paneled basement "family rooms."

I guess lots of those parents were what Sarah Palin called Joe Six Pack.  But that’s not who they were- who they are.  America is full of hard working people who drink beer.  Bruce Springsteen portrays them all the time – much better than I could.  They are dads and husbands and brothers and sons and they love their kids and their wives and, where I lived, the Steelers.  They often don’t ever move out of their "starter houses" because that’s what they can afford.  The dads that I knew sent their kids to college though – or to "the service" which paid their tuition, and the next generation did better economically – the American dream at work. 

I admired these people, and loved some of them.  When you spend lots of Saturday night sleepovers at girlfriends’ houses you get to know their parents.  And, remembering those dads,  I do NOT understand how Sarah Palin can talk about "Joe Six Pack" and still say she’s one of "the people."  It’s like talking about "Polacks" and then claiming you’re Polish.  The term is a colossal insult, the speaker setting herself above the folks she’s describing.  For some reason, it’s painful — almost heartbreaking, to hear.  I know it’s partially my rage at her for claiming some special channel to working class Americans while, it appears, cynically performing like a parody of them – much like Frances McNormand did as Marge Gunderson in FARGO.  Her "Joe Six Packs" deserve better.

I was going to write about all the Orwellian rhetoric too — McCain and Palin repeatedly claiming untruths and running against things McCain himself helped to put in place.  Here’s what I mean:  They talk about Wall Street malfeasance when they and their party repeatedly squashed efforts to bring it under control.  They talk about change when they’re fighting it and economic insecurity when their policies helped to cause it.  That’s not a working class agenda, it’s just cynical pandering.  Mr. Orwell would be proud.  "Joe Six Pack" — and the rest of us, deserve better than that, too.

TINA FEY, SARAH PALIN, HOME PERMANENTS, AND THE VICE-PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Fey_palinWhen I was a kid there was a thing called a "home permanent*."  It was a hair treatment that made your hair curly (horrifying to girls like me who ironed their hair and wrapped it around orange juice can sized rollers [or real orange juice cans] to keep it straight.)  One of the most visible products was called Toni Home Permanents and its ad campaign was at least as popular as a great Saturday Night Live catch phrase.

Ad_toni_home_permanent_cropped_2
Yup.  It asked "Which twin has the Toni?"  That’s a photo of the print version on the left.  The idea was that one twin had a fancy salon permanent and one curled hers at home with Toni, but you couldn’t tell the difference.  Of course, any kid who ever had a sleepover at the home of a friend who’d just done a "home permanent" knows that the chemical smell was gross (and if I remember correctly you couldn’t wash you hair for a couple of days) and their hair was often substantially more dry and brittle than the "salon permanent" girls’.  In fact, there was a difference.

Every time I see Tina Fey being Sarah Palin I’m reminded of that.  The McCain-Palin campaign is asking us to believe that when you spend upscale salon money it’s mostly for snob appeal, because all you need is a Toni and your bathroom sink, and you’re just as gorgeous.  In this context though, the comparison is different — and ironic.  If you saw Chevy Chase being Gerald Ford or Phil Hartman as Ronald Reagan or Darrell Hammond as Bill Clinton, the impressions were great, but you always knew that the real guy was smarter, and more serious, than the comedian.  No trouble knowing which "twin" was which.  But with Tina and Sarah, it’s reversed.  The brains, and the class, go to the comic, not the politician.  The girlfriend of a young friend, asked if she was jealous about another woman in his circle, responded that she’d only worry "if he was hanging around with Tina Fey."  Her intelligence, class and charm are that attractive.  It’s pretty clear that she’s smarter and probably knows more about what’s going on in the world than The Candidate and, for many of us, appears better equipped to serve as Vice President.  Many conservative pundits seem to agreeAnd many Alaskans.  And liberals.  Several posts, and tweets, from strong progressives, have described a "cringing" sense of discomfort when watching her stumble. 

So what thoughts, and emotions, do we bring to this spectacle tonight?  What do we, who support her opponents, consider as we watch alone, or with like-minded friends at debate-parties or with tweeters on #Debate08?  From here, it’s complicated.  Angry at her searing convention speech, but sad to see her stumble so pitifully in the Couric interview; fearful of what could happen if she and McCain win, furious that she’s trying to stall the Alaska report about her alleged abuses of power, and, in my case at least, completely detached from the fact that this woefully inadequate candidate happens to be female, we hope the battle is fought on competence and capacity, not gender and one-liners.  Mostly, we’re aware that the copy is far superior to the original, and that the smart, attractive version of the candidate isn’t the one who’s going to be there tonight.

*I just looked it up on Wikipedia and apparently there still are things called home permanents but who uses them??   No clue.

 

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE WOMAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN: SARAH PALIN IS THIS ELECTION’S WIZARD OF OZ

Wizard_of_oz2_3
This is an argument for a change of focus.  As I began to write it all I could think about was the Wizard of Oz, the fake behind the curtain who had everyone believing he could save them all.  When he finally presented gifts to all but Dorothy, it sounded horrifyingly like the tactics of the current "wizard,"  nominee Palin, and her boss.  I am as angry and uneasy as anyone over the nomination of Sarah
Palin
but I think it’s time to stop now. 

This morning I heard Paul
Begala
say on MSNBC that every day McCain isn’t talking about the
economy, he wins.  That he can’t win ON the economy so if he keeps
distracting the voters and the press he will be better off – a premise
supported by the current poll numbers.  Begala also kept comparing
Palin to the "shiny object in the water" on a fishing line that makes a
fish take the bait.  I think he’s right.

The issues of this
election are, as we all know, so enormous and scary that it may be
easier to keep focusing on the governor, but that will not win the
election.  We need to help remind people of the real issues – the
devastating effects of the sub-prime crisis and it’s sequel, investment bank failure so evident in the past few
days, the state of the economy generally, our sinking competitiveness
in education and the  tragic decline of many of our schools, the
attempts by the Right to place (with hat tip to Auntie Mame)"braces on
our brains" and of course, Iraq, Afghanistan, healthcare, energy and
infrastructure. 

We’re in a mess.  It wasn’t caused by pigs or
lipstick or tanning beds or even community organizers — it was caused
by the people currently in office who want four more years and are
Orwell-ing us into giving it to them.  This community has enormous
impact and knows how to raise a ruckus (If you don’t think so, mosey on
over to the League of Maternal Justice!)  Let’s get some message
discipline here, leave Sarah to others and push the issues.  We’re
going to kick ourselves if we don’t.

A version of this post appears on Blogher.com.

SARAH PALIN II: IS ANYBODY ELSE READY TO THROW UP THAT WE’RE DOING ALL THIS MOMMY TALKING?

Rabbit_hole3
I worked at the TODAY SHOW from 1980 to 1989.  During that time I probably produced, conservatively, two pieces a month on "working mothers", as we were called then.  It was rough slogging.  No matter how many times we looked at it (always from both sides) it just wouldn’t die.  Of course early in that same period we had trouble getting cameramen who would shoot a story including an AIDS victim, so there were tougher issues for sure.

In any case, in that period we talked to T. Berry Brazelton (often), Lois Hoffman, Ellen Galinsky, Dr. Edward Zigler, Phyllis Schlafly, Sylvia Hewlett, activists from Catalyst, NOW, Eagle Forum, David Elkind, Letty Cottin Pogrebin and literally hundreds of others.  We debated every aspect of child development, nature/nurture – you name it, we covered it.  By the time I left at the end of 1989 the issue had mostly been settled – by demographics if nothing else.  Mothers were working.  Many needed to be.  More were on their own, abandoned by or never having had a partner in raising their kids.  What was left of the battle was scraps, remnants and [very important] policy issues dealing with childcare, equal pay and family leave etc.  Working moms were an American reality.

That was twenty years ago!  Twenty years!  And now, artificially or not, the issue has emerged again.  And many of those allegedly "defending" working moms (or at least one named Sarah) are those who, for much of my working mother life, so vehemently opposed the idea of women going out of the home to work.  Sorry.  I know the conversation has passed this issue in many ways but as I read posts and newsletters today, it made me mad all over again.  With all these conservatives defending working mothers, after what I remember, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  They’re all working now too so some of it is probably genuine but there’s also such an element of strategic hollering.  Anyone else feel like they fell down the rabbit hole?

PIGS, LIPSTICK, DICK CHENEY, SARAH PALIN AND THE MOVIES: “BOB ROBERTS”, “A FACE IN THE CROWD” AND WILLIE STARK

Of course by now we’ve all seen this.

I wrote much of what appears below without knowing just how to begin it – and those wacky Republicans solved my problem.  The response to this boilerplate Obama statement was to issue a vicious attack accusing him of sexism because of Palin’s convention speech “lipstick/hockey mom/pitbull” quote.  This despite the fact that the metaphor has often been used by Republicans including Dick Cheney – to say nothing of John McCain – look here:

The McCain campaign, not only in its choice of Sarah Palin but in how they use her, is leaning on very scary  tactics that are similar to the successful exploitation of voters illustrated by some of the most memorable characters in American political films.  Watch this trailer for Tim Robbins’ Bob Roberts; see if it isn’t more familiar than you wish:

Creepy, isn’t it?  A demagogue making his way to the top by lying about his opponent and manipulating the alienation of the American people for his own ends.  That could never happen in real life, right?

Much, much earlier in film history, the beloved Andy Griffith played one of the scariest public personalities ever in A Face in the Crowd — written by Budd Schulberg and directed by On the Waterfront‘s Elia Kazan.  He’s not a politician but watch the trailer and see if it doesn’t seem familiar.  You have to watch until the end to get the full impact.

 

It’s so depressing — and enraging — to watch this campaign peddling pseudo-folksiness to win over its public.  It’s time for that to stop working in our country.  Stakes are too high to permit us (or the press) to fall for the most  approachable (and least honest) over the most excellent.

Finally, remember Robert Penn Warren’s remarkable novel, clearly based on Louisiana’s Huey LongAll the King’s Men?  It portrays a politician on his path to becoming a dangerous demagogue.  Yeah, I know it’s melodramatic but does it feel at all familiar?

Clearly we should consider these archetypal characters as cautionary tales; instructive representations of our future if we allow this kind of campaigning to prevail.  Movies are our largest export (unless video games have taken over while I wasn’t looking)  and often reflect, if not our truths, at least our ghosts, shadows and neuroses.  It gave us The Body Snatchers in the 50’s, Easy Rider in the 60’s and Working Girl and Wall Street in the 80’s.  It’s easy to be seductive, to manipulate language and truth; easy to pretend to be one of the people in order to win them. The vicious, craven strategies of this campaign – and Sarah Palin herself – are  perfect examples; John McCain, whom I used to admire, has allowed, no encouraged, this shameful campaigning in his name and surrendered all the positions of principal that he once held.  If we don’t want (another) Bob Roberts (He does remind me of GWBush) or a cynical populist pretender or a MS Wilie Stark as our government, it’s up to use to exercise vigilance and fierce commitment to fight off these transparent manipulations and to ensure that it does not happen.

JUST READ THIS – SARAH PALIN BY MOM-101 ON MOMOCRATS

Liz2_2I really want to quote this (not long at all) post by the wonderful Liz of MOM-101 but it would spoil the surprise.  You have to read it yourself.  You’ll know what I’m talking about when get to it.  She’s always great, but this is… well…. does off the charts cover it?

RETURN OF THE CULTURE WARS – BUT DID THEY EVER LEAVE?

Feminism_1
Some very smart analysts, including POLITICO and  PressThink founder Jay Rosen, are talking about the current Republican strategy in support of Sarah Palin as a "reigniting of the culture wars."  Attacking with all the code words of past anti-"left" vocabularies.  And here’s Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal:

I’ll tell you how powerful Mrs. Palin already is: she reignited the
culture wars just by showing up
. She scrambled the battle lines, too.
The crustiest old Republican men are shouting "Sexism!" when she’s
slammed. Pro-woman Democrats are saying she must be a Another_mother
bad mother to be
all ambitious with kids in the house. Great respect goes to Barack
Obama not only for saying criticism of candidates’ children is out of
bounds in political campaigns, but for making it personal, and
therefore believable. "My mother had me when she was eighteen…" That
was the lovely sound of class in American politics.

When the McCain Summer of Love ad debuted, I wrote this – They Will Campaign Against Us Until We’re Dead, and Maybe After.  If you watch CSPAN, especially Washington Journal, you know from the phone calls how much anger still exists; how much hatred of the generation I grew up in.  Against our opposition to the war, mischief and outrageousness, and even more, our search – no, demand – for peace. Going after all of us, FORTY YEARS LATER, still works.

I guess that since I’ve been posting quite a lot about that time forty years ago, the memories are long on both sides.  But Barack Obama was 7 years old in 1968.  It’s not and never was his culture war.  It is, however, the never-ending flash-point in the conservative playbook, a safe way to rile folks up and re-ignite the hatred and anger manifested in the 60’s and 70’s and again in the 90’s when that Boomer couple, the Clintons, were in the White House.

I’ve given up trying to figure out how to respond.  Most Americans, including us 60’s people, love our country and loved it then.  It was the a desire to return the country to its true nature — just as it is today — that drove us.  But it’s far more useful to the McCain campaign to taunt us — and Barack Obama; and to divide us, too, with these ancient battles.  The tough part is figuring out how to answer.