Interesting take on Palin from the NYTimes

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us...0tZqZl8xOiUg7g

Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide
By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS
Published: September 9, 2011

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS — Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin 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 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 ins utions (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 ins utionalism.

On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed ins utions 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.

[boutons_deux]

pitbull is nothing but a celebrity without a TV show, an quitter ex-governor disapproved of in her own state and with no prospects for being elected again.

Her "ideas" are nothing new, and they've been as obvious as her big floppy s to any serious observer (which excludes ANAND GIRIDHARADAS) of corrupt, stagnant, self-serving, plutocratic US political class.

ANAND GIRIDHARADAS fails to see that pitbull can't do anything about her "ideas" except spew them. In fact, nobody can. The VRWC has cemented its power and corrupted the politicians so thoroughly that the VRWC dominance is unassailable.

[CosmicCowboy]

[JoeChalupa]

There was nothing in politics for her, benjamins that is, so she quit as governor to go after the benjamins and has never looked back. She knows where the money is and she knows she has no real intentions of getting into the race as the FoxNews money is much more important.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I think other people are more concerned if she runs than herself. It's pretty funny actually. She's not even a lawmaker and people still pay attention to her. I don't know who's more stupid.

[boutons_deux]

more stupid?

red-state bubbas who keep voting Repug as the Repugs keep pushing them into poverty.

[baseline bum]

There is only one real solution to her complaint: locking people in prison for bribes and making all campaigns use only public financing. Good luck on the second after Citizens United, good luck on the first when there is no way congress would make a law hitting the brakes on their gravy train.

[ElNono]

I think anybody in here would've been able to give you that diagnosis of the politics in this country. It's good she figured it out. What I would like to hear from her (and anybody else ing about the status quo) is how do we fix all that. What is she offering to do away with "politics as usual" and all her other soundbites.

[boutons_deux]

"It's good she figured it out."

what she figures out is irrelevant, and she obviously is so stupid and ignorant that somebody figured it out for her.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

There is only one real solution to her complaint: locking people in prison for bribes and making all campaigns use only public financing. Good luck on the second after Citizens United, good luck on the first when there is no way congress would make a law hitting the brakes on their gravy train.

Term limits.

[clambake]

Term limits.

wouldn't help. the system manipulates the position. which offer would you accept? all or nothing?

[JoeChalupa]

I like term limits too.

[boutons_deux]

the politicians won't allow term limits

[101A]

On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed ins utions 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.

The trick is to get to this point; where we aren't allowing the pols to divide us between R & D (which simply plays into their hands), but divide up along the lines described in this quote. Lots of common ground, and, IMO, a vast majority would arise for the latter world view (including most posters on this board) - in fact, let take a poll, who see themselves defined as:

(A) Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed ins utions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better.

or

(B) 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.

Firmly in the "B" camp, myself.

[boutons_deux]

A and B are hardly the only options, and imo, not even options that many people would imagine or support

A. corporations exist to make profits. Only the naive would expect them to "make the world better", or GAF about employees, humans, or their home country (the biggest are now supra-national and beyond the control of any one country)

b. is utopian/hippie/commune stuff that has failed repeatedly whenever attempted.

[mingus]

What she's saying is right and a lot of Republicans won't make the distinction b/w bad capitalism and good capitalism. A lot of Republicans don't want her to run, but I wouldn't be surprised to see her run. She has nothing to lose really. Shed just get rehired by fox anyway if she lost.

[101A]

A and B are hardly the only options, and imo, not even options that many people would imagine or support

A. corporations exist to make profits. Only the naive would expect them to "make the world better", or GAF about employees, humans, or their home country (the biggest are now supra-national and beyond the control of any one country)

b. is utopian/hippie/commune stuff that has failed repeatedly whenever attempted.

I read "enclave", I guess possibly naively, as "State".

[JoeChalupa]

What she's saying is right and a lot of Republicans won't make the distinction b/w bad capitalism and good capitalism. A lot of Republicans don't want her to run, but I wouldn't be surprised to see her run. She has nothing to lose really. Shed just get rehired by fox anyway if she lost.

Not to mention another book deal. Undefeated II.

[101A]

What she's saying is right and a lot of Republicans won't make the distinction b/w bad capitalism and good capitalism. A lot of Republicans don't want her to run, but I wouldn't be surprised to see her run. She has nothing to lose really. Shed just get rehired by fox anyway if she lost.

It is indeed a problem that many Republicans are knee-jerk "pro capitalist" no matter its guise. However, many Dems are just as likely to be anti-capitalist as a base response.

[101A]

Regarding Palin's actual quotes, btw, they seem particularly suited to attack either Romney or Perry, FWIW.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think other people are more concerned if she runs than herself. It's pretty funny actually. She's not even a lawmaker and people still pay attention to her. I don't know who's more stupid.

or start threads about her..

[Winehole23]

Regarding Palin's actual quotes, btw, they seem particularly suited to attack either Romney or Perry, FWIW.

The field continues to underwhelm and the electorate has never been more receptive to faux populism (within my lifetime, anyway.)

[scott]

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS — Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.

Change Sarah Palin to any major political figure (Obama, Boehner, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Mic e Bachmann, Ron Paul, Bill Clinton, The Ghost of FDR) and it's still a true statement. Since 2001, Politics in this country has become first and foremost around "the other side is always wrong." When a political party makes its goal to defeat the sitting president rather than serving the American people, something is wrong.

Full disclosure: I didn't read the rest of the article.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Change Sarah Palin to any major political figure (Obama, Boehner, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Mic e Bachmann, Ron Paul, Bill Clinton, The Ghost of FDR) and it's still a true statement. Since 2001, Politics in this country has become first and foremost around "the other side is always wrong." When a political party makes its goal to defeat the sitting president rather than serving the American people, something is wrong.

Full disclosure: I didn't read the rest of the article.

Not to blame it on Republicans........ but Karl Rove's political strategy was to legislate to 51% of the electorate. He flipped off the remainig 49% and let the hatefest begin...

[boutons_deux]

"Since 2001"

No, it started with Newt Gingrich's gang in 1992, when his Congress and VRWC (Mellon-Scaif, etc) were intent on harassing, obstructing, sliming the Clintons and the Dems ahead of any concern of for the country. Gingrich started the "all politics, all the time" juggernaut of Repug political orientation, that denies the legitimacy of any opposition, and intended not to defeat, but to exterminate any opposition.

And to go back to the asshole who started it all, St Ronnie sanctioned the war on all employees and any unions by firing the ATCs after only 2 days of a strike. UCA mgmt took that as the starting gun to over employees and grab all the money for themselves (hence, the explosion of mgmt compensation) and shareholders, while household real income has stagnated for 30 years.