Sarah Palin and the soft bigotry of low expectations

[TrogL]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/sarah-palin-and-the-soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations/240035/

A rather strange piece trying to make the point that Palin would do better if she was actually asked to do better by the base. I'm not buying it.

In Joshua Green's June Atlantic piece on Sarah Palin, a retelling of the former Alaska governor's accomplishments prompts these questions: "How did someone who so effectively dealt with the two great issues vexing Alaska fall from grace so quickly? Anyone looking back at her record can't help but wonder: How did a popular, reformist governor beloved by Democrats come to embody right-wing resentment?"

Green concludes that "the qualities that brought her original successes -- the relentlessness, the impulse to settle scores -- weren't nearly so admirable when deployed against less worthy foes" than corrupt members of the Alaska establishment. That's astute. But I wonder if another contributing factor wasn't as important. As governor, Palin was playing to voters who demanded results as a condition of their support. As soon as she took the national stage, however, she received effusive praise whether she performed capably, as during her GOP convention speech, or poorly, as she did during interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. To borrow a phrase, you might say she fell victim to the soft bigotry of low expectations. Whereas Alaskans rewarded substantive effectiveness, outlets like Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, and The Weekly Standard behaved as if firing up the base was enough. Had Palin's supporters demanded more -- more knowledge, more polish, more steadiness, more policy substance, more effort reaching beyond a base of support far too small to win any election -- perhaps she would've worked harder to improve her uneven politicking.

...

Palin bears ultimate responsibility. A more mature politician who learned from mistakes would understand that an off-the-cuff misstatement is perfectly normal and inconsequential, whereas complaining about the world's most innocuous question makes you look insecure, petty and ridiculous to everyone save your apologists. Far harder to learn from mistakes, however, when amid a lost election, public missteps, and tanking popularity, intelligent ideological allies do nothing but make excuses, going so far as to write a book positing that among all politicians you're uniquely persecuted.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

1. Actually I find this to be an interesting perspective

Thanks for posting it.

[tularetom]

2. You're right that's nonsense

She did better in Alaska only when measured by the standards of the slimy crooks who preceded her.

Even then her administration was characterized by the paranoia, misplaced class envy, self pity, vengefulness, and secrecy that have come to be recognized as key parts of her political MO.

She never was and never will be ready for prime time despite the efforts of our liberal media to pump her up.

[dynasaw]

3. Why She Doesn't Need to Rise

above anyone's expectations of a national politician--read on:

"When there's an ideological bubble inside which conservative pols can reach their supporters, boost their egos, and earn millions of dollars by returning the favor of uncritical flattery, why would they bother to engage with the outside world?" So babble on Sarah and collect the cash.

[Populist_Prole]

4. If she could, she would. She can't, and won't.

I mean, it's not like she hasn't already picked totally clean the low-hanging wingnut fruit. She's come as far as she can with her wingnut base.

If she could appeal and garner support from even moderately informed people, she would have already done so.

[struggle4progress]

5. Rightwingers bought out the Atlantic a few years back. So we'll see more garbage from there