The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Why Do They Hate Her So?

March 12th, 2010 by Myrhaf · 10 Comments · Uncategorized

Gus Van Horn considers the question of why liberals hate Sarah Palin so much. I’ve noticed in my personal relations with liberals, especially women, that they do have an intense negative emotional reaction to Palin. The Alaskan Governor really bugs them. Gus takes a guess at the reason:

My first stab would be that they see her as typical of “little” people who need their help — except that she is uppity.

I think that is part of it. The left believes in two classes: the rulers and the ruled. Although few will admit it in America, the longing for a stratified class society in which everyone knows his place has always been important to anti-capitalists. This is why capitalism’s first enemies in England were conservatives who longed for a return to the feudal order. Sarah Palin, with her soccer mom demeanor and her guns, is clearly meant to be among the ruled. There’s nothing more offensive to the ruling elite than a commoner who rises above her station.

It also goes to multiculturalism and feminism, two collectivist pillars of the New Left. The left has its “narrative” — its explanation of our culture — in which the right wing is a bunch of greedy white guys who keep the people in a constant state of fear, and so make them vote against their interests (their interests being socialism, although leftists never say it that plainly). The Republican noise machine drowns out reason and stymies noble Democrats who just want to save the planet and help the little guy.

Leftists care so much! If only they could cut through the clamor of the right-wing noise machine so that Americans could see that the Democrats just want to save the planet and help the little guy.

Part of the feminist narrative is that women have their own logic that ennobles them, and makes them different from white males. Instead of greedy capitalists, women are collectivists who care about people. This is a variation on The Feminine Mystique, which the early feminists opposed.

Part of the Democrat narrative (and electoral strategy) is that they are not the party of greedy white male corporate types. In the pressure group logic of the welfare state, Democrats say that they fight for the interests of women and minorities.

The left has a lot invested in the multiculturalist/feminist narrative that Democrats represent women. So when this gun-toting Republican woman comes along, she represents a huge threat. If the Dems lose women as a voting bloc, it’s over: they’ll never win another election. Thus, Sarah Palin must be mocked, scorned, hated and marginalized.

The message from the elite that liking Palin is not cool got out fast and has not changed. In a nation in which people are “socialized” according to John Dewey’s educational theory in public school — that is, in a nation of conformists — it’s important to be cool.

I should note that I’m not a fan of Sarah Palin. The more I learn about her, the less impressed I am. I think she is an ordinary religious conservative with little understanding of economics. Sometimes she gets it right, other times not. If she were not a woman, I doubt she would push the left’s emotional buttons the way she does.

10 Comments so far ↓

  • Benpercent

    I wondered about this myself. I have a relative who, during the Presidential election of ’08, took a smiling unseriousness at Sarah Palin. When I asked her just what it was that made Sarah Palin so comically unpalatable to her she couldn’t answer me; instead she would essentially say “Well…look at her.” She’s a HUGE second-hander, so I’m pretty certain she was simply adopting the popular view.

  • madmax

    Myrhaf,

    I asked the question that sparked the GusVanHorn post. There were some good responses there but I think this is the best, most comprehensive answer yet. Thanks.

  • Colleen

    Hmmm…

    let’s see why conservatives like myself don’t like her?
    She’s a quitter.
    She deserted her post and ran away.
    She can’t take the heat of public office.
    She’s thin skinned and can’t take criticism.
    She can’t formulate a simple sentence.
    She’s not very bright.
    Oh, never mind – she’s perfect for the country.

  • Colleen

    Oh, I forgot to mention – she’s a quitter and deserted her post.

  • Colleen

    Oh yeah, in case I forgot – she’s a quitter.
    Her real name should be “CUT and RUN Palin”.

  • Steve D

    “she’s a quitter and deserted her post”

    Any politician who runs for president or vice president if they get elected will have to desert their post since they can’t really do both jobs, right? Even campaigning for another position means you are not doing the job for which you were elected.

    Actually, quitting before getting elected seems a bit more honest (and perhaps more courageous) to me. At least it is a recognition of the fact that one can’t do both jobs.

    As far as the original question goes, usually when you see such an intense reaction far out of place compared to what it should be it means some sort of psychological defense mechanism is going on.

    “If the Dems lose women as a voting bloc, it’s over: they’ll never win another election. Thus, Sarah Palin must be mocked, scorned, hated and marginalized.”

    At this point you my be overanalyzing this a bit. This is an emotional response – a visceral hatred. I don’t think anyone sat down and said A, therefore B, therefore C therefore I should hate Palin.

    “I should note that I’m not a fan of Sarah Palin.” Sure but you don’t hate her. You are able to analyze there things rationally which is something the liberals and conservatives can’t do.

  • Mike

    Colleen, you know how I know you didn’t read the entire blog article?

  • Ashley

    As governor, she abused her power, flung populist abuse at the oil companies and fish processors. She has an irritating way of lecturing others in a school marmish way. Her actions as governor are telling: use power to help your personal business friends who can’t make money in the milk business.

    Her “aw schucks” comments are grating like fingernails on a chalkboard. Perhaps to some “liberal” elitists she represents the threat you describe. I don’t think she merits the attention she gets.

  • Colleen

    Say what you will, she’s still

    “Cut and Ron Palin…”

  • Paul Hsieh

    Back in 2008, I was especially appalled at her placing the blame for the mortgage crisis on “predatory” lenders, rather than Washington DC:

    “Darn right it was the predator lenders, who tried to talk Americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house. There was deception there, and there was greed and there is corruption on Wall Street. And we need to stop that.”

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html

    She undoubtedly has “populist” appeal, tapping into many ordinary Americans’ justified anger at the morally condescending patronizing attitude of liberals.

    However, I have no confidence that if she were in power, she would be advocating for genuine capitalism and individual rights. If anything, she could be FAR more damaging in the long run to the cause of capitalism and limited government than a statist like Obama (who is already extremely damaging).