Saturday, August 30, 2008

The Real Palin Demographic

I won't vote for John McCain, because I want to dismantle the American overseas empire, while he wants to preserve it at all costs. I'm a libertarian, and I believe that Republicans have lost any Reagan-era credibility they had when they speak of small, limited government. I won’t vote for The One because I refuse to subscribe to any cult of personality that is based on a myth.

Nevertheless, I find the choice of Sarah Palin fascinating because of the problem she poses for the extreme left. They cast themselves as the champion of women and families, but this woman is a living illustration of how little the Democrats have to offer people like her.

First, she is married to a man, and she doesn't seem at all unhappy with her situation. This is problematic for disgruntled HRC Democrats. Joe "would you like some sugar with your restraining order, Ma'am?" Biden Democrats believe that women should be able to leave their marriages for any reason or for no reason, and that taxpayers and child support enforcement policies must be designed to make this choice a neutral one, with no economic consequences at all for mom and her children. The fact that she remains married to a man - after 20 years! - and has born 5 children with him is deeply troubling to Democrats.

The fact that she's been able to embark on a successful political career, and still have 5 children, is a thumb in the eye as far as Democrats are concerned. Democrats maintain that the freedom to have both children and a career requires government assistance, since men, by their very nature, have to be compelled by government to support women and their children. When a women chooses a lifelong partnership with a man, all she is doing is making a sneaky end-run around the government, selfishly consuming his wages and his labor directly from the source.

Second, she is a business owner, with her husband. While far from rich, they appear to be doing quite nicely. I'm guessing they have health insurance, so they don’t need the government to provide it. Unless she leaves her husband, the Democrats have nothing to offer her except for environmental regulations and higher taxes.

He husband is an oil worker! They draw income from the oil business! This is a big red flag, because to Democrats, anyone associated with petroleum, from the men on offshore oil rigs, to men driving oil trucks, to oil traders, to oil company managers, to oil company stockholders, are leeches on society, and defilers of nature.

She is a member of the NRA. Democrats don’t believe anyone, except for lesbians, should be allowed near guns.

She is an anti-abortion Christian. This is anathema to Democrats. Democrats believe that abortion should be a free choice, with no economic or personal consequences, right up to the moment of birth, at the very least. Abortion should be free of charge, funded completely by the public, and available without the slightest inconvenience to any female, of any age, of any citizenship status. Taxpayer-funded abortion clinics should be as ubiquitous as Starbucks, and rural women and children should be provided with a taxpayer-funded stretch limo and a driver to take them to the nearest clinic. It should be illegal for anyone - especially parents - to discourage abortion, or even hint that the decision has a moral dimension.

McCain didn’t choose her because he is trying to get disgruntled Hillary supporters. He is after a completely different and much larger demographic. He is trying to appeal to women that are married to men they don’t hate. Women who are relatively happy with their lives, relatively conservative on social issues, who aren't lawyers and either didn’t go to college, or went to college and avoided Womens Studies courses. Women who are ambivalent about abortion. Women who have managed their lives successfully enough to pay taxes every year. That is a very different demographic than disgruntled Hillary supporters.

I'm part of the demographic he's after, even though I'm a man. I've got a lot more in common with her than I do with the predatory law firm of Obama & Biden.

7 comments:

Jake Liscow said...

Just as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's historic trek for the Oval Office does not mean there is no racism or sexism in the U.S., in the case of this post, the exception does not define the rule. You hyperbolize democratic social programs when you say things like "democrats believe 'x'," but fail to note that 'x' is only available to a certain, small group of people - certainly not Palin. And your point is that she doesn't need it. That's excellent for Palin and her family. But this poses no strategic risk for the Democrats. On a side note, Obama is in the same position family-wise as Palin. The only difference you're highlighting is gender. Maybe this is why David Schraub was right about what Republicans think about appearances.

David Schraub said...

Breaking News: Sarah Palin poses huge threat to caricatures of non-existent man-haters. I mean seriously? She poses a "threat" to leftists because she's happily married? And this undermines the rationale behind the Violence Against Women Act? You're one gram of cocaine short of an overdose, my friend.

I mean, this is just paragraph upon paragraph of idiot. I'm in awe about how you can stack it up like this.

Sweating Through fog said...

Jake,

Thanks for stopping by. Obama's campaign is indeed historic, because it demonstrates that a black man can make a run for the presidency based on his own talents and accomplishments. Hillary's run is no more historically significant than Laurleen Wallace winning the Alabama governorship. There is no good reason to suppose that Hillary Rodham would be anywhere near the presidency were it not for the husband she chose.

I'm aware that my characterization of Democratic policy is just hyperbole. But I maintain that her candidacy does pose strategic risks for Democrats. It is already happening, because the reaction to her candidacy demonstrates how much hatred Democrats have for conservative and traditional women. They can't help but demonize her.

I completely agree that gender was a factor in her selection. Her conservatism was a factor too. The fact that she's a women who likes to hunt is a factor. The fact that she is an evangelical Christian is a factor. The fact that she favors drilling for oil is a factor. That's what parties do - they try and convince voters that they understand people that are marginalized by the other side.

Sweating Through fog said...

David,

Breaking news: the leftist extremists are already demonstrating their hatred of her. Not nuanced policy points, but pure and dismissive hatred for her, and what she represents.

Adam said...

STF:

As your response to David is in no way worthy of any further rebuttal from him, I feel I need to request the following on his behalf and the behalf of all rational, thoughtful adults:

Please support your claims with evidence or shut up. You offer nothing to the greater political and social discourse you are attempting to enter if you can't come up with some kind of solid, fact based evidence from a reputable source. For our, your, and God's sake: please.

Sweating Through fog said...

Adam,

I'd say Obama himself is a pretty reputable source on political dynamics. He is trying get some of his supporters to stop spreading rumors and innuendo about Palin's family, no doubt partly from decency, and also partly because as a politician he knows the danger if his side seems mean and hateful. Apparently he wasn't too thrilled with the "greater political and social discourse" some of his supporters were engaging in their eagerness to support women and families.

Is that enough evidence for you?

carrot-throne said...

I know where to come now when I want exaggerated generalization after exaggerated generalization! This is why we can't get anything done; people are too busy creating strawmen, lying, exaggerating, telling half-truths and generalizing about the opposing side that there is no dialogue. This seemed like a fairly intelligent blog (although one I generally disagree with) up until this post.

I've never met a Democrat who believes a single thing you said, and I come from a very liberal city. It's not all black and white, as people like to believe it is. Example: you can be pro-choice and still understand that abortion has serious consequences (just like having a child!). I know I do!