Thursday, 4 September 2008

What I like about Sarah Palin

I have been meaning to comment on the Presidential contest in the USA, particularly on Barak Obama. I haven't done so, so far, for two reasons; firstly I keep getting distracted by events and issues elsewhere; and secondly I can't really find much to say about Barak except I hope he wins. I'd have liked to comment on his policies, but I don't know what they are. He does represent hope against the darkness of another Republican presidency. But that's about it - as far as I know.

So what about the opposition? McCain was on the left of the Republican Party and surely it would have been better if he had beaten Bush to the nomination eight years ago. But now he is in the serious business of getting elected he has, inevitably, been moving ever rightwards since his campaign started. He one described the religious right in the US as 'agents of intolerance' but that sort of rhetoric has long been dropped.

Now he comes up with his trump card - Sarah Palin. Why is she so useful? Well obviously she will attract support from the religious right who are suspicious of McCain. But most importantly she will help to polarise the election and deflect the debate from things that matter.

Since the late sixties Capitalists have been successfully dividing America along 'lifestyle' lines. Jonathan Freedland recently called it the 'Culture Wars' in the Guardian. It goes like this - you kick up an almighty big fuss about things which divide and distract the nation from the important issues of the day. In America the Capitalist controlled media makes a big deal out of abortion, gay marriage, and 'family values'. Palin's role is to polarise the debate, and deflect it away from the really important issues such as Iraq, the new cold war, controlling Wall Street, taxing the rich, climate change, healthcare and employment.

The more time the electorate spend squabbling about abortion, gay marriage, and family values, the less time they'll spend on the big issues, and that plays right into the hands of the Capitalists. It'll be interesting to see how Obama deals with this. He has done fairly well so far but not well enough. To win, he has to bring the big issues back centre stage - in spite of the media. If he can't do that he may well fail.

So how did we get the title of this blog? Well I can't think of anything that Sarah Palin and I could agree on; She is a Christian - I am an Atheist; She is against abortion - I am pro-choice; She is against gay marriage - I am for it; She likes guns - I don't; She likes to kill animals - I don't; She likes to promote ignorance in the form of creationism - I'm a biologist and a qualified teacher and I know that creationism is not science, its a flat earth belief; She likes war in Iraq - and elsewhere - I don't; And finally She is stupid enough to support a political party which defecates on her class - I'm not.

So what do I like about her? - what I like about her is the fact she is prepared to stand up on her hind legs and say what she believes in. And I've had a bellyful of politicians on the left who haven't got the guts to stand up and say what they believe in, or perhaps haven't even got the guts to believe in it anymore.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am not sure about Sarah Palin, but I like Michael Palin!

Glad to see the TUC congress info from The Socialist was of use to you..... I am surprised, as you don't rate socialism, but never mind,

Ged

Howard Thorp said...

Hi Ged, - perhaps you should take a bit of time to re- read what I said about socialism.

Can't disagree about Michael Palin - though it must be embarrassing for hm.

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed this piece.......right up until you made reference to this woman standing on her 'hind legs'. Humans don't have hind legs - you write about Sarah Palin in the same vein as one would describe a dog.
Would you use the same terminology about a man.....??

Ged

Howard Thorp said...

Yes of course. I'll have to try and find the origin of that phrase but to me it means 'standing up' - i.e 'getting off your arse' - as applied to humans.

Anonymous said...

To me, it is referring to a human lilke an animal.
I don't like Sarah Palin (similar reasons to what you outlined!) but to use such a term about a woman rather smacks of misogyny.... Hardly enlightened.

Soozy

Howard Thorp said...

I'm afraid you are wrong and if you read my through blog you'll see its not mysoginist.

I have struggled to find this expression on the web but here is one example -http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/48/messages/700.html

To Quote:

Query: "Is anyone familiar with a saying that goes something like: Well, at least somebody around here can still stand on his back legs - indicating courage?

Reply: Put in that context, your assumption sounds correct. (I don't believe I've heard this use of back legs, but maybe so.) I have also heard a variant, involving the hind legs, as in, "Okay, okay, you don't have to get up on your hind legs with ME!" Or, "Well, yesterday I told him, and he got up on his hind legs and gave me what for." I've no doubt that in these examples, similar to what I used to hear a long time ago, the model was the horse that reared up on its hind legs when it had an issue. My examples are obsolescent, U.S. SS"

When I wrote 'standing up' in my previous comment here - I meant to write 'standing up - for yourself'.

Anonymous said...

I've only ever heard such a term used by misogynist men. Maybe I simply know too many of them?!
If you meant standing up for herself, great! As that sounds far less negative about women....

Soozy