The conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, remarks in today’s NY Times that:
Palin’s popularity has as much to do with class as it does with ideology. In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard.
It must be said that people writing on this blog do tend to have sought quite a bit of education. But we can easily see that there are plenty of people who haven’t and who nonetheless have been great successes on their own terms, or on the terms that we would ourselves be happy with. Virginia Woolf was brilliant and produced great work, but she did not go to college. Steve Jobs has brought a large creativity to Apple and he didn’t finish at Reed. Many people do what they care about at a high level, from teaching little kids to being a sustaining presence in their community and onto making, building and nurturing. There are all sorts of heros.
None of that means, however, that any one of these other people could do what Virginia Woolf did or accomplish what Steve Jobs has done. So why is there this persistent idea that nonetheless they could be a wonderful president?
If Malcolm Gladwell is right, then the hugely successful – the outliers – tend to put in a staggering amount of effort into their success. However much they might hide it, they are swots, to use the English term. There are elements in both England and the US that are really very anti-the-swots. Is part of Palin’s appeal just the reluctance to let the swots have the prize?
And, finally, why did she do that?!? Just quit her job? I expect to see her show up on Fox TV with a hugely lucrative contract and a lot of power, but this seems to be a minorty opinion.
My theory – barring some revelation that’s either hugely beneficial or damaging to her – is that she’s bought into some belief that her political value rests in who she is (immutable traits) rather than what she does (decisions, achievements), and if so, why should she bother herself with the hassles of governing?
lga, that’s such a great take on it! And how much in her environment will encourage that idea.
Hmm.
Well, Camille Paglia remarked that the snobbishness of some of the intellectual elites towards Sarah Palin is in part because of her mannerisms and speech. She does not speak as fluently as they do. But such shallow analysis as these “elites” do really miss the point on Sarah Palin’s qualifications to govern or necessary qualifications to govern in general.
In the campaign, much was made of the fact that Obama had been a senator and a community organizer and that Alaska (where Palin served as a mayor and later governor) has only 650 thousand people. Of course this analysis completely overlooked the fact that Governor is a far more complex job than Senator or community organizer, and thus the size comparison was irrelevent. It also overlooked two other facts:
A. Obama had been a US Senator for less than 2 years.
B. Sarah Palin had also helped her husband run a business.
In short, Palin had a hell of a lot more practical experience than Obama – and I’d argue experience at a higher level of government despite his law degree.
So lets deal with degrees.
Obama: JD Constitutional Law, Harvard.
Palin: Bachelors in Communications, various.
Education seemingly favors Obama except for one obvious question: What education does it take to make a successful President?
Not as easily answered as one might think: obviously subject matter studied is as important, if not more important, than Alma Mater. Not to mention that different academic tracks have differing degrees of difficulty. So throw out Harvard. I consider a PHD in Physics from Podunk State University a far harder degree to obtain than a JD from Harvard. Now a PHD in Physics from M.I.T. -that is a far different matter.
Law? While the vast majority of the US’s ruling classes have had Law degrees of one type or another, it surely can’t be said with any certainty that such a degree makes one a competent or uncorruptable public servant.
Communications? Once again, lots of our public servants have had those degrees. Record seems mixed in these cases too.
So the educational issue favors Obama, but only because he has a higher level degree, not because his degree is any “better” than hers in terms of actually governing a country.
What kind of degree would I design if I was given the power to do so? If you are interested, I will tell. I think this subject is fascinating.