Points from Palin's Iowa speech

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by 45nut, Sep 9, 2011.

  1. 45nut

    45nut Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,470
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Article here

    CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS — Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.

    That is not how we’re primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer? Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha.

    But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the “far left,” she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.

    The next day, the “lamestream” media, as she calls it, played into her fantasy of it by ignoring the ideas she unfurled and dwelling almost entirely on the will-she-won’t-she question of her presidential ambitions.

    So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin’s ideas.

    There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick — words that make clear that she is not speaking to everyone but to a particular strain of American: “The working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box.”

    But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something considerably more substantive to say.

    She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

    In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.

    Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.

    “Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”

    Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.

    Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected mega-corporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.

    Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.

    “This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”

    Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there?

    The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market.

    What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn’t choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time.

    Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.

    On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity.


    No one knows yet whether Ms. Palin will actually run for president. But she did just get more interesting.

    Join an online conversation at http://anand.ly


    My my, doesn't this look interesting?
  2. USMCSpeedy

    USMCSpeedy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    681
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Very interesting. She may just be on to something.
  3. Juker

    Juker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,872
    Location:
    Land of Lincoln
    Since the author has burdened us with his particular slant on her words, I'll do likewise.

    On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better.

    On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity.


    On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed governmental programs to solve their problems, make all of their decisions, and pay for their food, housing, healthcare, and more.

    On the other side would be people who believe that work, along with being productive and enabling someone to be a contributing member of society, is good for the soul. They want their government to keep the peace, secure the border, maintain the roads, and quit wasting their tax dollars. They want their politicians to serve the people instead of themselves, and don't believe government needs to be involved in light bulbs and steroid use in professional sports. They don't believe in government bailouts or loaning a half billion dollars to a bankrupt green energy operation. They know in their hearts that all of our financial crises could be resolved in a month if the government would lower taxes, cut wasteful spending, and limit foreign aid to our enemies. They believe the country is now divided into providers and receivers, and they're sick of it. They want to be left alone to raise their families and live their lives as they see fit, and they believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  4. Gun Geezer

    Gun Geezer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,200
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Juker, if you run on the same ticket as Sarah Palin, you both will get my vote. Well said!!!
  5. cutter

    cutter New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    635
    Location:
    Oklahoma
  6. Juker

    Juker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,872
    Location:
    Land of Lincoln
    Thanks, fellas! I'll keep you apprised. :)

    I have been encouraged by others to run for office. But unfortunately, as I have told my wife, I'd make a good king but a terrible politician. I don't believe in committees, I believe in swift and decisive action, and I will not compromise with idiots. :eek:
  7. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    17,247
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    Juker you got the right ideas, but unfortunately you would never make it! You would end up like John, and Robert. There is no way the current political system would allow you to exist if you won the Presidency!

    Palin knows the system, and that is just one of the reasons she has not thrown her hat into the ring.
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2011
  8. Juker

    Juker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,872
    Location:
    Land of Lincoln
    Excellent point. On the plus side, I probably wouldn't do much traveling, saving the taxpayers billions. On the negative side, I'd look awful memorialized as a statue. :D
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr points to ponder in the upcomming elections! Jul 25, 2012
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr U.S. Points finger at Syria Jun 14, 2012
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr TSA checkpoints on trains and highways!? Mar 25, 2012
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr 10 points on politicians fears Aug 16, 2011
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Panic Grips Wall Street, Dow Plunges 500 Points Aug 4, 2011

Share This Page