That Palin Article

What does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics—with a fine appreciation of life’s injustices and absurdities, a love for the sweep of history, and an overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor—ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his?

Yesterday, I took a comprehensive tour of the wingnutosphere to gauge their reactions. Nothing I found was unpredictable, but a nontroversy flared up in their coverage that does tell us something about the select demographic to whom Palin appeals most. The limits of her charisma are the limits of her base, and that base is prone to project controversy where it does not exist while ignoring or filtering negative information. Furthermore, her base — like Sarah herself — conflates individual critics into monolithic enemies.

But first, the usual suspects: bloggers questioned the timing of the article, seeing as we are still three years from 2012 and the presidential election is so last year. There are some ad hominem attacks on the author, of course, and the usual accusations of elitism. Critics draw false equivalencies, accusing Purdum of double standards and unfair treatment. Tellingly, many wingnut warriors call the article sexist, then post a sexy picture of Palin in her running gear.

Deflection and projection rule the wingnut mind. The most vehement refrain about Purdum’s “hit piece” is that he attacks Palin’s family. Several bloggers give particular attention to a tangential figure: The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan, who the Pundette accuses of “disturbing weirdness.” That is actually one of the milder phrases used on Sullivan, who stands accused of spreading conspiracy theories about Trig Palin, enabled by the Vanity Fair article.

For those unfamiliar with the Trig Palin “conspiracy,” it holds that Sarah’s daughter Bristol was actually Trig’s mother. The “proof” consists of little more than speculative innuendo based on circumstantial events. The offending paragraph in Purdum’s article, however, says nothing about those rumors:

But there were ominous signs—indications of an erratic nature. This is the third thing McCain could have discovered about Palin—a woman, after all, who kept a pregnancy secret for seven months, flew all the way home from Texas to Alaska with a near-full-term baby while leaking amniotic fluid, and then finally drove the 45 minutes from Anchorage to a hospital in Wasilla, all so that the child could be born in the 49th state. (Emphasis mine)

Oddly, most of these bloggers posted the complete paragraph and read their own insinuations into it. Moreover, Sullivan’s offending blog post doesn’t repeat the rumors either:

Palin could have gone to a major hospital in Anchorage and delivered the child and still have Trig as an Alaskan. But, no, she had to add an extra risk to her unborn child by ensuring her local hospital and family doctor could deliver the child – even if that extra 45 minutes (like the ten hours that preceded it) could have posed a deathly risk to a special needs infant, newborns who often need specialized care in delivery. It remains true that no one in the MSM will investigate the details of this truly bizarre story – and MSM journalists instead have devoted their efforts to demonizing any journalist who tries. (Emphasis mine)

Again, no mentions of Palin’s daughter Bristol. Instead, the writers focus on questions about Sarah Palin’s judgment. Sullivan again:

As I have said all along, I do not know what happened and the benefit of the doubt should go to Palin in the absence of actual journalism being committed. But the more her pregnancy with Trig becomes a campaign platform, a serious inquiry into exactly what happened in those few surreal days – days and decisions that she has made public and that reflect vital questions about her character and judgment – remains on the shelf of media deference. And the key witnesses who could verify it all – Palin herself, her husband, her doctor – still refuse to even take questions on the most bizarre series of events in Palin’s entire life. (Emphasis mine)

Having made no suggestions of a cover-up for a Bristol pregnancy, Purdum and Sullivan become screens onto which the bloggers first project their own paranoid tendencies and compact the two writers into a larger, monolothic enemy: “the media” hates Sarah. The media tells lies about Sarah. You cannot trust the media.

The third rule of paranoia is that “they” are all in it together. I use the word “paranoia” deliberately. Here’s the definition of that word from Merriam-Webster:

1: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations

2: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

Palin’s defensive mistrust of the press actually appeals to her demographic. Her angry denunciations of David Letterman appeal to them as well. Perhaps the best quote about the Vanity Fair article came from Taylor Marsh: “Sarah’s real trouble is she’s lugging around way too much stupid that still hasn’t been dispelled.” The same could be said of her base, for whom her particular brand of Teh Stupid™, Teh Crazy™, and Teh Wacky™ is not a negative at all, but in fact the reason they like her.