So What Do You Think?! Sarah Palin

OK, I don't vote, but I do stay up very late watching politics.  I tell myself that I need to do this because I have to stay informed on current topics.  But the truth is I find the discussions entertaining.  Last night I was also watching the US Open quarter-final match between Nadal and Fish, then went 4 sets and past 2:00am.  But I kept flipping back and forth to CNN, CNBC, Fox, etc. to see the reaction to Sarah Palin's speech.

Forget the content of her talk for the moment (but do remember that while I am a radical libertarian, I am also a proud graduate of Grove City College and all that entails in terms of predisposition in culture, politics and religion), but focus instead on her delivery and her general presence on the national scene.  As Wolf Blitzer put it, "She didn't hit a home run, she hit a grand slam."  ... "A star was born", is how Anderson Cooper described the evening.  On the other hand, Chris Matthews was tripping over himself to find something wrong, and Keith Olbermann was just silly in his attempts to grasp at something to knock her down.

My "real-time" assessment was that I was watching Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher speaking.  Articulate, confident, and hard-hitting, yet exceedingly charming.  My wife Rosemary was even more charmed by Governor Palin than I.

I don't belong to the NRA, I find conversations about intelligent design uncomfortable, I certainly think even the most evil prisoners deserve to have their rights protected, but I also can understand and appreciate her stance on these and other positions.

I also find the news media's inability to appreciate the appeal of Palin fascinating.

BTW, as far as executive experience is concerned, keep in mind that besides being a Mayor and a Governor Sarah Palin was the point guard on a state-championship HS basketball team.  A point guard on such a team is in an executive position!!!  See the discussions of what it takes to be a quality point guard at Point Guard College.  Palin's comment about being a pit-bull with lipstick, reminded me of the qualities that the late Dick DeVenzo or now Dena Evans describe as the essential personality of a point-guard. Bill Bradley often talks about "The Values of the Game" and the essential lessons that the game of basketball can teach that are applicable to society, so I am sure he might recognize the point-guard qualities in Palin even though she is not a Democrat.   On Real Sports, Obama (a basketball enthusiasts himself) was asked who would win a game of one-on-one between George Bush and himself, Obama said he would pick himself. Not sure he wants to take that bet against Sarah Palin!

On a side note -- check out this game clip.

Anyway, I am curious to learn the reaction of our readers.  I know Ron Paul was holding his own party and those there were enthusiastic, and I know that on many issues I am more aligned with Paul than I would be with Palin.  But I keep coming back to her presence and her personal appeal (at least as conveyed on TV and in the context of a political speech).

Comments

[Steve Horwitz]

I agree with you almost totally Pete. She's no libertarian and I would never vote for her, but I am rooting for her to succeed. She upsets so many pieties of the left and the media that watching them run around like chickens with their heads cut off is pure entertainment joy. What's not to love about a former athlete, former beauty queen, former sportscaster, mother of five, gun-totin', caribou-killin' woman whose husband calls himself the "First Dude?"

Your point about athletes is one I've made to several skeptical lefty colleagues here. Not that being a point guard is an "executive," but that NO ONE should ever under-estimate the competitive drive and poise of a highly-skilled athlete. People will under-estimate Palin at their own risk.

She's a joy to watch, even though I disagree with her on many issues. She is the first reasonably "real" person to burst on the political scene in a long time.

However, I am a *bit* depressed in that she's 4 days younger than I am, which makes me feel old.

But yes, I do think we saw a new player in the game last night.

[Matt C.]

It's interesting that you post this. My father and brother-in-law insist on asking me what I think about the candidates even though they know I don't like any of them. So I watch this stuff merely from a academic standpoint of guessing how she may impact the race.

I find her pick fascinating because it was so unexpected. I didn't watch the DNC nor did I watch any of the other previous nights of the RNC. I merely watched last night to see if she would trip over herself or if McCain's pick as VP was as truly a shrewed political move.

While I watched all I could think is, "The Democrats are going to be pissed off after this." It was an amazing performance by an unknown, in her first big dance on the national politcal stage. One political commentator on CNN, could only muster that it was so much better than Biden, "But lets do some fact checking" on her retorts on the Bridge to No Where and "Obama is going to give 80% of the population a tax cut." (How about we get a fact check on that last fact check statement.)

Could be the only time that VP candidate actually makes a difference. Hell, if this ticket does lose in November, don't be surprised to see her in 2012 running for President.

[Hello]

I am a foreigner (French) but was nevertheless quite impressed by the presence of Sarah Palin during her speech at the Convention. (Another very impressing woman this year was Ingrid Betancourt, former hostage in Colombia, who was truely marvelous when she was liberated).

Even though I am quite used to political tactics of leftist journalists, I have been astounded by the violence of the reaction against her, with many malevolent rumours quasi-instantly propagated.

[Peter Twieg]

The elevation of Palin simply strikes me as an attempt to poke a stick in the eye of leftists - see Steve's comment above. The media fails to appreciate her appeal? What does this mean, exactly? That they don't write enough soft focus stories about her and are actually digging into her past and record? If that's the grievance, then Roger Simon has a sarcastic apology for you. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13143.html)

I don't think Reaganism or Thatcherism inspired schadenfreude. This is a more nakedly cynical "charm", I believe, in simply seeing an outrageous candidate outraging people. Palin doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same context as Thatcher, especially if we focus on her recrod rather than rhetoric. But there is the cynical sense in which McCain's campaign manager is right - this campaign isn't about issues, it's about compositive perspectives on candidates. And so we have to keep the mooseburgers stories coming so the folksiness angle will be played up, and elevating the Republicans to victory in this manner will surely be the proudest moment for America since the election of... George W. Bush.

[Roger Koppl]

Who remembers the movie "Dave"? A series of accidents puts an ordinary Joe in the White House and he does, of course, an incredibly good job of fixing the nation's problems and outwitting the evil Washington insiders. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106673/plotsummary)

I think Palin was taking her playbook straight from Hollywood. It's incredibly appealing stuff, but pure fiction IMHO.

[Steve Horwitz]

Roger, two questions:

First, the reasonable one - isn't intelligence overrated when it comes to politics, at least "book smarts?" Isn't part of her appeal that she's not "brilliant" and she KNOWS it. She doesn't appear to have the hubris that comes with a pedigree, therefore she's less likely to believe that she personally can solve all the world's problems. (Of course, in her case, she probably thinks God can, but I digress). More generally, isn't what classical liberals really want in political leaders people who are smart enough to know how little they know? Don't we want Hayekian Humility?

Second, snarky radical libertarian question: if you got to choose the person who was going to shoot you, wouldn't you want the person with the least experience with a gun? :)

[Steve Horwitz]

One more thought:

Here's another reason why she's so fascinating to me. Last night, we watched a vice-presidential candidate give very well-delivered speech and talk about some matters of real substance (though not a ton), *while her husband sat in the audience with their baby in his arms*. Oh yeah, and SHE WAS A REPUBLICAN. This is a HUGE cultural moment and one that rewrites scripts about politics, femininity, feminism, and all the rest. And she did it with a combination of folksiness, motherhood, authority and, yes, sexual power, that was amazing.

Will Wilkinson gets it pretty right: http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/09/04/sex-culture-and-sarah-palin/

Again, I will not vote for her, but I think she might be the best thing to happen to the conversation about gender, family, and politics in the country in a LONG time.

[Matt C.]

I enjoy reading Peggy Noonan on the WSJ op ed page. She always gives me a different perspective than what I got when I was growing up in the house of Protestant minister, since she is a very religious Catholic. I rarely agree with her ideology (along with my father's), but she is always insightful. What follows came from her op-ed yesterday, written prior to the speech.

"Let me say of myself and almost everyone I know in the press, all the chattering classes and political strategists and inside dopesters of the Amtrak Acela Line: We live in a bubble and have around us bubble people. We are Bubbleheads. We know this and try to compensate for it by taking road trips through the continent -- we're on one now, in Minneapolis -- where we talk to normal people. But we soon forget the pithy, knowing thing the garage mechanic said in the diner, and anyway we weren't there long enough in the continent to KNOW, to absorb. We view through a prism of hyper-sophistication, and judge by the rules of Chevy Chase and Greenwich, of Cleveland Park and McLean, of Bronxville and Manhattan.

And again we know this, we know this is our limit, our lack.

But we also forget it.

And when you forget you're a Bubblehead you get in trouble, you misjudge things. For one thing, you assume evangelical Christians will be appalled and left agitated by the circumstances of Mrs. Palin's daughter. But modern American evangelicals are among the last people who'd judge her harshly. It is the left that is about to go crazy with Puritan judgments; it is the right that is about to show what mellow looks like. Religious conservatives know something's wrong with us, that man's a mess. They are not left dazed by the latest applications of this fact. "This just in – there's a lot of sinning going on out there" is not a headline they'd understand to be news.

So the media's going to wait for the Christian right to rise up and condemn Mrs. Palin, and they're not going to do it because it's not their way, and in any case her problems are their problems. Christians lived through the second half of the 20th century, and the first years of the 21st. They weren't immune from the culture, they just eventually broke from it, or came to hold themselves in some ways apart from it. I think the media will explain the lack of condemnation as "Republican loyalty" and "talking points." But that's not what it will be.

Another Bubblehead blind spot. I'm bumping into a lot of critics who do not buy the legitimacy of small town mayorship (Palin had two terms in Wasilla, Alaska, population 9,000 or so) and executive as opposed to legislative experience. But executives, even of small towns, run something. There are 262 cities in this country with a population of 100,000 or more. But there are close to a hundred thousand small towns with ten thousand people or less. "You do the math," the conservative pollster Kellyanne Conway told me. 'We are a nation of Wasillas, not Chicagos.'"

I think the first paragraph is hugely insighful, because it doesn't only apply to the media, but also the those who wish to centralize the government. It should be noted by the Republicans and Democrats alike. Our lack of knowledge on the ground far away from us is why we need less government, not more. But I would disagree with her second paragraph sentence. Many don't know what they don't know. (If that makes any sense.)

[Roger Koppl]

Steve,

It was a great performance for sure. It was a Hollywood moment, as I was trying to suggest with my last comment. You bet. I was also trying to say, however, that she is no "Dave." In the movie version, Dave is thrust unwillingly into the White House. He is surprised and uncomfortable. This woman is only too happy to get her crack at the big time. She is ambitious in the 18th century sense of the word. Like Madison and others, I fear ambition.

Last night Sarah Palin said "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights." (The "he," of course, is Obama.) Let's take a moment to think about this remark.

The substantive issue is the right of habeas corpus, a right that precedes the Magna Carta and is reflected in it. It is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty in the Anglo-American system of justice. But she dismisses it as frivolous in the face of supposed terrorists. Such an attitude might be reasonable if the all-powerful state were willing and able to infallibly identify, arrest, and imprison only persons with serious plans to "inflict catastrophic harm on America." The state, however, has no magical formula for picking only the bad guys. Judicial processes as structured by rights such as habeas corpus serve the vital and necessary function of correcting errors in arrests and imprisonments. In effect, Palin is saying that we need not bother with such formalities as trials because the state can and does identify and imprison only bad guys. It's magical thinking and very dangerous stuff. It is a direct assault on our rights and liberties.

Even if the state had a magical knowledge-wand allowing it to infallibly distinguish bad guys from good guys, what incentive does it have to eschew wrongful arrest? Such unchecked power is contrary to the design principles of the US Constitution and, again, a direct assault on our rights and liberties.

Now let's think now about the social psychology of it. Her comment about "reading them their rights" invoked a riotous response. That response expresses a preference for security over liberty. We all know the Franklin quote on this one.

Thus, overall, we are looking at someone who lifts a Hollywood fantasy to cover her monstrous ambitions, expresses distain for the foundations of the Anglo-American legal system, imputes to the state a god-like ability to know "evil" and stop it, (McCain has "the special confidence of those who have seen evil and have seen how evil is overcome"), and appeals to a fear of harm that overwhelms our love of liberty.

Be frightened. Be very, very frightened.

[scripto]

"Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan.""

Yep. Sexy and crazy. Just what we need an old heartbeat away from the presidency

[Roger Koppl]

Wow. Thanks for the tip off on that Palin quote, Scripto. A google produces the AP story:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNulPSqaP1eyysv8ENJWhk0ZSrPgD92VJPL00

[DPrychitko]

Here, Here Roger! (or is it hear hear!?). We know Biden doesn't believe in the rule of law within the constitution (Pete made that clear in an earlier piece), but does she? Of course not.

Sometimes Pete and Steve leave me speechless!

[Steve Horwitz]

Guys, let me be clear: I am NOT supporting Palin's politics, for all the reasons you have ably articulated and more. I thought the line about habeas corpus was just as chilling as you did Roger. Even my line about Hayekian Humility was qualified by my comment about her thinking good things come from God, as Scripto's quote (which I had seen before that post) illustrates.

My point is only that she is a *fascinating* cultural phenomenon, and her mere *presence* in the election could, I hope, create some really constructive dialogue about gender etc.. I have absolutely no desire that she become the next VP for all the reasons you have laid out. I do, however, hope she is "successful" in that she continues to be real presence in the debate, not because of her substantive views per se, but as a cultural phenomenon.

Having made clear that I do NOT support her politics, for the most part, and that I will not be voting for her, I hereby refuse to respond to any other comments demonstrating her anti-liberty credentials. :)

[Steve Horwitz]

Not sure why I/we left you speechless Dave. Can't one appreciate and enjoy the cultural phenomenon while still categorically rejecting her politics, as I did in the second sentence of my first comment?

[DPrychitko]

Thinking God can solve the world's problems, at this level of power, is not, Steve, an issue that is a mere digression.

I'm going to cut, print, and paste my buddies, Pete and Steve's, glowing, sexually-charged, steaming claims about renewed conversations over gender, feminity, race, etc (what, Obama has nothing to offer to those conversations?), hope, Hayekian Humility, rather get shot by a former basketball player and model, and so on.

Yes, I know, I'm being too hard on you two. Yes, you can say I'm twisting your statements. I'm doing that for fun. But I'm cutting, pasting, printing your complete statements for posterity -- you know, so that some day two, four, six, eight years from now, I can pull it out and we can go over it all, sentence by sentence!

For this, and only this reason, would I like to see her grand slam turn into a victory.

[scripto]

I'm most curious about the books she wanted pulled from the library when, as mayor, she fired and unfired the head librarian of Whatchamacallit, Alaska. "On the Origin of Species", perhaps? I'm thinking "Heather Has Two Mommies" definitely had to go. I can't seem to track down any specifics.

[Peter Boettke]

BTW, turns out Sarah likes Ron Paul ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV9rW25bT5o

However, to Roger and Dave, I am explicit in my disagreement and discomfort with her in my original post --- so what gives? On the other hand, she is from all accounts a free market conservative and that can reasonably be argued to be better than an interventionist liberal.

Lots of problems with these choices, but at least she will rock the boat a bit and that makes for great entertainment.

Pete

[DPrychitko]

What gives is that I don't care what she says about "free markets." We have corporativism and I don't think she will change that. And you know what? When further problems with our system develop, and if she's sharing in power, we'll continue to hear from those "interventionist liberals" that the free market system which the conservatives tout is still failing.

I mean, come on!

Steve, you can indeed enjoy the cultural phenomenon while categorically rejecting her politics. Heck, you can even say what a fantastic style of shoes she's been wearing. Moreover, feel free to compare her shoes to Obama's. You can focus on whatever you want -- it's your blog. A blog called The Austrian Economists....

I do understand it when you guys say "I categorically reject her politics," "I'm explicit in my disagreement," and all the other caveats. I believe both of you guys, my friends, are, for the most part, sincere.

But then -- I raised this months ago -- these statements are a kind of argumentative strategy that leaves me less impressed over time.

For ex., Pete then says "A point guard on such a team is in an executive position!!!," and refers to outside readings... and I THINK this wasn't totally in jest. If it was, it's simply a bad joke -- to me. But come on, "running a nation" is NOT the same as organizing a defense, an offense, a whatever among a handful of teammates. So WHY, after all the categorical statements and caveats, do you speak like this? Are we supposed to be entertained, or take it seriously or what?

When Steve says "I agree with you almost totally Pete", does he agree that she really has acquired leadership skills on the court -- a simple game -- that she will use with skill in domestic and international affairs? Or will Steve now use the "Dave, Notice I said ALMOST totally," again that rhetorical portmanteau variable. Or, instead does he simply agree with Pete's statement as a fitting joke that should entertain the rest of us?

What can I say? We are dealing with very serious "cultural phenomena" here. I don't know what Austrian economics has brought to the table about her. Is there more than the "I've stated my categorical rejection of her economics, now let's move on to her ravishing beauty and humility and what that means for our identification of women in politics" issues and discussions (snigger quotes solely mine). We know the economics, now let's discuss other things like have you noticed her husband holding their child?

Yes, I've noticed that, even as an Austrian economist. It doesn't impress. It's a political marketing strategy. It's like kissing babies. How many politicians, once their election days are over, bend over backwards to kiss the babies of the electorate. A strategy, too. And it IS an interesting cultural phenomena....

[Peter Twieg]

Is there anything that establishes Palin's credentials as a proponent of free markets beyond lip service? I haven't read from the most charitable sources from her, I'll admit, but off the top of my head... she managed to drive her town into debt funding public works, she's an avid fan of earmarks despite her statement (dare I say 'lies'?) indicating otherwise, she governed a state which receives much more money than the federal government than it receives and actually pays out dividends to its citizens based on its oil revenues, which puts her in a uniquely odd position to claim to be fiscally conservative (she used her line-item veto a lot?) while giving massive handouts to the citizens of her state.

On the other hand, she's a fan of Ron Paul? She pays lip service to free markets pretty well despite her actual record?

I'm curious about what books she wanted to have banned as well. I'm sure the truth will come to light soon.

[lwaaks]

I would guess that, like me, Steve Horwitz and Peter Boettke, momentarily allowed their emotions to run away with them due to the satisfaction they received from Palin's amusing tweaking of the liberal candidate. I think subconsciously, the Republicans are still the ideological default candidates for many libertarians. But we quickly come to our senses!

[Steve Horwitz]

Dave,

I agreed with much of what Pete said. I even explicitly said that the athlete point served a different purpose for me, which was about her determination and how well she would, and did, perform under a level of pressure we can't even begin to imagine. She's an impressive person, even if I deeply disagree with her policies.

And, for the record, I think Pete is wrong to call her a "free market conservative." There's little in her record to suggest a serious commitment to markets. She's a garden variety social conservative politically, with perhaps a bit of a libertarian streak in her that comes with being an Alaskan. I'm not at all convinced she's better than an interventionist liberal.

Since when are Austrian economists prohibited from commenting on cultural phenomena? :)

[Peter Boettke]

To Dave --- it is all about seriousness through jest! And it is an effort on a variety of margins to communicate that.

To others --- it turns out that almost everyone of the stories circulating about Palin is up for interpretation and not at all as clear cut as media sources even as pristine as the NYT might want us to think they are ... from the teaching of creationism to the banning of books. I even heard one of the pundits last night trying to tar her with comments made by a minister in Church she was attending. Turns out she is not tied to these particular comments concerning Israel. The media is trying to knock her out, and she is bobbing and weaving and their punches have yet to land on her chin. And I bet, if one does land on the chin, she will dust herself and get right back in there with her chin out.

Yes she is a Christian, yes she is an NRA member, yes she isn't politically correct nor green, she is a pro-life advocate, etc. This make her very suspect on the coasts, less so in small town US (towns like Grove City PA where I went to college as opposed to Clark, NJ where I grew up).

Again, I have no dog in this hunt with respect to the actual politics of it all. I don't think politics is an arena of truth seeking. As my colleague Don Boudreaux wrote today, "Headlines that say 'Politician lied' are so unexceptional we might as well say "Sexual intercourse is enjoyable" and put that as the headline.

But lets compare Sarah Palin to the other 3 candidates --- to me she is more entertaining, Obama would be next, followed by McCain and finally Biden. What I mean by that is who I'd be interested in meeting and talking to about a variety of topics. As I said, I am uncomfortable with her positions on a variety of topics ... I am not in this game to vote, let alone cheer for a politician.

However, in this case I really do think Sarah Palin is a compelling personality and one that is really a lot of fun to watch give fits to her opponents.

So in that sense I will sit back and watch with a smile on my face and secretly say "Go Sarah Barracuda Go."

Pete

[matthew mueller]

I find it curious that a topic like this would find its way to the Austrian Economists blog. I think presidential (election) discussions are pointless. Most people have an interest in this campaign because they want to know who is going to "run the country", and whether the candidates are qualified to do so. The arguments against a candidate can be made in two ways: (1) Evil motives (bad policy); or (2) lack of experience. Similarly with arguments in favor of candidates: (1) Good intentions (sound policy); or (2) Sufficiently experienced. These criteria are then used to gauge the merits of certain cadidates who want to "run the country."

Now David Prychitko is always a joy to read on here, but his arguments against Professors Horwitz and Boettke are misplaced. According to DPrychitko, in their enthusiasm for the cultural phenomenan Palin's candidacy has engendered, Horwitz and Boettke have ignored her economic policies (and its implications for libertarianism). But even if a candidate were sufficiently libertarian, there is still no guarantee that the economy would be pushed in the right (libertarian) direction. The outcomes of human action are usually not the ones intitially intended, and, moreover, there is no reason to believe that the unintended consequences under laissez-faire should always be benign.

Observed order is either chimerical or accidental; it is never intentional. This insight would do wonders for how people see the political process, and I am convinced Public Choice theory would disappear almost immediately.

[Neil]

I think the reason most of you older guys like her is that you find her attractive.

Her policies are the worst kind of right-wing conservatism, but because you guys wouldn't mind giving her a little kiss you fall for her. The same wasn't true for Thatcher. Or was it?

By the way, I am not being deliberately silly, this is a genuine theory.

[DPrychitko]

Matthew Mueller said:

"But even if a candidate were sufficiently libertarian, there is still no guarantee that the economy would be pushed in the right (libertarian) direction. The outcomes of human action are usually not the ones intitially intended, and, moreover, there is no reason to believe that the unintended consequences under laissez-faire should always be benign."

I fully agree with Matt here. (No, not nearly agree on all the above. I completely agree.)

My point is that the economics is not discussed at all -- it is bracketed out of the conversation as if the whole issue of the McCain-Palin economic policy has been settled by us Austrians. But they moved on to these other topics too quickly for me.

Now that can be confusing, even in the economics realm, because Pete offers acontrast against the "interventionist liberals," *as if* actual conservative practice is not interventionist. The conservative ideology might claim free markets... but we can't lose sight of the de facto concept and it's application! We used it in earlier posts regarding Democrats criticising our "free market economy," which was misplaced, so why not continue that line of reasoning and say that the conversatives in the case will continue implementing interventionism, too, though perhaps at different margins compared to the democrats? Why not at least mention this, as opposed to mentioning interventionist liberals alone?

My second argument was that although Steve is certainly correct that we should study cultural issues, too, I still think I haven't seen much of a careful or critical *call* from Steve. I'm not asking for a full-blown, not even a one-eigth-blown, analysis on his blog. I'm just commenting that, for example, his pointing out that the husband was holding the child can, and should, be viewed in terms of competitive strategy within the political process -- even if just *mentioning* that approach. Sure, it might make for fun lunch conversations among colleagues, maybe even real, scholarly dialogue somehere, but I guess I'm disappointed that we haven't had any of the from Vienna and Blacksburg to Fairfax, or especially the Lavoie to Boettke and Horwitz "enthusiasm" about this issue.

Okay, and having said all that, I think I am unreasonable, because as lwaaks mentioned, the initial remarks by Pete and Steve could understandably have been written out of a first-impression enthusiasm and wanting to get that out quickly on the blog.

[DPrychitko]

Now off my unreasonable rant.

Steve asked for it, and I think Neil above begins the "feminist" conversation when he said:

"I think the reason most of you older guys like her is that you find her attractive.

Her policies are the worst kind of right-wing conservatism, but because you guys wouldn't mind giving her a little kiss you fall for her. The same wasn't true for Thatcher. Or was it?

By the way, I am not being deliberately silly, this is a genuine theory."

Now, although his way of stating it might be crude, he has surely sparked debate. I think Steve was hoping for feminists discussing Palin, but why not also raise feminist concerns about you folks discussing Palin? That, surely, should be up for grabs in the fascinating opportunity for debate!

And finally, who's impressed anyways about Palin as a "gun-totin', caribou-killin' woman whose husband calls himself the "First Dude?""?
I know feminists (though non-dogmatic ones) who hunt -- one I know goes to the Alaskan *wilderness* for a week at a time, and only eats meat from large (and small) game that she kills. My problem with Steve pointing this out is that it doesn't mention that, although we now see video of a woman shooting her guns, this is still the typical Republican image. Hell, I used to see pictures of Dan Quayle holding guns (like an idiot, by the way).

I'd like to finish by quoting our professor, Don Lavoie, not as an ultimate, unquestionable authority on "What is Left?" -- lord knows I clashed with him more than any other of his grad students -- but because the initial enthusiastic posts appear to be trivial and unmoored from what remains a key issue of our time:

Lavoie:

"...it becomes evident why the contemporary Left is completely paralyzed by modern conservatism as epitomized by Ronald Reagan. By its largely rhetorical devotion to the free market and its actual policies of constructing a permanent war economy, conservatism helps to perpetuate the myth [[[my aside: a cultural issue, Steve!]]] that it is the policies of free markets rather than those of planning that have been obstructing peace, and that it is an existing market economy rather than an established system of noncomprehensive planning which is responsible for our current economic issues. In fact, Reagan's rapid militarization of the American economy, in spite of the rosy pictures of free market economies that fill his speeches, is the very *essence* of national economic planning."

(National Economic Planning: What is Left?, original edition, page 231. I don't know what page this quote appears on in Pete's laudable reprint of Don's book.)

Isn't post-Reaganism among McCain, Palin, etc still pursuing this militarization, maybe changing some margins, but still, at heart, what Lavoie describes above? If so, the poke at the "interventionist liberals" as a contrast to the conservatives cannot be sustained in more sober conversation.

Over and out. Hunting season begins on the 15th, and it's Friday and I want to give my guns the once over. I'm always too anxious for it, my favorite season, to begin!

[Steve Horwitz]

Dave, your rhetorical sleights of hand here are pretty astonishing. I'll make only two comments in response:

1. Where did I ever say or imply that feminist criticisms of my discussion of Palin were either out of bounds or unwelcome? That insinuation is really unfair.

2. What's the point of quoting Don? Seriously. In what world have I *ever* said anything to suggest that I have any sympathy for the *political views* of modern conservatives? Did you SEE the ass-kicking I took for my argument that libertarians should reject Ron Paul because he's TOO CONSERVATIVE on abortion, immigration, and trade? In what world is there any evidence that I wouldn't nod *vigorously* while reading that passage from Don?

The line about poking at interventionist liberals was Pete's not mine. And in any case, I'm in print saying that, all other things equal, I'd prefer Obama to McCain. (The only libertarian case for McCain is purely strategic: given that the Democrats will likely control both houses, divided government is likely to be the least disastrous outcome for libertarians. Plus I do think Obama will get us out of Iraq marginally more quickly and is less likely to get us into Iran.)

This attempt to somehow paint me as "really" a conservative because I find Palin (and the effects she's had on the left and the media) fascinating and enjoyable to watch is really weak Dave. Really weak.

And good luck hunting. My favorite season is about to begin too, and here's a picture of me with the prize that goes to the best at it:

http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/cup.htm

[DPrychitko]

Steve, (my guns be damned for now!):

(1) I said "I think you were hoping" the conversation and dialogue would go in those other directions. I do not think that you were also anticipating feminist arguments to be directed at you or Pete so quickly on this blog. I think it might have come as a surprise. Maybe not. And yes, you are open and I know you so well that I'm certain you are more than welcoming to any feminist critique of what you say here or elsewhere. (I admit I was excited because, as far as I see it, the games you eagerly anticipate had already begun, and are directed at you so quickly on your court. Didn't this come as a surprise to you, or to Pete?? Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading the emergent discussion!)

(2) The point of quoting Don -- my point of quoting Don -- was this. I know this is how we all (you, Pete, and I) feel. If I spilled some paint on you or Pete, I sincerely apologize because I wasn't trying to paint either of you as conservatives. I wish I made myself clearer -- ideally crystal clear. I failed here.

Instead, I was trying to uphold my claim that the direction of enthusiasm that both Pete and you had raised seems too damn trivial to me. Let me repeat: too damn trivial. With caveats, Pete focused upon how entertaining this all is to him. And yes, even though the potential conversations among Left and Right interpretations of what a woman should signal to others, esp. in the political realm, are a little bit more interesting to me (which I hadn't mentioned until now), even that is still way off from what is really important in the conversation that Lavoie tried to start. I brought Lavoie explictly in in my recent reply, but I've been raising Lavoie questions from the beginning. Yes, this time I shoved it in your faces. I wanted to break the brackets. Isn't this an ideal time to raise this concern, in the wake of a beauty's "grand slam?" My goodness, I thought so. And still do. "The Austrian Economists" blog, for goodness sake!

Finally, you betcha I'm engaged in rhetoric, but if my approach is unintentionally implying that you guys are closet conservatives, and so on, well, then although "astonishing," my rhetoric is also mixed with a good deal of bullshit (cf. Frankfurt, 2005). I'm not going to go off sulking somewhere. I've sincerely apologized, and although regretful, I'll also laugh at my own mistakes and lack of argumentative skill.

[Roger Koppl]

Boy, go off the grid for a few hours and look what happens! :-)

I don't think I was suggesting Pete or Steve is not libertarian or anything like that. After all I'm the relative statist in this crowd. Pete asked, "what gives?" Dude, you specifically said, "I am curious to learn the reaction of our readers." My reaction was that it was pure Hollywood. "It's incredibly appealing stuff, but pure fiction IMHO." When Steve prompted me, somewhat pointedly I might add, I elaborated.

In spite of our shared aversion to Palin's politics, there does seem to be a difference in our reactions. You were charmed. I was frightened to death!

[Sheldon Richman]

She looks and sounds like a "Saturday Night Live" character.

[Steve Horwitz]

Mrs. Loopner, to be precise Sheldon.

[Eric]

Roger Koppl wrote: "My reaction was that it was pure Hollywood." I had the same reaction.

I stopped reading Boettke's post at the end of this sentence: "Forget the content of her talk for the moment... but focus instead on her delivery and her general presence on the national scene."

I prefer to focus on the content of her talk (to the extent that it exists) and forget her delivery, general presence or whatever.

[DPrychitko]

Well, so much for the potential feminist discussion of the male excitement over this woman, a woman whose face is now on the cover of all the checkout-counter periodicals.

I suppose we all have better things to do.

[Peter Boettke]

Dave,

I might not be the best person to engage this conversation. But if Sarah is judged attractive, why would that cause a stir among modern feminists. Naomi Wolf published a book a few years ago, which was a manifesto for feminists to embrace their feminity. Just because you believe women can achieve as much or more than men doesn't mean she must dress in sweats and flannel shirts 24/7. The days of Andrea Dworkin are over I think. Am I wrong?

Do I think Sarah Palin was chosen because of her brilliant policy record? NO. But she wasn't chosen to get the feminist vote either.

My hypothesis is the following:

(1) McCain needed to shore up his support among the base of the Republican party;

(2) McCain needed to pull a surprise to energize his ticket;

(3) Youthfulness and reputation for being a maverick was desirable;

So those 3 forces (plus I am sure many more) created a "perfect storm" to chose Palin; and then it turns out she is a compelling personality, attractive (for a middle aged woman), and a very good public speaker.

Also, I am not quite sure I buy the significant break with politics past that Steve is making --- instead I think of this as just part of our generation. Women have made occupational choices in our generation which put them in position which previously they were not in a position to take.

Educational paths and occupational choice explain a lot --- or am I missing some deeper cultural studies proposition?

Pete

[Steve Horwitz]

I'm not sure it's a "significant" break either Pete, other than that she's the most visible member of "our" generation to have found a way (with help of course) to have a family and a career and, apparently, maintain some of her roots in her small town, and be unafraid of her own attractiveness. It's what some would call "post-feminist" I suppose. (And yes, there's plenty of other women doing exactly this, but none of them have the visibility she has now.)

By being so visible, she has already caused a whole bunch of interesting conversations, lots of noise but some signal, about her choices and what they say about gender, family, and politics in the 21st century.

In any case - Dave - I've been thinking more about why I do have this sympathy for her despite my dislike of her politics. I think the reason the speech struck me so was that I found her performance very *admirable.* She was in a very difficult situation, created by the intense media scrutiny of her and her family, as well as being dismissed as a lightweight who would crumble under the pressure. But (like a great athlete) she came through in the clutch, big time *even if I don't like her ideas.*

It was like watching Lebron James single-handedly knock out the Pistons in game 6 in 2007. I hated the result but boy did I admire the performance.

Add to that everything I said in the first paragraph, and I can find in her much to admire, even as I deeply disagree with the content of her views. I don't think that's contradictory.

[DPrychitko]

Steve wins:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index.html

[Steve Horwitz]

It's not about winning Dave. Nonetheless, from the right, there's this:

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0908kh.html

[Steve Horwitz]

And one more:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/09/feminist-templa.html

[coach sale]

If one day you lose your way Just remember that I'm here to stay Don't you give up, keep your chin upAnd be happy