Palin on Limbaugh

I did not get to hear it, but the transcript is here.

My take on Palin’s appearance yesterday on the Oprah Winfrey show has generated a pretty rousing and entertaining debate in the comments thread, and I have updated it with this link to Melissa Clouthier, but I wanted to also quote Melissa here, because her post is very interesting and serious:

[...] here’s Sarah Palin going into hostile Obama-loving territory on Oprah. She was on edge, and fought defensiveness, much like her interview with Katie Couric. But she did it. Unlike Barack Obama, who has studiously avoided any interview from anyone who isn’t a “friendly”, Palin demonstrates some gumption.

[But] Palin needs to deal with this den of vicious beasts better. And they are vicious. Camille Paglia . . . says succinctly:

She also needs a shrewder, cooler take on the mainstream media, with its preening bullies, cackling witches, twisted cynics and pompous windbags. The Northeastern media establishment is in decline, and everyone knows it.

Rush’s interview, in contrast, made Sarah Palin sound like a wise elder statesman. He didn’t throw softballs. To the contrary, he asked her substantive policy questions. Guess what? She didn’t stumble. She flowed. It was great to listen to, really, and heartening. Rush asked her questions on everything from national security, foreign policy, oil exploration, health care and illegal immigration. Not one stutter. Not one hiccup. She was flawless.

It wasn’t just her form. Her substance was pure, unapologetic small-government conservative. It was like taking a breath of fresh political air, if such a thing exists. D.C. smells gives off the fetid fumes of months dead fish in the still undrained swamp. Sarah Palin is not D.C. She brings the brisk, clean Alaskan air and sends a chill down the spines of Democrats and Republican establishment types. They are right to fear her. She is formidable.

I want Sarah Palin to succeed.

Sarah Palin must though, find a way to be at ease answering any question that the superficial, bigoted, condescending North Eastern blue bloods throw at her. Underneath, these people are insecure. It rattles them to their bones that a state college educated, wife, mother, politician and governor could best them. Their insecurity will get more piqued as President Obama continues to waffle, avoid and hide–from unfriendly press, from dictators, from tough decisions, from failure.

Spot on, I think, and you’ll want to read the whole thing.

Hillbuzz: Reading Palin’s book, all around Chicago

Gateway: Libs Hate Middle America

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Ruth Anne

    Sarah Palin is the political world’s tiniest hair shirt.

  • http://victor-undergo.blogspot.com/ Victor

    Anchoress, is “IT” not funny how many of U>S so called Christians tend to support the under dog when they soften UP their stance somewhat?

    If I’m off topic, please forgive me but that’s how I see “IT” at this moment! :)

    God Bless

  • Liberty60

    I find it ironic that she is protrayed alternately as a pit bull, Sarah barracuda, tough as nails pioneer woman-
    and yet-
    She is the pitiable victim of unpleasant questions from Katie Couric? That Charlie Gibson spoke over his glasses at her?

    This fragile flower wants to be our Warrior in Chief? This brittle teacup wants to sit across the table from Ahmedinejhad? What if he peers over his glasses at her?

    [It is her inner pitbull that is keeping her distracted; she won't let go of some things. But to pretend that Couric has not be savaged by the press is intellectually dishonest. As to the press' treatment of her vs Obama you can compare and contrast Gibson's questions to Palin vs his questions to Obama here Obama has been in office for ten months, lied to us quite frequently, and we have yet to see a newsman give him so much as a skeptical look. Perhaps if they had asked him a tough question or two, instead of leading him into his campaign notes, we'd have then seen the very same brittle, defensive and thin-skinned Obama we see now. -admin]

  • nohype1

    Sarah Palin’s fate is entirely in the hands of Barack Obama. If he becomes a moderately competent president, Palin will have no chance in 2012. If he continues on his path to a disastrous term of office, she may have a walk. Those who keep saying that Palin has no chance are assuming that Obama is actually reasonably well qualified for the office. Most Palin supporters doubt that assumption. They think he lacks the temperament and wisdom to do the job. Time will tell which assumption is correct.

    People whose hostility to Palin prompts them to obsess about her seem to be showing some doubt, perhaps at the unconscious level, about Obama. If he is all that he is supposed to be, Palin is irrelevant. They should be ignoring her rather than venting hatred.

  • OldLineStateDad

    I don’t think its so much the harsh questions that were asked of Palin, but the fact that neither Couric nor Gibson would have dreamed of asking anything other than the most softball of questions to Obama.

    Then there is the issue, as Anchoress has mentioned on numerous occasions, of how Obama, Clinton and Biden’s kids are “off-limits” but the same dosn’t apply to Palin. Her family gets dragged through the mud in the most unseemly manner-and somehow, that’s okay. The media is still throwing the mud with its treatment of every utterance of Levi as the gospel truth.

    Fact is, even after resigning as governor, Palin still has more executive experience than the current President.

    [If you would like a side-by-side comparison of the sorts of questions Gibson asked Palin vs the puffery he asked Obama, see this post -admin]

  • kt

    I don’t get this logic. if the “northeastern media establishment” is in “decline”, then why should she contort herself to please them? Why does she have to “deal with them better”? Screw ‘em.

  • kt

    “The media is still throwing the mud with its treatment of every utterance of Levi as the gospel truth.”

    The media and their friends in Hollywood are doing more than that. They are attempting to destroy this young man’s life by making him a laughingstock, and he’s young and stupid enough to let them.

  • Portones

    Today she had a bit of a comeback without overt defensiveness, on Good Morning America. After recalling some of David Letterman’s disgusting “humor” on her and her family, she said “I do want him to sell my book, though, so I hope he keeps it up.”

    The standard for comeback to a liberal condescending put-down of a conservative was set during a Reagan-Mondale debate. When Reagan was asked some question about concerns with his more advanced age, he came back saying “I will not hold my oponent’s youth and inexperience against him.” He brought the house down. I think Regan went on to beat Mondale in 50 states … just 7 short of BJO’s total.

    If Saracuda develops the confidence to fire comebacks even approaching Reagan’s standard, I think her approvals will really go up.

    Like when Matt Damon said her only qualification for being president was that she’d not had an abortion … Maybe she could have said his only qualification for acting is that she didn’t THINK he’d had a lobotomy.

    O.K., that would be a pretty lame comeback and not in Sara’s generally gracious character. But, damn, she’s naturally smart and quick. I bet she could come up with an occasional zinger.

  • mrp

    The Rush-Palin audio has been posted to Youtube.
    LINK

    What Melissa typed :)

  • Christine

    I can’t wait to hear the interview. I was sad to hear about what happened between she and Oprah.

    I always told my husband that Palin seemed interesting but that we never got to see who she really was because of the media vitriol.

    Being a woman of her age, I can imagine how defensive she would feel with the media and the Democratic party trying to DESTROY her. It is not enough for them if she were to just leave the scene to them, she must be DESTROYED in order to satisfy their bloodlust.

    I pray that she can overcome this obstacle and show the world who she is and what she has to offer. The little I have come to know about her makes me want to know more.

  • Dagwood

    As of this afternoon (got my Amazon shipment), Anchoress, I’m backing Ree Drummond in 2012.

  • Michael

    That’s a good take on Palin. She is so badly mistreated, by both liberals AND conservatives.

    Who, Oprah or You, discusses her actual accomplishments? Who even mentions them as as existent things?

    She has many of them. Obama has zero. He is a “great” Man, a consequential person – and she is somewhere betewen trailer trash (it’s all as shallow as her acccent) and a woman who, from the right, get’s armchair quarterbacked oput the whazoo.

    But who is actually in the Arena? Sarah is. Who else? Here those crickets chirping?

    Here is the actual, factual, real, solid, cold, hard truth of the matter: Od the four people who ran for Pres or Veep in 2008, she was the best. She was a better man than McCain. Obama and biden are not even in her league.

    As for executive experience – she led the other three by a country mile there too.

    And what does she get? She gets hated by oine side (because they know she is a huge threat); and criticized by the her own side, most of whom extend approximately to her knees when they are on their tip toes.

  • Rand Careaga

    I hope sincerely – devoutly – that the former Alaska governor prevails over her GOP detractors and naysayers (and, to be sure, the jackals of the press) to win the Republican presidential nomination three years from now. I would burn incense daily to this end if I thought it would help.

  • http://jscafenette.com Jeanette

    I thought I had pre-ordered Sarah’s book, but when I checked Amazon it wasn’t on my list of orders, so I quickly fixed that.

    I should get the book on the 19th and can’t wait to read it. I couldn’t get it on Kindle until December 26 so I opted for the hard copy. Same price. Amazon has it for just $9.00

    I doubt she’ll make a run for president in 2012. That’s just my feeling, but I was wrong before. Once, I believe. ;)

    I’d vote for her in a heartbeat because she is every woman and she is a common person with great skills and a grasp of what the issues are. I wouldn’t be voting for her because she’s a woman, but because I actually believe she is the best candidate.

    Been away for awhile, Dear Anchoress, due to side effects of a shingles shot (recommend it for anyone over 60 who has had chicken pox) and/or blood pressure medicine I just started. Terrible headaches, but, praise God, they are now in the past and my b/p is under control.

  • Elaine

    I started readed Palin’s book and I was chuckling when she said she loved meat! I could just see the lib vegetarians going nuts. She does have a way of saying things that mock some of the libs that comes out quite naturally. If she can relax in these main stream arenas and let it fly it would be great. Growing up on Long Island and reading about her life in Alaska hunting, fishing and skinning the game with her family was an eye opener for me. This women has some work ethic!

  • Jack

    I don’t get this rush to criticize her for “defensiveness.” Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 all had moments of defensiveness in response to a stream of unfair criticism and/or ridicule. Remember Bush calling that reporter an “a——” and Cheney chiming in, “big time”?

    Any one of us would be doing far worse than her if subjected to this kind of brutal calumny of ourselves and family. I suggest we cut out the catty criticism.

  • http://thecatholiclibertarian.blogspot.com Anthony

    I was very excited when she got picked by McCain, but given her actions the past year, I cannot support her now. I just cannot — as far as I am concerned, when she walked away from Alaska she should never again be considered a serious presidential candidate

  • J

    CANNOT watch oprah. The few times I have watched her it has always been “let’s talk more about me”. Her support for obama is/was no different…..all about oprah.

  • Rand Careaga

    @Elaine #14: Out here in the SF Bay Area, where Palin supporters are, ah, a bit thin on the ground, there’s also a paucity of the squeamish “libs” you imagine swooning at Mrs. Palin’s flesh-devouring ways. As we’re fond of saying in my circle, if God hadn’t intended us to eat animals, He wouldn’t have made them out of meat. As to her work ethic, let’s also have a shout-out to the ghostwriter who churned out this opus over the course of a couple of months.

  • http://www.aol.com exhelodrvr

    ANthony,
    But it’s OK for people to campaign while a sitting governor/Senator/Representative? Do you think that they can give the appropriate amount of time to their current position if they are campaigning, especially for a different position?

  • igout

    Strategically, she understands that she needs to achieve Peoples Magazine celebrity status in order to have a ready audience for her ideas. A+ there. Tactically, in her encounters with the chatterocracy, she needs to toughen her act. I didn’t see her on Oprah, but in interviews, she reminds me of a bull in the arena puzzled by all the men in the funny pants who are trying to poke sticks in her. She needs to gore the Courics at the start and dominate the interview.

  • lisap

    I want a bumper sticker right now that says “WE NEED AN ADULT IN THE WHITEHOUSE” I am a Huge Palin Fan, however, the Anchoress is right about SP toughening up…After 4 years of man-boy, this country will really need a Margaret Thatcher or a Dick Cheney–Someone serious and strong…Gov Palin may possibly get there yet. But if we had to chose today…I’d be for Dick Cheney coming out and saying he would only be Pres for one term–with Sarah Palin at his side–learning the ropes…just a thought…

  • Rand Careaga

    Cheney-Palin in 2012? I’d pay good money to see that trainwreck!

  • dry valleys
  • lisap

    hey rand–why wait for “that trainwreck” when we got an even better one going on right now! The Obama is way worse than any ole trainwreck–it’s a national nightmare!

  • Jack

    Cheney would be great but with his heart issues that’s a non-starter.

  • Liberty60

    I am struck by the fixation on Sarah Palin’s lifestyle as the centerpiece of her attraction.
    For instance, these comments about eating meat- specifically how comments #14 and 18 see meat eating as a political statement- a poke in the eye of those vegetarian liberals.

    Do you all really see things this way? Is not eating meat some kind of symbol, that represents something evil, or is vegetarianism itself an evil?

    This isn’t snark- my point here is that there seems to be an awful lot of proxy wars, and dog whistles going on.

    Instead of arguing over issues like a balanced budget pro or con, or engagement in Pakistan, pro or con, the Palin discussions always seem to revolve around astoundingly petty and trivial lifestyle issues. Vegetarianism, hunting, shopping…

    Since I assume people don’t REALLY get worked up over vegetarianism, I am left to conclude this is all a culture war, that Sarah represents not a political philosophy, but a demographic.

    [Good points. Did you happen to see Ana Marie Cox's lazy and cliche-ridden "review" of Palin's book at WaPo? I'm amazed they even published it since Cox admits that two days was not enough time to read the book and she "skimmed" the last 150 pages, but her whole review boils down to "Palin really doesn't like smokers, but she doesn't have enough sympathy for pregnant waitresses who may have to work in smoky environments." So, you see the fixation on the stupid, and the weird use of lifestyle choices as indicators of evil, or power, or whatever....they go both ways. You find it on the left and on the right. It's incredibly stupid, and I'm sure it says nothing good about the intellectual curiosity of too many Americans, or their willingness to judge a person in toto based on knowing one thing about them -admin]

  • TomG

    Jack, that comment by GWB about a reporter (The New York Times’ Adam Nagourney, I believe) was, as was Mr. Cheney’s response, when they were leaving the stage and thought they weren’t miked. And, frankly, it was simply a statement of the obvious.

  • dry valleys

    What Liberty60 has mentioned needs to be addressed. Having a culture warrior as president, being hated from day 1 by large sections of the population, is something that will have to be reckoned with by Palin supporters.

    Obama, by pushing through a fairly well-defined liberal agenda, has begun to alienate people. Palin would be equally so if not more, as she is personally offensive to many, a fact which a lot of her supporters delight in.

    I am as it happens a vegetarian, but I have no great problem with eating meat, especially what is home-killed- my thoughts on factory farming are different, but also for another time :)

    You’re right about some of the reviews being alarmingly weak. Were I to be an American I would read the book for myself. But as things stand I don’t care to a great enough extent! (I had Obama’s books recommended to me during his candidacy but was having some financial problems so couldn’t buy them or any other book, though I suppose there isn’t much point now).

    The Rude Pundit went to the shop &; stood there reading it, reasoning that he wanted to read &; mock what she wrote but wasn’t going to give her his money- imagine that!

    (That is something I’ve done, but only because I can’t always afford books rather than for ideological reasons).

    I suppose I would like to know more on Palin’s views as it does seem to me that she is the darling of people who think differently to each other, who agree that they are against Obama but are differing sets such as neocons, paleocons, libertarians, the religious right, all sorts of people that are barely if at all compatible but claim Palin as a figurehead.

    [I think most here agree that Liberty made a very good point w/ the culture-war issue. I simply pointed out that a great deal that is important in this country gets reduced to stupid cultural toss-offs (as with Cox's insipid "review" of Palin's book) because it's easier to do that than to actually think, or to honestly debate. We're in trouble in many ways, in this country, but sometimes I think one of our biggest problems is that we've lost the ability to listen to someone's point of view and demonstrate that we've actually construed their meaning by repeating that pov back to them, to their satisfaction, and THEN launching into thoughtful counter-argument. There is actually an interesting piece on just that issue here. We are becoming a nation whose policies and positions are built on straw men - and that does not bode well for our stability.

    I have to say, my readers are some of the most civil, thoughtful and mannerly on the internets, and I'm grateful for you guys. We sometimes manage to get a bit testy, but overall, the jibes around here are gentle, and people really do want argue sensibly. I thank you guys for that. Makes it a pleasure to come into work, every day! -admin]

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I’ve met some vegetarians, who get quite worked up over the virtues of going vegan, and the evils of eating meat. . .

    But you’re right, Liberty, the many “debates” over Palin have little to do with anything she actually does, or says, and a lot to with the attitudes of those who criticize her: She’s a hick from Alaska, she’s not nuanced, she’s anti-woman, anti-abortion, she kills helpless animals, she eats meats, she hates pregnant waitresses, and so on. It’s all smoke and mirrors, dog whistles, tub-thumping and culture war. Sarah Palin, and people like her, or not on the agenda. And they disrupt the narrative.

    Whatever Palin has done, right or wrong, she certainly scares the Left. I have a sneaking suspicion at lot of it has to do with her anti-abortion stance, and her Down syndrome son, Trig, who has gotten an incredible amount of hatred spewed at him! His very existence seems to make a lot of people uncomfortable.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Valleys, my overall impression is that a lot of Libertarians don’t like Palin. They see her as too socially conservative, and moralistic; Libertarians support the free market, but favor things such as legalizing drugs and prostitution, which puts them at odds with social conservatives.

    And a lot of Country Club, port-and-cigars Republicans don’t like her, because she’s just not one of “them”. She didn’t go to an Ivy League college, she’s not from the Eastern Seaboard, or the West L.A. upper Crust; she hunts for sport, she doesn’t sail yachts, she’s blue collar and she has too many kids for their taste (A lot of “Thurston Howell, III” Republicans don’t have much more use for children than wild-eyed left wing feminists.)

    On the other hand, Sarah did get support from many non conservative, non Republican mothers of disabled children, who saw—correctly, I think—that much of the hatred directed her way was also hostility against women like them, and their children.

    People who support Palin, are, indeed, diverse.

  • sandpapers

    I’ve spent all of my life pro-life, and much of it vegetarian–yes, the petty broad brushing is annoying and distracting.

    If Sarah Palin is seriously considering a run in 2012, I wonder if she is gearing up now in areas such as foreign policy, international politics, economics and so on. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and her policy strengths seem to be domestic.

    I used to think that as long as the president had advisors who were specialists in his areas of lesser expertise, then that was sufficient. However, after witnessing Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan and apparent ignoring of McChrystal, I am not so sure. Of course, this might also suggest a lack of wisdom. That is also where I am a little shaky in regards to Palin, but I am open to having my qualms proven unfounded. Interesting that Palin’s (perceived) areas of weakness are either of the Cheney’s strengths. Agree with lisap that Obama’s weakest areas will be areas that opposition voters will focus upon, next election.

  • Liberty60

    Palin scares a lot of people, not just on the Left; as a proud Reagan Republican, I am left aghast at the modern conservative movement.

    All politicians are broad big picture people, and that is as it should be; as such, they speak in general principles, abstract thoughts, and leave the details to their staff; it is silly to expect Obama or Palin to have a 12 point position paper on the Federal Reserve;
    But there needs to be a coherent thought, a vision that we can all grab on to and believe in; Rod Dreher made a very insightful comment about how Palin writes so passionately about how Exxon screwed over the people of Alaska, and the corporate chumminess of the state government worked against the people’s interest; yet never translates this into a vision of how corporations and government should interact- she writes chirpy defenses of Big Business as getting a bad rap from liberals.
    If Exxon was terrible in how it behaved in Alaska, should there be more regulation to defend the public interest, or less to allow more corporate freedom?
    It is this lack of a vision, these contradictory platitudes between the desire for a moral civic order on one hand, and the amoral, anarchic freedom of capitalism on the other, that distresses me; She (and the conservative movement) seem to long for a Bedford Falls from It’s a Wonderful Life; yet pursue policies that lead to Potterville.

  • Peregrine John

    Oh, Liberty. Would that your goals lived up to your name. Have you noticed the road we’re already on?

  • Peregrine John

    Hm. My comment was on the ad hominem (or more literally, ad homonym?) side. My apologies, Liberty.

  • sandpapers

    No “lack of a vision” with the current administration, surely.

    Obama and company’s vision: Destruction.

    There is no satisfaction in being pleased with the clarity when one is so distressed by the outcomes.

  • sandpapers

    Agree with Liberty’s paragraph about “there needs to be a coherent thought, a vision we can all grad onto and believe in…” (and intriguing example)…

    but I wonder if we are moving towards this, with some sort of unification and coherence in the push-back of the liberal agenda– that is something many can agree on and believe in.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Liberty, as I pointed out earlier, so far from embracing Palin or longing for a mythical “Bedford Falls” (a place many country club Republicans and Libertarians would despise), many alleged Conservative/Republicans actually dislike Palin, and wish she—and the middle America they see her as representing—would just go away, and stop bothering them.

    Many Palin supporters seem motivated by the fear of America becoming yet another third-world Utopia, where Big Brother runs all (and not very well). Given the history of the 20th Century, and the malfeasance of governments who got too much power, that seems a reasonable fear to me, especially given the current direction of our own government, which seems to want more and more control over our lives.

    Also, the vitriol against Palin from both Right and Left opened a lot of peoples’ eyes to the contempt our elites, be they “D’s” or “R’s”, really have for their fellow Americans.

  • Jackie Baker

    I think we already have “a coherent thought, a vision we can all grab onto and believe in.” It is a belief in “The Constitution of the United States of America.”

  • Gail F

    I really like Sarah Palin because she seems to be a normal person and not a studied “example” of something. People seem to hate her for exactly that reason. I do think the elites — Democrat AND Republican — don’ t like normal people. They want them to shut up and do as they are told.

    I would not vote for her for president, especially after leaving the governorship like that (if she had just said that so many people were trying to sue her that it would bankrupt the state, or something similar, that would at least have been an understandable reason — and she could have said it, even it if wasn’t true, rather than the rambling stuff she did say). But I thought that during the election the shrill screams that she was not experienced enough to be VP and “one heartbeat from the presidency” were simply ridiculous, because she has a lot more qualifications than Berach Obama did. He has never achieved anything except to graduate from college and get elected to things. So, out of the available candidates, I had no problem voting for her.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Sandpapers, sadly, I think we’re moving away from it. Different factions of the Conservative movement want different things. The Libertarians want completely free markets, no drug laws, total freedom. The Country Club Conservatives want somebody just like them. Social Conservatives don’t particularly want the first two, and are getting tired of being dismissed as righ twing fanatics and Neanderthals; the Republicans want their votes at election time, and wish they’d get lost the rest of the year.

    “Crunchy cons” like Rod Dreher basically want to be liberals. There is no consensus. Even those who oppose Obama seem unable to come together.

  • Liberty60

    Rhinestone-
    Not to drag this out, but you touch on a very interesting point.
    Yes, conservatism has traditionally been animated by a fear of an over-powerful government. And though most of the 20th Century we fought those who saw no harm in unlimited government power.
    But- times have changed, haven’t they? We see today the destructive effect of too much reckless corporate power, and the corruptive effect of private interests that turn the elected government against its own people.
    Is the embrace of capitalism unlimited?
    Can we acknowledge that unfettered markets have as much capability to infringe on human dignity and disrupt the civic order as too-powerful governments?

  • http://www.katherineharms.com Katherine Harms

    It is ridiculous that the mainstream media chooses to ask Sarah Palin the kind of questions you ask of a sorority president. She must constantly wonder why they ask questions that reveal their own colossal ignorance. If there is anything Sarah Palin should learn, it the art many politicians practice — answer the question you wish had been asked instead of the question that was just posed. Her downfall is her upright honesty. She thinks that if they ask her what she really thinks of her daughter’s boyfriend, she should answer that question. If she wants the respect of the media, she must ignore the questions they ask and answer the ones she wants to hear. If they ask her about her children, she should say something like, “I’m glad you asked that question. I am personally committed to government that serves the citizens by promoting prosperity and personal freedom — small government and low taxes. That is the kind of government that sets people free to follow their dreams and use their talents without interference from oppressive government bureaucracy.” The answer has no relationship to the daughter’s boyfriend, but it does state Palin’s core principles and moves the conversation in the right direction. Every politician does it, and she needs to take a deep breath and use this time-honored skill to her own benefit. It will fly in the face of her inherent honesty and willingness to give the other person a chance, but she does not owe the mainstream media any more chances.

  • sandpapers

    Rhinestone, I just don’t know. Surely all of those factions exist and were in play last election, but I guess I hold out hope that unity can be found in opposing the constitutional tear-down, the continuing pile-up of astronomical debt, etc.

    (One of the reasons I visit The Anchoress: for company, because sometimes things seem so dismal… I have to pray…!)

  • Jack

    Excellent point by Katherine. I noticed that too, she tends to actually the answer the question that the media are asking her (which are usually loaded questions), as if it were a deposition.

    She needs to use the question as jumping off point to talk about what she wants as long as it has some relation to the subject matter at hand. She will learn this skill very quickly I think.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    The times might have changed, people haven’t.

    Liberty, unfettered markets might sometimes do bad things: businesses are human institutions, after all, run by imperfect people, but it is unfettered, drunk on ideology governments, not corporations, which have created the most misery in the 20th-21st Century.

    The capitalists of the Industrial era, and the Gilded Age, were certainly rapacious and greedy, but they were pikers compared to the architects of the Gulags, the gas chambers, chairman Mao’s mass murders in the Great Leap Forward or the killing fields created by Pol Pot, intended to return the Cambodian people to an idyllic Year One, and a blissful, pre-modern agrarian Utopia. Didn’t turn out that way.

    I’m all for restricting capitalism by the rule of law, and softening it with charity, and goodwill towards men. I’m not in favor of inviting the government in to run it—that’s giving it too much power, and too much ability to meddle in citizens’ lives. For one thing, the government’s job is to defend its citizens, not run the auto industry, take care of housing, healthcare, etc. And, if government does become the Number One employer/doctor/house and job provider—how many people will be willing to speak out against it, when they don’t agree with it?

    The old-fashioned way of looking at capitalism, that it should be free, but that businessmen, like everybody else, had to obey the law, and that the poor should be helped by charity, and being encouraged to better themselves—not welfare (which doesn’t really help much) is one we ought to reconsider today, I think.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Sandpapers, while there’s life, there’s hope. Divisions do exist, but things might turn around yet.

  • Pingback: Cassandra Takes on the “Was that Newsweek Cover Sexist?” Theme. | Little Miss Attila


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X