In Monday's Wall Street Journal, Norman Podhoretz praises Sarah Palin and slaps "conservative" intellectuals Chris Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, David Frum and David Brooks, all of whom found more to like in radical liberal Barack Obama than in Gov. Palin:
But how do we explain the hostility to Mrs. Palin felt by so many conservative intellectuals? It cannot be differences over policy. For as has been pointed out by Bill Kristol—one of the few conservative intellectuals who has been willing to say a good word about Mrs. Palin—her views are much closer to those of her conservative opponents than they are to the isolationists and protectionists on the "paleoconservative" right or to the unrealistic "realism" of the "moderate" Republicans who inhabit the establishment center.Our only quibble with the author would be his assumption that Barack Obama's IQ is higher than that of Sarah Palin. The president has said too many things which call his intelligence quotient into doubt, including his recent claim that employer health premiums will drop up to 3,000 percent under ObamaCare. Obama's continued refusal to allow the release of his college records leave us convinced that he has some potentially embarrassing things to hide.
Much as I would like to believe that the answer lies in some elevated consideration, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the same species of class bias that Mrs. Palin provokes in her enemies and her admirers is at work among the conservative intellectuals who are so embarrassed by her. When William F. Buckley Jr., then the editor of National Review, famously quipped that he would rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the combined faculties of Harvard and MIT, most conservative intellectuals responded with a gleeful amen. But put to the test by the advent of Sarah Palin, along with the populist upsurge represented by the Tea Party movement, they have demonstrated that they never really meant it.
[...]
I remain more convinced than ever of the soundness of Buckley's quip, in the spirit of which I hereby declare that I would rather be ruled by the Tea Party than by the Democratic Party, and I would rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.
Read the complete Podhoretz commentary here.
Update: Mark Tapscott agrees with Podhoretz:
Among Reagan's great strengths was his determination to speak the truth by, for example, calling the Soviets the "Evil Empire," and reminding us that "if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"- JP
Palin has a similar capacity for speaking hard truths directly and without equivocation. True, she lacks the tempering and experience that Reagan received in two major presidential campaigns, as governor of California for eight years and in his time with GE on the rubber chicken circuit.
But tempering and practical wisdom come from a variety of paths in life and Palin's has certainly not been one of privilege or ease. She is closer to the plain-spoken Truman than to the eloquent FDR who inspired the younger Reagan. Her wisdom, such as it is, may not be profound but it clearly has been hard-earned. That may be exactly what is needed in a troubled nation headed toward that rendezvous with destiny of which Reagan spoke so often.
Norman Podhoretz mentions the word "president" and Sarah Palin in the same sentence? This is earthshaking!
ReplyDeleteA while back, I posited a Sarah Palin / Fred Thompson ticket. (http://www.anti-republicanculture.com/2009/11/arctic-fox.html). With Mr. Podhoretz on board, this thing could take off!