Jonathan Capehart, the pride of Carleton College, rarely has anything to say that’s worth reading, listening to (he’s a regular on Morning Joe) or thinking about, but occasionally he blunders into something, willy-nilly, as in this piece for the Washington Post blog, “Post Partisan,” about Palin’s recent speech at the Susan B. Anthony dinner:
The last time I saw Sarah Palin speak live was in 2008 when she accepted the Republican Party nomination for vice president. And she gave the performance of her life. The ensuing 20 months for me have been like watching the political equivalent of an actor on ER playing a surgeon. Get that “surgeon” off her lines, and she can’t possibly speak intelligently, if at all, about the intricacies of an operating room. Palin speaks in such broad generalities (“time-tested truths” or “common-sense solutions”) that you’d be crazy to even think about putting the body politic into her care.
This is what passes for thinking among the left these days: why, with this sort of analysis, Capehart has a real chance to become the next Frank Rich. Never mind that Palin’s positions on the issues are far more in tune with what the American public is thinking at the moment. As Matthew Continetti noted in the Weekly Standard:
As I listened to the speech, I was struck by how Palin’s positions are widely shared. She opposes the health care law — so does the public. She’s concerned about the federal deficit — so is the public (see question 10b). She supports the Arizona illegal immigration law — so does the public. She supports the right to life — and the public is moving toward her. She supports the Afghanistan surge and the current course in Iraq — both Obama administration policies.
The problem, as Continetti notes, is that Palin’s negatives are so high (wonder why):
Yet Palin continues to have high negative ratings. Why? Not because of her politics. Because independents, and many Republicans, do not believe she is qualified to hold high office. (Democratic support for Palin is a lost cause.) Perhaps some cultural elitism is at work as well. But, on the whole, I’d say the resistance to Palin is based on certain unique traits of hers that concern large numbers of people — her qualifications, her preparedness, her decision to leave the governorship, and her unwillingness to participate in media ritual sacrifice.
Continetti sees an upside in this — one that the Democrats have missed:
This is why the Democrats’ feverish attempts to link Palin to Republican candidates have failed. Democrats love to bring up Palin because her poll numbers are lousy… and to the extent that Democrats attack Republican candidates because they share Palin’s politics — well, the public is well disposed to those politics, at least for the moment.
Palin’s personality and sociocultural populism may hurt her in 2012 (though not necessarily in a GOP primary). They are irrelevant, however, to voters’ calculations in 2010. The Democrats can bash her all they want. The storm is still coming.
And that’s something that Capehart has glimpsed, although he hasn’t realized it yet:
But when the spotlight turns to pro-life issues, Palin shines bright. Abortion is a wrenching and emotional debate that’s waged as much with the heart as with the head. And Palin speaks from deeply held convictions rooted in personal experience.
But what fascinated me was Palin’s thought-provoking slam against women’s rights groups. She began by reminding the audience that suffragist Alice Paul once said that abortion is “the ultimate exploitation of women.” Palin then referred to recent polls that show more young women agreeing with “their feminist foremothers” on the issue, thus “empowering women by offering them a real choice.”
And then came this:
“The pro-woman sisterhood is telling these young women they are strong enough and smart enough. They are capable to be able to handle an unintended pregnancy and still be able to, in less than ideal circumstances, no doubt, to handle that. Still be able to give that child life, in addition to pursuing a career and pursuing an education, pursuing avocations. Though society wants to tell these young women otherwise. Even these feminist groups want to try to tell women, send this message that, “Nope, you’re not capable of doing both. You can’t give your child life and still pursue career and education. You’re not strong enough. You’re not capable. So it’s very hypocritical of those… pro-women’s rights groups out there.”
While I don’t agree with her ultimate stance on abortion, I understand where she was coming from and think she makes a very interesting point. Am I wrong?
No, he’s right. To put this in terms Frank Rich might understand, Capehart is like the poor schnook played by Michael Stuhlbarg– a right regular Job — in the Coen brothers’ A Serious Man: he just doesn’t see the storm coming yet.