Jay McInerney: Palin in the land of prejudice
Will Hillary's legions really support a candidate whose views are so diametrically opposed to hers?
Saturday, 6 September 2008
So far I don't know whether any of my own books were among those that Sarah Palin tried to yank from the shelves of the public library in Wassila, Alaska, when she was mayor of that town, but I like to think, at the very least, that they would have been if she had been aware of their existence or their content.
Palin asked librarian Mary Ellin Baker to remove certain volumes due to objectionable language and when Baker balked, the mayor tried to get the librarian herself removed from her post. The Origin of Species was presumably on the list of offensive tomes, since Palin, a fierce sceptic vis-à-vis "the theory" of evolution, supports the teaching of creationism in the schools.
For those of you who live in a country where the Enlightenment hasn't been repealed, creationism is the pseudo science that attempts to reconcile the fossil record with the biblical account of creation. Also known as "a breath of fresh air". John McCain's choice of a running mate was certainly bold and unexpected, in keeping with his maverick reputation. It was also cynical and sexist, insofar as it was designed to attract disaffected Hillary supporters.
Will Hillary's legions, who strike me as being smarter than the average voter, really support a candidate whose views are diametrically opposed to hers on every important issue? This is a woman who, according to The Washington Post, as Governor performed a line item veto on a shelter for single mothers. It seems more likely that certain men will vote for the ticket just because they think she's cute in a librarianly kind of way.
Whatever else she may be, Sarah Palin is an old-school fundamentalist Christian Republican who makes Mitt Romney look like a left-wing extremist, which is why the Republican right has finally come around to support McCain's candidacy. Whether her hockey-mom shtick can obscure the fact that her beliefs are far to the right of the swing voters McCain needs remains to be seen.
The Republican party has long been successful at exploiting the cultural insecurities of the American middle class, and what may ultimately determine this election is whether the McCain campaign continues to succeed in portraying Obama as an exotic. On a recent trip to Florida I saw the following bumper sticker: "President Barack HUSSEIN Obama? I Don't Fucking Think So."
Obama's quest for the presidency, at first so improbable, had come to seem almost inexorable by the end of his triumphal tour of the Middle East and Europe this past summer. The air of inevitability was only reinforced by McCain's peevish, foot-stamping reaction to Obama's reception overseas, beamed back to our shores by an accompanying American press corps that seemed to outnumber our brigades in Iraq.
After all the Republican sniping about his lack of stature and experience, Obama looked positively presidential as he conferred with Malaki and Sarkozy and Gordon Brown. Even many Republicans could see that Obama's European popularity stood in stark contrast to Bush's dismal image abroad. But there's a difference between foreign policy experience and cosmopolitanism, the latter being suspect in those parts of America where the French are still referred to as "cheese eating surrender monkeys".
In order to win the election Obama needs to convince more than a few provincial xenophobes that he's a real American, which is why the right continues to circulate rumours of Muslim ties. And while we don't always like to talk about it, it can hardly have escaped everyone's attention that Obama is African-American. Anyone who doubts that race will play a huge role in this election should consider the 2006 Senate race of Harold Ford. Ford was a popular five-term African-American congressional representative from Memphis who ran for the Senate in 2006 against Republican Bob Corker. In conservative Tennessee, Ford was a very conservative democrat who opposed abortion and gun control.
A month before the election, with polls giving Ford a three to five point lead in the Senate race, the Republican Party ran a television ad in which a young blond white woman, played by Johanna Goldsmith, talks about meeting Ford, who was unmarried at the time, at "the Playboy party". "Harold, call me," she says provocatively, vamping in front of the camera.
Whether the ad, which even some Republicans denounced as racist, trashed Ford's chances, or whether white voters were overstating their willingness to vote for a black candidate for the benefit of pollsters, Ford lost and Corker became the only Republican senator elected in a year of a Democratic landslide. Interestingly enough, the man who approved and financed the Ford ad, Terry Nelson, served for more than a year as John McCain's campaign manager. Nelson was eventually replaced this summer, reputedly because of sluggish fundraising.
But anyone who hoped McCain's campaign would repudiate the kind of race baiting that has long been a staple of Republican politics had to wonder about the racial subtext of the now infamous "bimbo ad" which the McCain campaign ran after Obama's return from Europe. "He's the biggest celebrity in the world," a voiceover declares, alternating images of Obama being mobbed by fans with similar images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Many felt that the juxtaposition of blond women with black man was entirely intentional.
Obama has energised African-Americans and younger voters, but to win the White House he needs to win over a significant portion of the white working class. The Republicans need to appeal to these same swing voters, and to re-enlist the so-called Reagan democrats, working-class voters for whom issues of religion and patriotism tend to trump economic self-interest. Obama seems to be appealing to their hopes, and McCain, judging from his rhetoric, and his party's recent history, seems to be appealing to their fears. Hopeful as I am, I'm also pretty scared at the prospect that fear and prejudice will prevail.
The writer's novels include 'Bright Lights, Big City', 'Model Behavior', and, most recently, 'The Good Life'
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

Comments
89 Comments
Palin is a horror. All librarians can guess exactly how she must have intimidated Wasilla city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons Baker. Unfortunately, Emmons Baker will not speak out -- is she THAT scared of reprisals? -- and the wussies in the American Library Association do not have the guts to investigate these charges of possible book banning, a subject key to freedom of speech and access to information.
Oh, all those women supposedly "flocking" to Palin? They're morons, plain and simple...very simple. Bigoted creationist/anti-choice/anti-sex-education/anti-environment/etc., etc. morons. Don't imagine they are anything more than that! Both sexes have their share of idiots, and this proves it.
Posted by Jo Manning | 11.09.08, 00:33 GMT
Sarah Palin strikes me as a arrogant self indulged Renegade. She calls herself a maverick, well isn't that what Bush is, not caring what the people want or what the rest of the ruling goverenment
thinks, just doing what she wants and threatens those who dare to disagree. She talks about her kids being off limits, but she drags them around the country parading them in front of the cameras,
passing the poor little baby from person to person. They didn't say one thing at RNC about what they plan to do with the mess, just about how woderful they both are. Man their arms must really hurt by now. We've had enough of this kind of thinking
Posted by dotty | 08.09.08, 22:14 GMT
A. Taking books off a shelf and banning books are two completely different things. B. I will bet all my money that there is now way Palin, if elected, would even try to take any more books off any shelf. C. Even if she tried, that is why our government has checks and balances so that things like that don't happen.
Now on the other subject, I would like to know how it is that Obama is going to help out people when he will raise the unemployment rate by raising taxes and diminishing the quality of our health care by making it universal. McCain's idea is to help the overall good of the people by cutting taxes, creating choice in education, creating choice in health care, and creating a safe environment for us to live in. I am sorry but letting people receive even more welfare and universal health care creates a dependency on the government, it does not promote self sufficiency and independence. Those ideas will destroy the idea so many have fought for, freedom of choice.
Posted by G | 08.09.08, 21:31 GMT
So, it's not that government intervention is always bad - it's OK to force removal of books from the library when Sarah Palin doesn't think the rest of us should read them - it's just bad when Democrats suggest that government might help people... Right. ?
Posted by S. Fotopulos | 08.09.08, 15:47 GMT
America is now a socialist state in becoming. Having claimed half the privately owned/borrowed real estate for the government it self they'll have to put some strange spin on their changed circumstance. Which ever adminstration takes over the US books their not gonna look pretty so I guess that's the last superpower down. I'm thinking this may be the last US election for sometime if things go the way they seem to be going.
Posted by kevin | 08.09.08, 07:31 GMT
I know I relate with Obama far more than McCain. First of all I haven't ever done anything to prove myself worthy of being President, I have never fought and suffered for my country, and I am not very good budgeting money.
I am trying to understand how it is not obvious that all Obama will do is raise taxes and lessen national security. These are two HUGE things we need to be worrying about. Raising taxes will only decrease employment. Obama's idea is giving the government more power. If there is anyone we should worry about banning books and giving us less freedom it is the leader of the liberal world, Barack Obama.
Barack Obama wants control of every aspect of our lives from what hospital I go to, to which school my children attend. That is not freedom.
Oh and by the way, no one cares what the Europeans think of Barack because they have no idea what it is like to live in a country not run to by the government but by the people whose lives the government effects.
Posted by G | 08.09.08, 06:56 GMT
Things have become so bizarre in American politics, that nothing is as it seems. Yes, it's scary that a potential VP believes in banning books and believes Creationism should be taught along with evolution. But what is the Republican alternative for a VP? A guy whose faith teaches that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?
Though I'm from the left-of-center People's Republic of Massachusetts, we have the lowest divorce rate in the nation. We have state health insurance and gays can marry here. Yet, we're supposed to be the weirdos. The GOP has become the party of the truly delusional. McCain's job is being husband to a zillionaire. Yet sadly, more "regular" folks think they can relate to him more than Obama. Oh, that's right, Obama is an "elitist." Wtf?
Posted by Diane Gordon | 08.09.08, 03:19 GMT
For all the troubled people who have had enough of Britain, why read articles on this site? Better yet, why comment on articles you read on this site?
If you don't know much about history, please don't comment on it. WWII was not won by Americans, it was won by the allied troops. I'm sorry, but public school history teachers also laud Columbus as discoverer of the free world - leaving out the tragic decimation of natives that followed his arrival. It's not an accurate representation of history.
The US may have been founded on Enlightenment principles, but in the wake of the McCain campaign, they have swiftly been swept under the rug. Obama says the election is about 'you', referring to voters, which falls right in line with the Enlightenment idea of human beings breaking out of their 'immaturity & dependence' and using their own intellect.
McCain selecting Palin to 'shore up his base' is the antithesis of Enlightenment thought & brands everybody as sheep.
Posted by Eric | 08.09.08, 03:04 GMT
Sorry, I think my previous comment left something out.
Nice Simpsons quote, Jay.
The reference to Americans calling the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is a little off. That is how Groundskeeper Willie from the Simpsons refers to the French. I don't know if that accurately refers to how non-cartoon Scotsmen refer to the French, though I am sure there are many, many other phrases that you could have substituted.
Otherwise, good essay, I agree with you on many points, and I share your fears regarding this election season. You definitely got people talking, and that is what it is all about.
And not to be too snarky, but I am sure your books were not suspect in her eyes. They are much too dull to be offensive. But in your defence, I barely got through Bright Lights, and never bothered to read another to see if you have improved. Perhaps you should stick to the short-form essay...
Posted by rachael | 08.09.08, 01:27 GMT
The list is bogus. It's a list of all the books that have been banned in the US. My facts were wrong. I apologise and eat humble pie. However, the fact that she has raised the issue of having books removed from Wassila's public library should still raise quite a few questions about her.
Posted by Oxymoron | 07.09.08, 21:04 GMT
89 Comments