I know I’m a liberal, and hence biased, but for a while back there I really tried to understand why anyone would have voted for Sarah Palin for anything. Today I got the crucial insight from a comment a reader made to Gail Collins’ column in the New York Times about Ms Palin’s recent resignation as Governor of Alaska:
In her column Ms Collins guessed that in part Palin had probably resigned as the first step in a long slog to collect the money and bona fides she will need to run for President in 2012. A commentor to that column then added this explanation of why that plan just might work, even though Palin is—well, the kind of thinker and speaker we all know her to be:
“July 4th, 2009
Palin’s incoherence and lack of concentration are her political strengths. The segment of the electorate to which she appeals does not value intellect or eloquence. In fact, these qualities are feared because they imply a lack of faith. A person who is well educated, thoughtful, and can answer questions directly, in complete sentences, is exactly what Palin’s supporters do not want.”
I had this insight earlier about George W. Bush’s inexplicable election victory. If you are not well educated or well spoken you are likely to prefer to hear from people who have the same deficits as you do.
It’s just human nature.
Elsewhere, human nature might be tempered by culturally-ingrained respect for education and the educated. Not here. The USA is well known for having a strain of anti-intellectualism of mammoth proportions.
I don’t know why I keep forgetting these simple facts. After all, largely because of them, lightening struck twice for George W. Mushmouth.
And, except for the difference in sex, Sarah Palin is just George W.’s doppleganger