Washington Post (Opinion)
By Michael Gerson
January 21, 2016
The
arrival of Sarah Palin brings a special something to the 2016 campaign,
like a little LSD added to the punch bowl. Are we watching C-SPAN, or a
reality TV show, or
a “Saturday Night Live” skit? It is impossible to tell without
consulting the channel guide.
Ted
Cruz may have secured the coveted “ Duck Dynasty ” blessing. But Palin
is the original and best representative of Kardashian conservatism. Her
endorsement of Donald
Trump was entirely devoid of policy content — a speech that did not
even aspire to shallowness. It is enough that Trump is “going rogue” and
“ticking people off” and “media heads are spinning .”
Palin
has been entirely consumed and replaced by her own bitterness against a
Republican establishment she feels betrayed her and against a media
that mocked her. More
than anything else, she clings to resentment and rage. And her
revolution, over time, has become comprehensive; not just a revolt
against elites, but a revolt against syntax and taste and preparation
and reason.
The
phenomenon of Palin raises the question: Does populism need to be
anti-intellectual? The answer is: N o. The populist mythology
surrounding Abraham Lincoln was not
only the rail-splitter born in a log cabin, but the youth who studied
books by candlelight. He was, indeed, dismissed as a rube. But he wasn’t
one. He quoted Shakespeare with ease and suffused politics with
thought.
Populism,
by definition, is anti-elitist. But that is very different from being
anti-intellectual. It was William F. Buckley who provided the best
description of conservative
anti-elitism. “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in
the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty
of Harvard University.” The assumption of wisdom in ordinary people is
the basis for free-market economics and, ultimately,
for democratic theory. But every conservative would hope that the
phone-book ruling class would possess some knowledge of our national
history, some acquaintance with our founding documents, some ability to
make reasoned political arguments. These things they
would not gain from watching “The Celebrity Apprentice” or “Amazing
America W ith Sarah Palin.”
In
this vacuity, Palin and Trump are a perfect match. They both embrace a
politics of personality, a politics at war with reason. Who would go to
either for advice on
Medicare reform or Syria policy? In the two-dimensional politics of
Palin and Trump, depth is not even a category. There is only
establishment vs. anti-establishment, weakness vs. strength.
The
danger of an anti-intellectual politics is that it quickly becomes
unmoored from real problems and real answers. In U.S. history,
anti-intellectual populism has often
become conspiratorial, focusing anger against powerful and imaginary
enemies: the Masons, the international bankers, the Jesuits, the
munitions- makers. “How can we account for our present situation,” asked
Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) in 1951, “unless we believe
that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to
disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy
on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the
history of man.”
Trump
rose to political prominence through the power of birtherism — a
movement in which every disproof was regarded as evidence of an even
broader conspiracy. But Trump
also made a mark connecting vaccinations to autism. The idea is
“completely discredited” by scientific studies (according to Anthony
Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases) and dangerous to children. But Trump refuses
to back down, asserting “the doctors lied” and the studies have been
“fudged up.”
The
same is true on other issues. Trump attacks refugees as a serious
potential source of terrorism — though the nearly two-year process of
being selected by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, then intensively screened by
various U.S. agencies, makes this method of infiltration absurdly
difficult. He says many undocumented immigrants are rapists and drug
dealers — an absurd claim with no empirical basis. He
blames immigrants for depressed wages in the United States — though
this effect is small and swamped by other factors such as globalization
and technological change.
In
these cases, Trump is not proposing obnoxious solutions to real
challenges; he is promoting obnoxious solutions to fake or wildly
exaggerated challenges. His anti-intellectualism
is severing the ties between the GOP and reality. If Republicans choose
to inhabit the Trump-Palin world, they will offer little of value to
our own.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment