Monday, September 20, 2010

Sarah Palin – Tonto or the Lone Ranger?

The relationship of Tonto and the Lone Ranger on the movie set which featured the unlikely blending of the two lead characters had an interesting component.  Who among us geezers does not remember at a Saturday matinee, Tonto referring to the Lone Ranger as “Kemo Sabe?”  At least, that was the anglicized version of what we heard.  Actually, it is a Spanish expression--“que no sabe”—which roughly translates to “he knows nothing.”  Now, review in your mind, the endless times, as a kid, you heard Tonto repeat those disparaging words.  One can only wonder if Sarah Palin ever referred to John McCain with the same expression.  In 2008, she certainly aptly filled the definition of a “faithful Indian companion.”

Her position now and then has not changed one iota, I might add, neither has mine.  Since I first heard her speak in front of Bass Pro in Springfield, Mo. in 2008, she left an impression which has only been enhanced since.  She fully understands the role of the people in their own governance.  This fact has escaped the leaders of the major political parties on both sides of the aisle and they both stand aghast at the results of their failures.  She may be an established enemy of the grizzly and the moose but she poses a far more deadly threat to the RINO and the donkey.

In their hide-bound allegiance to party regulars, they stand amazed at her success in isolating the problems which face the country.  Does that mean she is the obvious inheritor of the position of leadership which the Tea Party intentionally shuns?  Quite the contrary, Palin routinely ducks the constant questioning and refuses to identify as the titular leader of the movement.  By doing so, she remains aloof from the requirements of party affiliation and insists upon recognition of the role of the individual citizens.  By elevating them to their rightful position as determinants of their own governance, she strengthens both the populace and deprives the opposition of an easy target.  Make no mistake, once someone declares a position of leadership, the opposition will be out in full force against the threat with investigations, personal attacks and warped historical perspectives.  (Cf: see O’Donnell, Christine)

Paul Goldman has an article in—of all places—the Washington Post on Sarah Palin and her influence on today’s political scene.  If you consider the source, you may choose to ignore it.  I encourage you not to do so because, even from a “liberal rag,” Goldman has given thought deeper than the usual obvious Palin bashing. 

As usual, a commenter on Instapundit observed in a separate entry on “what ever happened to Camille Paglia” a particularly good bit of insight which is relevant:

“23. Viator

Maybe there is another reason the Tea Party isn’t a third party (yet).

Has Sarah Palin saved the GOP?

“Consider: If Newt Gingrich or Glenn Beck held Palin’s political clout, they might very well have used this power to encourage independent conservative challenges, figuring the resulting GOP chaos would rebound to their benefit. Palin rejected this course, even though it probably would have been in her political interest.”

Consider also that Palin has received no credit for being loyal to a party establishment that continues to treat her with maximum low regard. Americans have never sent to the White House an individual rejected four years earlier as a vice presidential nominee. So it is doubtful that Palin stuck with the GOP because she hoped to be rewarded with the chance to lead it in 2012. Think about it: A lesser person would have opted for payback, not party.

That the GOP establishment fails to appreciate the debt it owes her is reflective of the elitist outlook that is contributing to Tea Party activism nationwide. Leaving aside the substance of her policies, there is no denying the “populist conservative” roots of Palin’s politics. She is a “bottom-up,” not a “top-down,” leader, a rare commodity on the national scene.”

I agree with “Viator” on his appraisal of Palin as “heir apparent” to the role of probable candidate and her entitlement.  She has definitely exhibited that rare quality among politicians—class.

Do I think she should run for president?  That’s a toughie.  Personally, I can’t think of any reason why she would want to other than salving her ego.  It’s hard to imagine why anyone would be willing to trade an established residence in Alaska to move to the snake pit that is Washington, D.C...  It would require the absolute sacrifice of everything which she has stated she holds dear.  I am personally convinced that she holds her role as mother in high regard.  Is that incompatible with the presidency?  It would have to be a factor.  Perhaps she could commute to help Todd with the next salmon run.  It’s a job no sane person would seek just for the money.  Fortunately, as Obama proved so well (even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then,) it is a decision which is not necessary at the moment.

Whatever Sarah Palin decides, we have the inescapable truth that she has altered the political landscape for the better.  I’ll bet she will do something really radical.  She’ll probably pray about it.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon

No comments: