Why Do Bad Politicians Happen To Good Countries?

Quitters never win, and winners never quit.

Unless you're Sarah Palin. Then you can quit, whine about how mean the media elites are, and get a big hug from millions of conservatives pining for a charismatic leader.

Naysayers who thought Palin was finished after her disastrous vice-presidential run and subsequent resignation can think again. Everyone's favorite hockey mom is back with a vengeance, and she's got a best-selling book, crowds of adoring fans, and heaps of of 2012 presidential buzz to prove it.

That's good news for Palin's bank account -- and bad news for the country.

The excitement over Sarah Palin has little to do with her accomplishments, her policies, or her ability to lead. Like Obama before her, Palin is a vessel for the discontent of millions of Americans. This time, it just happens to be conservative discontent. It doesn't matter what she says, does, or writes. Some conservatives will always see a political savior when they look at Sarah Palin.

But the question begs to be asked: has there ever been a political idol less worthy of worship?

The frenzy over Barack Obama was absurd. Presidential rumblings began the moment he started his first term in the Senate. Nothing in his paper-thin list of accomplishments suggested he would be a transformational figure.

But at the very least, Obama was bright, clean, and articulate.

He went to Harvard.
He sounded smart.
He reached out to the other side.

Palin, on the other hand, manages to combine Obama's lack of experience with the eloquence of Dubbya and the depth of Dan Quayle. Her policy positions consist of conservative buzzwords wrapped in layers of winks and you betchas. True, it's no secret that conservatives are suckers for folksy politicians. And there's nothing wrong with that -- as long as there's some substance beneath the folksiness.

On an even more disturbing note, Palin represents a brand of identity politics that flies in the face of everything conservatism stands for. The fact that Palin is a woman is used as a sledgehammer against her critics; every attack is automatically branded as sexism. The same people who've railed against affirmative action for decades have suddenly discovered that being a woman is the only qualification anyone needs to be a national political leader.

This is a critical moment for the conservative movement. There's an incredible amount of anger and disappointment surging up against Obama and his policies. Conservative leaders can either try to channel this energy into a positive force for substantial change, or become buzzword-chanting demagogues, fueling the worst instincts of the conservative base and alienating everyone else. Sarah Palin – who won't even draw the line at giving a nod to the “birther” movement – has chosen the latter path.

There's no question that the Republican Party needs leadership. But Palin has nothing to bring to the table. She can draw crowds -- but those crowds are made up of people who are already in the tank for the GOP.

Every minute Palin stays in the spotlight is a PR disaster for conservatism. She may have bailed out on Alaska, but Palin can still perform one more act of public service: retiring to private life.

That's a change even I could believe in.

Everything In Its Place.

Nancy Pelosi is ticked off at Republicans again. This time, it's because they're so very sexist.

After Pelosi suggested Monday that the public was wary of sending more troops to Afghanistan -- and that McChrystal's recommendation to President Obama for more troops "should go up the line of command" rather than be aired in "press conferences" -- the National Republican Congressional Committee issued a mocking press release titled "General Pelosi Knows Better, Slams McChrystal."

"If Nancy Pelosi's failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place," concluded the release, setting off a barrage of criticism from Democrats and liberal blogs that the GOP was employing sexist rhetoric.

Pelosi herself weighed in Thursday at her weekly press briefing.

"It's really sad they really don't understand how inappropriate that is," Pelosi said. "I'm in my place -- I'm the Speaker of the House, the first woman Speaker of the House, and I'm in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there. But that language is something I haven't heard in decades."

Nancy Pelosi took the NRCC's statement to mean she needed to be put in her place as a woman. But that's obviously not what the NRCC meant.

Stanley McChrystal is a general in the U.S. Army. He thinks we should put more troops in Afghanistan.

Nancy Pelosi is a politician. She thinks he's wrong.

When the NRCC says that McChrystal should put Pelosi "in her place," they're saying they want McChrystal to remind Pelosi that, as a military official, he knows a thing or two about military policy. And to make that point crystal clear, the NRCC encapsulated it in the press release's title: "General Pelosi knows better, slams McChrystal."

The issue isn't whether a woman can be speaker of the house. It's whether the speaker of the house should pretend to be a general.

Pelosi is smart enough to know this. But phony outrage over non-existent sexism is much more fun than real debate.

I Am Clueless, Hear Me Roar.

In the pages of Wednesday's Daily Nebraskan, columnist Sarah Melecki made it clear that she's really ticked off at some guy named Mark Regnerus.

According to Melecki, Regnerus is the epitome of patriarchal evil:

Mark Regnerus, who published an opinion piece in the April 26 Washington Post, thinks it’s a tragedy that women are statistically choosing to get married at a later age now than they did in, say, 1890. His reasoning? According to Regnerus, as a woman ages her “market value” decreases, while a man’s increases.


...
This guy thinks that my value is wrapped up in my ability to produce fertile eggs. And apparently as I get closer to menopause, I get more and more worthless.
...
But whether or not I decide to have children, I am not worthless. I contribute to the good of society, and I challenge the ideas of closed-minded sexists like you, Mr. Regnerus.
...
Don’t let society pressure you into anything, because if there’s one thing I’ve learned from people like Mark Regnerus, it’s that our world is full of people who are stuck in a black and white television set with a 1950’s idea of marriage. Let’s make sure we’re living in the digital era.


Because I happen to live in the digital era, I harnessed the magic of the interweb to find the opinion piece that scarred Melecki for life. Now, my only question is: Did Melecki actually read it? Any of it? A cursory glance at the article reveals a remarkably benign column arguing for the freedom to marry young -- a far cry from a sexist polemic:

In my research on young adults' romantic relationships, many women report feeling peer pressure to avoid giving serious thought to marriage until they're at least in their late 20s. If you're seeking a mate in college, you're considered a pariah, someone after her "MRS degree."

...
Sara, a 19-year-old college student from Dallas, equated thinking about marrying her boyfriend with staging a rebellion. Her parents "want my full attention on grades and school because they want me to get a good job," she told me. Understandable. But our children now sense that marrying young may be not simply foolish but also wrong and socially harmful. And yet today, as ever, marriage wisely entered into remains good for the economy and the community, good for one's personal well-being, good for wealth creation and, yes, good for the environment, too.
...
It is is not just an economic problem. It's also a biological and emotional one. I realize that it's not cool to say that, but my job is to map trends, not to affirm them. (emphasis added) Marriage will be there for men when they're ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion.

The focal point of Melecki's rant -- that Mark Regnerus believes women should be valued based on their ability to produce children -- is patently false. Regnerus makes no value judgements at all. He certainly doesn't say that society should discard women who can't make babies. He merely points out the bleak truth that, generally speaking, men consider younger women to be more desirable spouses. There's a difference between someone's "market value" on the dating scene and their worth as a human being -- a nuance that Melecki seems incapable of detecting.

Melecki's warning that "you shouldn't let society pressure you into anything" is rather ironic, considering that it happens to be the main thesis of Regnerus's article. Instead of commanding women to conform to a 1950s mold, he simply tries to make the point that women should feel free to get married young if they want to. He offers no condemnation for people who choose not to marry. His article never even touches on the larger feminist debate over whether a woman should be valued based on her family or her work.

But it doesn't take long to realize that Melecki is simply using Regnerus as a springboard to segue into a dull screed against the evils of our patriarchal society:

From an early age girls are taught that marriage and motherhood are key goals in life. Dress up wedding gowns, happy endings in fairy tales, baby dolls and Playschool kitchens are forced upon little girls from the time they can walk until they decide they’re too old for toys. Everything is pink and frilly and is in preparation for being an obedient wife.



Boys, on the other hand, get to play with a variety of toys, from race cars to G.I. Joe. There may be a few toys marketed toward boys that prepare them for being a husband and father, but more often they get to choose from a wide array of art, video games or basketball.

I have three younger sisters, so I've witnessed the horror of baby dolls being "forced upon" little girls on several occasions. When they unwrap those little bundles of oppression, it only looks like they're happy. Deep down inside, there must be a pain I can't even imagine. (If only they could choose from a wide array of basketball like the boys!)

Melecki's piece demonstrates that militant feminists are the only people stuck in the 1950s. With the number of American women working outside the home hovering near 80%, there just isn't enough to get mad about in the "digital age." Thus, they conveniently construct a frightening fantasy realm where male oppression lurks beneath every pebble to convince themselves that their stale talking points are still relevant. Anyone who dares to present an opinion that appears to slightly contradict feminist dogma is promptly crucified.

It looks like the patriarchal oppressors don't have a monopoly on closed-mindedness.