Ross Douthat came in for criticism around the Web (including here at CJR) for his Monday column arguing that Sarah Palin’s appeal is rooted not in ideology but in class – specifically, that the soon-to-be former Alaska governor is better liked among less-educated voters, who see her as the embodiment of the “democratic ideal.”
John Sides, a political science professor who blogs at the excellent group site The Monkey Cage, attacked Douthat’s argument on the same grounds we did: the Pew poll he cites doesn’t show much of a difference in support for Palin among those with a college degree and those with a high school degree or less. But Sides later followed up with another post, based on separate data from the American National Election Studies (ANES), which tells a slightly different story.
Which is: Among Republicans and independents, there is no difference in evaluations of Palin among those with different degrees of education. Among Democrats, though, there is a distinction. Basically, no Democrats like Palin. But while Democrats with less than a college degree don’t like her at a fairly ordinary level, those who have completed higher education can’t stand her. (Sides has a handy chart to make all this clear visually.)
Now, this doesn’t come close to getting Douthat off the hook. For one thing, it’s not the evidence he cited in his column – and his interpretation of the evidence he does cite remains so misleading as to be basically inaccurate. For another, the ANES data doesn’t get you anywhere in terms of explaining Palin’s appeal. Even less-educated Democrats don’t, on balance, like Palin. But Douthat’s reasoning was likely rooted in his sense that highly-educated Democrats have a special dislike for Palin (his column was, after all, titled “Palin and Her Enemies.”) And on that count, he may have been right.
it really is sad that you have no other news to report, like the war that our soldiers are fighting for your freedom and safety. you must be enthralled and fascinated by Gov. Palin that you cannot get her off your mind. the more you dehumanize her only makes her stronger. she is a very smart educated person who will make and change this nation. she is doing so much more than you could ever do by sitting behind a desk and trashing a strong woman who wants to see this country go in another direction than washington as usual. you best take another look at what is happening in this country and you better pray that you keep your job, because nothing ever lasts forever and you are not irreplaceable.
#1 Posted by Janice, CJR on Wed 8 Jul 2009 at 05:29 PM
"The war that our soldiers are fighting for our freedom?" Please, be serious.
A bunch of goat-herding Pashtuns were going to build rafts, paddle across the oceans, overthrow our government and take away our freedom, but lucky for us they were foiled by these wars we're fighting?? Yeah, that sounds plausible.
We're fighting for freedom, yes, but OTHER PEOPLE'S freedom, not ours, and I don't think it's too much to ask to acknowledge that fact.
#2 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Wed 8 Jul 2009 at 06:13 PM
Marx and CJR are to be commended for dialing back a tad on criticism of Douthat for expressing what is intuitively clear to anyone with a feel for the culture conflicts in American politics - that the strange hatred of Sarah Palin is strongest within the precincts of the American upper classes (as roughly delineated in, say, Vanity Fair magazine, or the 'Sunday Styles' section of The New York Times) . . . People who live in Malibu and Manhattan and Martha's Vineyard, and who regard the cultural and social values and customs of the country as falling within their province to determine, like the Mandarin classes of China, or the Holy See before the Reformation. An aspiring administrative class similar to what you find in western Europe, particularly in France, in which a pretense of mass democracy covers the reality of a permanent governing class, filtered through the elite schools, that really makes all critical decisions.
So, to cite one example, same-sex marriage is discussed endlessly as an important issue in the mainstream media - The New York Times, principal voice of this class, seems to have a quota for 'gay'-themed stores in its daily output of 'news' - though this issue is of little importance to the masses, who have repeatedly expressed disapproval of this current liberal brainstorm. This happens because the urban chattering classes support it and will keep pushing for it as 'inevitable', no matter how many popular rejections - citing what Tom Wolfe has called the belief of these classes that they have 'a lien on history'.
A related offshoot of this debate is that social class is seldom discussed in the mainstream press, which ultimately is part of this social network, in the context of politics and 'the social issues'. Almost all the disputes over abortion rights, affirmative action, gay rights, etc., are really disputes between socio-economic classes, with the more moneyed folks on the liberal side. Income level is the best general predictor of attitudes toward liberal social issues. That doesn't make them right or wrong, but it is a factor in evaluating the 'who-whom' of policies, who gains, who loses. The fairly obvious class character of issues like environmentalism, feminism, etc., doesn't fit the frozen media narrative of liberals being bascially on the side of 'the little guy', as it is sometimes (condescendingly) expressed, 'the man in the street', etc. An added reason for Palin-hatred is similar to the hatred felt for Clarence Thomas - hatred for an apostate who doesn't fit the stereotypes which are supposed to govern our cultural politics. Palin would be a feminist icon, with her taste for masculine pursuits up in the rugged North (remember Janet Reno and her alligator-wrestling mother?), her multi-racial husband and children, and her balance of family and professional careers, if she were politically on the Left rather than the Right. Same thing with Clarence Thomas. They are ungrateful children of liberal social movements, you see. Most other 'criticisms' are fig leaves and the left-wing people who pretend otherwise are posers. CJR ought to be aware that most political views, left or right, are almost always cover for naked self-interest, including the self-interest of children of the upper classes.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 9 Jul 2009 at 12:29 PM
Mark,
Good comment, but as I've tried to point out many times on here -- CJR does NOT know anyone who have differing political views other then Liberal and Leftist.
When they talk about Consertives and Republicans, they discuss as if anthropologists going into foreign territory. Funny, and I thought the "watchdog of the press," would be wary when the Left ran things.
Nope. At CJR, they do their damndest to protect the State when D's are running things. Just look at articles written after Jan 2009, accepting the State's take on things without questions and allowing Reporters to do that as well.
But hey, CJR reporters can research and prove me wrong.
#4 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sun 12 Jul 2009 at 01:25 PM