Sarah Palin 2

We have received a couple of comments on our Sarah Palin post which we haven’t posted. We were somewhat puzzled by them. We couldn’t figure out if the comments were sincere or posted by people who either professionally or personally had internalized Sarah Palin ‘talking points’ to defend her.

The comments were remarkable for errors in logic. We couldn’t tell whether we were dealing with sincere persons who couldn’t think straight or with operatives who were engaging in the sophistic tricks that unscrupulous lawyers use to defend their clients.

These comments are an example of the sort of snow-job that we are getting. There are serious questions about just what Sarah Palin believes about the end-times and what she might construe to be her role as President of the United States in the unfolding of those end-times. She seems to have connections to far-right Christian groups with conscious plans to achieve political influence and/or power (the so-called ‘Dominionists’ among others). These things need to be brought into the light of day before the election. Sniping at minor aspects of criticisms of her past so as to discredit those criticisms distracts from the larger and more serious issues, creating the false impression that the larger issues are irrelevant. This is not something we can afford to be wrong on. Let’s find out what Sarah Palin really believes and with whom she is associated—before the election.

One aspect of Sarah’s performance in the Vice-Presidential debate has left us quite uneasy. She is said to have remarked something to the effect—I am not going to consider myself obliged to answer the questions I am asked by the moderator; I will only answer the questions I want and will otherwise speak directly to the American people without the intermediary of the mass media. Leaving aside for the moment that Sarah’s direct discourse to the American people included explicit winks—something befitting a loose woman, not a devout, chaste Christian—this seems a rather disturbing turn towards Christian demagoguery, as has now been shown by campaign events since the debate.

It is obvious that Sarah said what she did because she had been coached by McCain’s handlers to say it so she could avoid taking questions for which she was unprepared while at the same time making the points she had it on her cue cards to make. This is a matter of her unpreparedness for public life. But rather than admit that, as instructed she ‘bashed’ the media so as to cover her ruse up.

However, even deeper, one of the characteristics of classical fascism is said to be the direct emotional bond, possibly sexually charged, between the ‘leader’ and the individual ‘led’, unmediated by social institutions other than those that depend directly from the ‘leader’ himself. What disturbs us is that those who set Sarah’s tone for the debate seem consciously to want to cultivate such a style. The last time that fascism attained power and military might, the results were not so good. Let’s not have a winking hussy help to bring in an American form of it.

He who winks the eye with cunning gathers sorrows for men; he who rebukes with boldness makes peace (Proverbs 10, 10).

A foolish and lawless man travels ways which are not good; this man winks with the eye, signs with the foot and teaches with gestures of the fingers (Proverbs 6, 12 – 13).

We believe that somewhere St Basil states that a person who winks the eye is not to be trusted.