Sarah Palin and the Demise of Public Discourse

by Chuck Gutenson 11-16-2009

I wonder how many doctoral dissertations will be written over the next several years aimed at exploring the cultural phenomenon that is Sarah Palin. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which one would undertake such a study and come to the conclusion that the impact she has wielded on culture has been even marginally positive. Here we had a person so clearly over her head as a vice-presidential candidate who is nevertheless being highly rewarded by a particular substrand of the American population. Sarah’s stunning ignorance on policy issues was spun as “independence;” an inability to answer questions with even a semblance of articulateness, we were told, was a sign of her “anti-elite” roots; and her engaging in the most crass demagoguery was attributed to her “roguishness.” It is hard to imagine a single intersection with culture at which Sarah did not cheapen the quality of our public discourse. Now, with the publication of a “best seller,” we get to hear even more gems of wisdom.

Perhaps Palin is an easy target for a bigger phenomenon. Not so long ago, Charles Barkley told us he was not a “role model,” as if a person gets to choose that role! He was but a minor example of those who plug themselves into public discussion with seemingly no awareness of the responsibility they bear for the things they say. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jim Cramer, and Bernard Goldberg are all examples of folks whose participation in public dialog leave our public discourse more impoverished. What we need is a mechanism to remind these folks that with great blessing (a major “bully platform”) comes great responsibility. One thinks of the line from A Christmas Carol, when the ghost of Marley, bearing the chains of injustices carried out in his own life, warns Scrooge that the chain he bears himself is a “ponderous one.” What ponderous chain does someone like Rush Limbaugh bear for his “contribution” to public discourse? He used to refer to himself as having “talent on loan from God.” I used to wonder what Rush thinks God will say when Rush returns that talent, in light of his use of it.

The dynamics of all this are very complex. A willing and interested audience, coupled with freedom of speech and the freedom to market virtually any idea, no matter how harmful, the reduction of our age to a “sound bite” mentality, are all things that contribute to an environment in which negative influences on public discourse are allowed to flourish. I am a strong advocate of freedom of speech, for example, but I am also an advocate for finding a stronger way of tying folks to the damage they do to our public discourse. I can see the problem, but I am less clear on the way forward. Ideas?

Chuck Gutenson is the chief operating officer for Sojourners.

Categories: Faith and Politics

Tags: bernard goldberg, bully, candidate, charles barkley, civil, culture, demagogue, discourse, freedom of speech, hannity, jim cramer, market, role model, rush limbaugh, Sarah Palin, sean hannity

judithod

Like you, I don't understand the provocation for the venom spewed against Palin. Yes, she was a novice on the national stage, but in her favor, she never acted as a poseur. As you said, she was "unashamed and unintimidated" in stating her beliefs, and perhaps that honesty is unsupportable in this political climate when telling a lie is acceptable "as long as you believe it."

judithod

You're correct in your comments on the cuts to Medicare. It amounts to "robbing Peter to pay Paul," but with Medicare (aka Peter) currently sporting a $37 trillion unfunded liability, Paul's heist is going to hike the deficit.

Amazing that the president can cheer on the current health-care bills while stating this week: "I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

judithod

Here are some links regarding the Coordinating Council and you can "google" to discover others:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702...

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318915075926...

As you'll recall, Congress had no time to read the stimulus bill so we can hardly be faulted for not knowing the contents!

sondra023

1) Earl Bleumauer, not Bleumental

2) It's an OP ED. It's one man's opinion.

3) Palin brought valid points up for discussion.

4) Is Obama's statment that Americans bitterly "cling to guns and religion" any more an example of healthy discourse than using the term "death panels?" Obama's comment was very rude and insulting towards a lot of Americans. It put people on the defense. Palin merely created a type of catch-phrase to describe her interpretation of the amendment. I see no degradation of public discourse in her statement, although I do see it in Obama's.

sondra023

Really?! Could you please provide some links or sources where I can find out more about this?

I believe that this administration does many things in very subtle, underhanded, and "behind closed doors" ways. It's pretty sly of them to begin rationing in the stimulus bill, where not many people would look to find evidence of "death panels" or the sort. I doubt that many people even know about this. Perhaps we've all been duped into believing it'll be in the health care bill. When it's not, there will be less outcry and more support. But alas, here it is in the stimulus bill, where no one would think it would be.

sondra023

Earl Bleumauer, not Bleumental.

The above quote is from an OP ED. It's one man's opinion. He's also a Democrat pushing for the health reform bill.

Palin's comments regarding Medicare were valid due to the fact that if this bill passes, cuts will need to be made somewhere due to the high cost of the bill. Both the current Senate and House bills plan on cutting $400 billion from Medicare (which will surely be higher since govt. always gives numbers that underestimate the true numbers in the end).

Our society does not exactly place a high value on the elderly. When a Democrat talks about end-of-life counseling (done by govt. officials) in a govt. plan that will expand govt. decisions and make monetary cuts, there is cause for concern. Esp. when you consider the mentality of some that the life of an elderly person is not worth saving in comparison to the life of a young person. And also considering that the elderly often need costly medical care.

It's not that difficult to realize that there are people in this world who believe that the elderly should be assisted and helped in ending their lives as a means of saving money. I don't know if that was necessarily Bleumauer's motive for writing the amendment, but Palin did bring about some discussion on something that is valid and should be discussed.

As for her saying "death panels," there is nothing different in that kind of discourse than there is with Obama talking about Americans who bitterly "cling to their guns and religion." Is there?

sondra023

Public discourse also deteriorates when people are so adamant in their opinions that they insult someone's different view. Clearly, the person you are referring to does not agree with you that Palin has been responsible for causing public discourse to deteriorate. I happen to agree.

How does one say, "Obama is not doing a good job," in a manner that will please him or his supporters? It's a statement of opinion that is perhaps based on factual evidence, and speaking one's mind in this manner does not cause discourse to "deteriorate." It's the exercise of free speech, and in this nation, we are allowed to criticize our Presidents and speak out when we disagree with their agendas. Both Democrats and Republicans do it. And Bush was vehemently criticized for the 8 years he was President. The difference is, he rose above it, he did not try to silence it, and he endured it.

Sometimes I think some Americans would prefer that we be more like Cuba or China where free speech is suppressed. I am certain our administration would prefer it, as long as those suppressed are opponents or "dissenters." I do not see the Obama administration encouraging criticsm, accountability, or dissent. After all, it wasn't long ago that conservative critics of Obama were considered to be "extreme right-wing terrorists" according to the Dept. of Homeland Security.

sondra023

I read about this, too. It's interesting because of the types of claims made about her, yet, money is being raised to "push back" against her. She is not in office nor running for one. Nor has she said she will run. Yet, they are raising this money and sending emails.

I have never ceased to be amazed at the depths of hatred towards Palin. I saw her interview on O'Reiley (which was exellent), and they discussed the motive behind the furor. He believes it's due to her outspokenly pro-life stance. My suspicion is that it's a combination of things but primarily that she's female, conservative, Christian, and pro-life. Conservative pro-life Chrisitans are most definitely some of the most despised people in this nation, and Palin, who is unashamed and unintimidated by her critics, makes her a "threat" because she speaks for them.

Of course, she also criticized Obama, and she did it with a wink, smile, and a lot of applause, and it angered them. They've never quite gotten over it.

1jsm5

Once again rather than deal with Ms. Palin's responsibility for deteriorating the public discourse, you are responding with option (d) changing the subject.

This is my last post on this topic. Thank you for helping me demonstrate exactly how public discourse continues to deteriorate when debaters fail to stay on topic.

judithod

Organizing for America is the successor to Obama for America, and it serves as a fundraising arm for the DNC and for Obama's never-ending campaign. You may wish to visit the website where you can sign up for Obama Mobile and make a donation.

1jsm5

"Organizing for America" is NOT the office of the president. As before, please stay on topic, which is Ms. Palin's deterioration of the public discourse.

Also, why worry about "a reliable source" telling you this or that. We're all on the net and can easily check who said what. I won't ask you to provide the link since you're already off topic.

1jsm5

As I wrote earlier, once the convincing reply has been given, the defeated party
must either: a. admit the answer as true, b. belittle or ignore the original question, c. attack the replier, or d. change the subject.

It appears you have chosen options b.
and d. insofar as you have not argued against Ms. Palin's obvious misrepresentation (type b) and introduced a new subject--bureaucracy and the relative abilities of private corporations vs. the government to assess properly what society as a whole can make available to anyone (type d).

I would ask, if you cannot admit that Ms Palin was grossly deceptive about a topic vital to caring for the citizenry, please leave the discussion as we are dealing here with Ms.Palin's responsibility for deteriorating public discourse not the new subjects you wish to introduce.

judithod

This is not a Republican talking point; it's a fact about the inclusion of this new bureaucracy in that stimulus bill intended to "create or save" 3 to 4 million jobs. Will the Council commission and oversee the multitude of clinical studies essential to providing definitive information on the medical treatments that will produce the best outcomes? And if so, what will be the cost of underwriting those clinical studies?

Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is a comparative-effectiveness body that has an outstanding record in not only controlling the costs of treatment but also in rationing treatment.

Personally, I would rather argue my case for treatment with a private insurance company concerned about profits than with a government bureaucracy that's managed Medicare into a $37 trillion unfunded liability.

1jsm5

I beg to differ. When questioned about this Ms. Palin never refers to this as her objection to the stimulus, rather as an objection to the health care reform proposal as did Senator Grassely who worried about whether the proposal would enable government to "kill Grandma." But don't just ask me, ask anybody (other than you or me) and they will tell you she referred to the health care reform proposal.

The comparative effectiveness research is a very necessary
discussion which will entail evaluations of medical procedures for maximizing the effectiveness of limited resources in the light of ethical standards. If that sounds like rationing to you, the same considerations are made by private health insurance companies except with profit as their major determinant.

Please read the referenced material with an open mind before trumpeting the Republican talking points to us, or when you do at least say so.

judithod

The stimulus bill is already funding ($1.1 billion) a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which is directed to research "the relative strengths and weaknesses of various medical interventions" to provide "clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system."

This is the "panel" about which Palin and others have expressed concerns, specifically to what extent will this Council advocate rationing of services and procedures and be empowered to do so.

judithod

A reliable source just warned me via an E-mail that we shouldn't underestimate the power of Sarah Palin. This morning, "Organizing for America" sent an E-mail claiming that "Sarah Palin is on a highly publicized, nationwide book tour, attacking President Obama and his plan for health reform at every turn." To help "push back against Sarah Palin and her allies," I'm requested to chip in $5 or more.

Where has the dignity of the office of the president gone?

BlueDeacon

Like Bill Clinton.

PastorShawn

How ironic that a post on the "demise of public discourse" is essentially an ad hominem polemic. To continue the irony, perhaps the next post could include the topic "self awareness".

krzyglu2

Thanks. Will check it out. It's hard to know anymore these days which news stories are actually factual and/or true.

krzyglu2

Who? I don't live in California, thank God. Wouldn't wish that state and all their troubles on anybody, although we as a nation might be following in their bankrupt steps with the choices our administration has been making.