Cognitive Dissonance, 2
What is it about the Palin nomination that has so enraged the left? Why are partisans, in particular those partisans who have long supported Barack Obama, so insistent on attacking Palin– and even Palin’s family– rather than merely highlighting the perceived superiority of their own candidate (and his running-mate)?
There are two ways of looking at the problem: the first is to view the threat Palin represents to the established left’s support for the Obama-Biden ticket. This explanation is clearly at least partly correct: after all, one of the great virtues of the Palin nomination is that, as a woman, she both combats the selective identity politics of the left (who are still smarting over the wounds wrought by another woman: Hillary Clinton) while at once rallying the “conservative base” McCain supposedly lacks. As such, it makes sense to view her as a threat to the left.
The second explanation is that Palin inspires a particular ire due to the fact that her conservative values so greatly differ from those of the Progressive Left (that segment of the Democratic party so embarrassingly responsible for the Obama nomination) This is a war of extremes– the Progressive and Conservative bases versus one another.
As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle– most certainly elements of both theories play into the debate– but what is particularly notable about both attitudes is the common base of hypocrisy from which they spring.
The former (“threat”) explanation rests on a progressive movement that is not only self-assured, but at least partially oppressive. Progressives have long believed in the suppression of free speech through the propagation of linguistic and rhetorical structures that exclude their political opponents from the realm of “authenticity”. Palin, obviously, challenges the Progressive hold on what “authenticity” means. (The common Progressive narrative, which seeks to define conservative ideals as oppressive, makes no sense given that Palin is not only a woman, but one who has achieved success without following the preferred Progressive evolution). Thus, in responding to Palin, the left is engaging in tremendously oppressive political tactics, while at once claiming that they are fighting oppression.
The second explanation– that Plain’s nomination has sparked a battle of extremes– is likewise illustrative. Palin, after all, does not represent a particularly extremist viewpoint. (See her implementation of windfall taxes on oil companies in Alaska, etc.) Her biggest differences with Progressives are largely social in nature– again, remember that the left stands against “oppression” by rhetorically oppressing their opponents. The most controversial and heated debate is, of course, sparked by Palin’s stance on abortion, and it is the most helpful in exposing Progressive hypocrisy– on no other issue do Progressives engage in stronger oppression. There is little one can rob from another human being, after all, than their very life. At the very least, engaging Palin (and conservatives as a whole) by actually answering their arguments vis a vis the personhood of the fetus.
Ultimately, this incredible pushback to McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin is far more telling about Progressives than it is about Mccain. Obama’s base is quite literally coming apart: face with an opponent that has found a way not only to substantively challenge the supposed destiny of the “Lightworker”, but more importantly, to challenge him stylistically. This challenge– which is made up of both the theories regarding the Progressive hatred of Palin