Punchinello’s Chronicles

July 7, 2009

What Does Sarah Palin Stand For?

Filed under: The Great Adventure! — Punchinello @ 8:00 pm
Tags: , , ,

Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, announced this week that she would not seek re-election. She furthermore said that she would step down from her office at the end of July, handing over the executive position to her lieutenant governor. And, predictably, the liberal hive was stirred into an angry swarm. The total hatred of Ms. Palin spewed out of almost every journalistic venue, with speculation on anything and no facts whatsoever.

Many Republicans, and even a number of seeming conservatives reluctantly joined in with the swarm. The rationale for adding gasoline to the fire is that Ms. Palin has no solid position on today’s political and social issues. She has no learned understanding, no background, no training, no nothing. Indeed, nobody can understand why Ms. Palin has such superstar attraction to so many people.

Ya either love her or ya hate her.

Conservatives are hard at work trying to explain (or even define) the concept of conservatism. Without a philosophy behind that ideology, nobody really seems able to explain much of anything. Talk-show hosts try, and many skilled writers are adding their thoughts to the mix. Gradually, the entire concept of conservatism is taking shape. But it still isn’t yet defined.

So how come liberals attack Sarah Palin like a swarm of angry wasps? Why do so many conservatives intuitively stand behind the woman, even knowing that she isn’t yet a refined political powerhouse?

It’s because Sarah Palin holds forth a clear promise of one, single thing: She is fundamentally guided by principles! She is not guided by polls, popularity contests, compromises, political savvy, back-room deals. She’s not guided by New Age blather about humanity as a swarm, subject to the needs of Mother Earth. Before all decisions, and prior to all discussion, Ms. Palin references core values that never change.

Can an idealist function or survive in a modern world of pragmatism and “realism?” They’re actually the same thing, nowadays. “Realistic” is a code word for pragmatism, and that’s the visible part of a philosophy of empiricism. Idealism is the opposite of empiricism.

Politics-as-usual begins with an absolute assumption that nobody can do anything in Washington without compromising. There can be no pure solution based on ideals. Everything is negotiable. Including non-existent principles.

Conservatism, on the other hand, mandates that compromise on details is okay, but never on fundamental principles. “Values” or “core values” are the code word for moral principles.

What’s truly fascinating is the number of people who exhibit physical symptoms of terror at the mere thought of absolutes! Ideals and principles are unchanging. They last forever. To ensure that they last forever, those principles move beyond history and historic times. They enter into the abstract levels of metaphysics, philosophy, and reasoned discussion. One problem we have these days is to assign the word “principle” to transient beliefs.

Sarah Palin holds out a promise to those who agree with her that it doesn’t matter what problem crops up. She will approach that problem and try to find a solution that remains in alignment with principled absolutes. Those absolutes include a theology of Judeo-Christianity, capitalism, individual liberties, individual responsibility, and the principles set forth the original United States Constitution.

The hive, on the other hand, understands that if everyone did whatever they wanted to do, nobody would have power. Nobody would be an authority. Nobody would be able to take money and things from others by using the Law. In fact, the entire concept of “doing whatever they want” rests on a world-view that contains no moral guidance. If people acted individually, there could be no hive! No society, no comfortable group-think, no unconditional love!

To liberals, there only are two possible ways to control humanity. The one is through a god of some sort, a supernatural force like Jehovah, Allah, or even Mother Earth (the Gaia hypothesis). The other holds that human beings are naturally corrupt, therefore the State must use force and repression against that natural anarchy.

In truth, there is a third control system, one that few people want to contemplate. That third option is a moral system taught to all children, which becomes an enduring conscious knowledge of right and wrong. Religions include such a morality, but the “threat” against disobedience is that bad things and punishment happen later, when we’re dead. State control is much more immediate, promising imprisonment or death penalties for disobedience.

The reason moral guidance hasn’t yet worked is that humanity hasn’t yet developed a morality that rests on something other than damnation or legal penalties. That’s because modern philosophy derives from science, which tells us that the single most important mandate for our behavior is genetic dominance.

We all act according to a biological “demand” that we spread our genes. Following that logic, each individual must strive for dominance, control, and separate existence. Survival of the strongest takes precedence over survival of the fittest. There is no room at all for a natural selection toward societies.

Sarah Palin holds that each individual must be free to act in accordance with their own reason, and that reason must take into account emotions and feelings. Not all human beings are naturally corrupt. Virtue can be taught, learned, and self-managed. A criminal is a person who chooses corruption over virtue, and at that point, the Law enters the picture.

The problem for Ms. Palin is that she only has God to control the maverick anarchist or criminal on a self-management basis. That’s all well and good, but what if someone doesn’t believe in God? What if they don’t believe there’s any such thing as an objective “good?”

Even so, America was founded on Judeo-Christian values and morality. Seeing our nation being swept into some hybrid form of Marxism, many people would rather continue with the older values. At least they worked to a point, and provided each of us with a whole lot more freedom than the emerging hive.

Americans aren’t part of a hive. Liberals are a hive, swarming when threatened. Liberalism is a reactive ideology, producing nothing on its own. It proposes nothing new, only reacting against the “other,” the “separate,” and the individual. Conservatism rests on individualism guided by moral principles. It remains the antithesis of the swarm, and provides initiatives and creative invention.

Conservatives create solutions to problems out of mind and raw materials. Liberals only take control of existing processes for the good of the many. Sarah Palin represents an ideology of reasoned management guided by philosophic principles. And that is a direct and fundamental attack on the feelings-based liberal investment in the communal hive.


1 Comment »

  1. […] What Does Sarah Palin Stand For? « Punchinello's Chronicles […]

    Pingback by Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas at Mazda Z engine — July 10, 2009 @ 2:14 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: