Understanding Sarah Palin's Appeal

Sometimes, I encounter something I just don't completely understand. Something I can't totally get my head around. For example, I know a lot of people watch "So You Think You Can Dance" and "Dancing With the Stars". Why? I have no idea. I can't possibly imagine why anyone would want to watch either of those shows, but there they are every week, someone must be watching (and don't tell me it's dancers or people who used to dance. I used to play basketball, it doesn't make me want to watch Tom Delay play basketball). Another example, I don't like onions. I know people who love onions, on a burger, in onion rings, my little sister is a huge fan of the awesome blossom. Every time I accidentally bite into an onion, I wonder how anyone could possibly enjoy that flavor (sometimes i hear people say onions are sweet, I've never tasted a sweet onion in my life, maybe my taste buds are broken).

Usually, I don't care about these little things, people enjoy what they enjoy, and I don't, and that's fine. But sometimes this happens with relatively important things. I'm fairly convinced Sarah Palin is going to run for president in three years, that's important, and yet I can't understand what anyone sees in her. Not that she's unlikeable personally, but I feel like, based on what we currently know about her, the number of people who want her to be the president should be zero. And yet, the actual number of people who want her to be the president is considerably higher than zero. So, I feel like I need to understand this. Why are people so excited about the almost one-term Governor of Alaska as a national candidate?

I've heard people suggest that conservatives (in particular, social conservatives) are excited about her level of ideological purity. I don't buy this. For one thing, there are plenty of conservatives who are at least as ideologically pure as Sarah Palin. How do I know this? Because I see them on TV every night agreeing with every word she says. Why don't millions of conservatives want Bill Kristol or Ann Coulter to be the next president? Also, am I the only one who gets uncomfortable when a leading political party starts talking so much about any kind of purity? I hope not, I actually heard a Republican on TV the other day use the word "purge". Not good. So no, I'm not really buying the purity argument.

Is it just because she's relatively attractive? This one has some merit at first glance. Attractiveness is always relative, and when you compare Sarah Palin to other prominent women in politics, let's just say her stock doesn't go down. Also, I think a lot of people, when they picture Sarah Palin, actually picture Tina Fey, who is way cuter than her TV character is supposed to be. But this argument falls apart pretty quickly too. I'll go to the Ann Coulter well again. I'm sure some people think Ann's as attractive as other people think Sarah Palin is (I don't know any of them, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere). No one is pushing Coulter in 2012, at least I hope not. I've heard people suggest that Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is attractive, and nobody wants her to be the president (if you don't know who she is yet, you're just going to have to trust me, you don't want her in charge of anything, if you made a list of the craziest people in the U.S., she'd absolutely be in the top 10).

Also, I know attractiveness is always a positive accessory for politicians of both genders (look at John Edwards, apparently, he was a total sleazeball, but people thought he was a really good guy and I'd say it's because he kind of reminded them of Alex P. Keaton). Still, I'd like to think it's nothing more than that, just an accessory, something we appreciate in an otherwise good candidate, but not something that gets us behind otherwise meritless candidates. Am I giving America too much credit here? Maybe, but that doesn't really sound like something I'd do.

Maybe it's just because she's young and new and exciting. Like a shiny new ball of political energy. Umm, no. You've met the Republican party, right? This is the party that has recently given us Bob Dole and John McCain. Do any of the adjectives in that first sentence sound like anything Republicans generally get behind? No, no they don't.

I was lost on this issue, ready to give up. Then, last night, I heard something that pointed me in a new direction. Chris Matthews, who may be loud and obnoxious, but who's also right on target with political analysis more often then not, pointed out that he sees a lot of George W. Bush in Sarah Palin. At first, this may sound a little silly. He's an old guy from Texas, she's a relatively young woman from Alaska. He's from one of the most powerful families in America, she grew up in a pretty regular home. But actually, Matthews is dead on with this, here's how.

Both parties, when it suits them, have a certain anti-intellectual streak. It's one of the easiest ways to get votes. People always like candidates who they believe are like them in some way. Look around you for a second, go ahead, take a look. Do you see some stupid people? You bet you do. There's quite a bit of political advantage in convincing people that you're not some smarty-pants egghead who's better then them. George W. Bush did a great job at this in his first campaign. He was plain spoken, he didn't seem to know a lot of details about important things, but he seemed confident he had the gist of it. People really saw him as a regular guy.

The problem, usually, is that we know these politicians aren't really as dumb as they sometimes pretend to be. Take George W. Bush. He gets made fun of a lot for being stupid, acting stupid, using words that aren't actually words (this, by the way, was one of my favorite things about the former President, I say he was the Commander in Chief, and if he said it was a word, then it was a word). The truth is, he may not be as smart as we want a president to be, but there's a lot of room between smart enough to be the president and stupid. The guy has two Ivy League diplomas. He may not be a rocket scientist, but he's no backwoods yokel either, and he's smarter then most people. I think people generally understand this about most politicians, so there's always sort of an uneasy following of guys who go along with the anti-intellectualism, as if we're giving them credit for at least pretending to be like everyone else, but we know they aren't really.

This brings us back to Sarah Palin. I obviously don't know her personally, and I have no idea what she may really be like. She could be some kind of secret genius like Lauren Conrad in that Family Guy episode. But, from everything I've seen of her on TV and read about her, I've come to this conclusion. Sarah Palin might be an actual moron. Would a smart person think you could quit your job as Governor for no particular reason and still successfully run for president? (even Dick Morris said this was a bad idea, Dick Morris!) Would a smart person pick a fight with David Letterman, a guy with a nightly megaphone from which he can shout back at you and nothing to lose? Would a smart person, in the middle of a presidential campaign, do multiple interviews for which she wasn't prepared on basic issues?

My point is, there's politically useful dumb and there's actual dumb. While most politicians are the former, it's possible that Sarah Palin is the latter. Is dumb too mean? Fine, for those of you who are sensitive, you can use intellectually unremarkable. Either way, I think that's why some people are so excited about her. I was excited about Barack Obama because after years of trying to get excited about politicians who were pretending to be what I'm looking for in a candidate, I saw a guy who might actually be many of those things. I think some people feel the same way about Sarah Palin. After years of trying to get excited about politicians who pretend to just be regular, average, unremarkable folks, they see someone who might actually be one.

I'd wrap up by saying Democrats should be careful what they wish for if they're wishing for the Republicans to nominate Palin in 2012, but I just can't get myself there. I can't see her having to debate Barack Obama three times and still being able to win anything. When the last campaign ended, I thought maybe if she went back to Alaska for a couple of years, really got knowledgeable on some issues and came back with her charisma and charm coupled with some surprising policy chops, she'd be a real contender. Instead, she quit her job, wrote a book and went on Oprah. I don't get the sense she's spending a lot of time reading up on world issues or domestic policy proposals.

So, instead of telling Democrats to be careful, I'll tell Republicans to be careful. Because, if my theory is right, the two years of campaigning that starts in January of 2011 will get her base of supporters even more excited about her, but it'll give everyone else a chance to see what she really is. If Republicans don't find another candidate the rest of the party can rally around, they'll wind up with a nominee that can't possibly win. Look, I said at the beginning, I like Sarah Palin personally. During the VP debate last year, I remember commenting to a friend that Sarah Palin should get her own TV show, which I then quickly upgraded to her own TV network, she's incredibly entertaining. But if she wins the Republican nomination, the rest of the Republicans should probably find a better party to join. And if she somehow wins the presidency (let's say Barack Obama randomly decides to sell the Rocky Mountains to China, which they then immediately re-name the Rocky Maotains, that might do it) then we should all move to Norway. I may finally have a good theory to explain Sarah Palin's appeal, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.