Why Conservatives are OK with Palin Not Talking to the Media
Sep 25 at 2:02pm by Jagwire X
And why they think this is the Sign of a Strong Leader
Found on reddit and written by marko34. I don’t think I could have summed this up more concisely.
Smash Patriarchy?
I think you have to consider the CONSERVATIVE (not Republican) mindset.
Conservatives are interested in what’s called a “strict father” mentality. In this mentality, the strict father makes all the decisions, and whether or not you agree, or are familiar with the reasons behind the decisions, is beside the point. These are the decisions, live with them. Hence, “I’m the decider.”
This is why Conservatives go along with whatever their leaders tell them. They vote in their leaders/”fathers” based on personality & identification, and basically “trust” them (the leaders) to do whatever they think is right. If they (the voters) agree, great. If they don’t, it doesn’t matter. The voters granted their trust on election day, and that’s it.
From this, it follows that Conservatives aren’t interested in their candidate showing depth or competence. Look at George W. Bush! As long as s/he speaks to them in their “gut”, or if they personally identify with their candidate, that’s all that matters.
Following further on, in their view the press also can’t be trusted. It’s the “liberal media” remember?
So in absence of the press being important, or even relevant in their view, all that matters is speaking engagements. The more places that Sarah Palin can speak, the more she can rile up the base, and the more she can deliver those applause lines that speak to the “gut” rather than the brain, the better. Hence the Bush-like “loyalty rallies.”
This in no way has anything to do with her being a strong leader. It’s all in service of propping up her “image” to the base, and speaking to their mindset. I can assure you, the McCain campaign will do NOTHING that isn’t necessary that will risk shattering her image to the base (which would basically be putting her in a position which she might demonstrate weakness or lack of certainty, like answering unpredictable press questions).
It’s only the rest of us, the reasoning, thinking people, that these things are important to.
It remains to be seen, then, if the independents are going to buy into this, if they’ll react to the “strict father” authoritarian mentality, or if they’ll be convinced to think differently.
You can make a difference, btw, by writing to a news outlet of your choice and DEMANDING that they ask her questions. Put pressure on the news outlets, not the candidate. She ain’t listening.
[NOTE: By "Conservative" I am referring to a subset of the Republican party. Not fiscal or social conservatives, but a radical authoritarian wing and its followers that has gained control of the party over the past few years/decades. They call themselves "Conservatives", having stolen the term from true conservative people. So that is the term I use. It also contrasts philosophically with the term "Progressive". Just in case this is still on the front page tomorrow and people are curious about my use of terminology. If you know a better term, for example Robert Reich uses 'radcon' to mean "Radical Conservative", I'm all in favor of it.]
[NOTE 2: Yes in some ways this can apply to some members of the Democratic party, as well. Or ANY party, really. We all have the "strict father" mentality hardwired into our brains somehow. I am merely attempting to explain why Republicans/Conservatives are largely ok with it, because it is their primary active framework, and why, contrary to our intuition, it works for them.]
[NOTE 3: Credit where credit is due. These ideas are based on the brilliant work by George Lakoff, whose book "Don't Think of An Elephant" is a far better and more in-depth exploration of these topics.]
Looks like it’s a nice sucker’s buy in to the patriarchal Judeo-Christian mindset.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply