Sarah Palin's Pavlovian response

Whatever Palin's defenders may cry, her troubles don’t stem from ideology, misogyny, or snobbery but from personality. To run for national office is to have shots fired constantly at oneself and one's family. To win is to master the art of whether, when, and how to fire back. If Palin can't restrain herself from attacking a teenager who is painfully well placed to attack her back, she is not getting anywhere near the White House.

Friday, April 17, 2009
Sarah Palin's Pavlovian response

Tish Durkin

Tish Durkin

Relax, everybody. Sarah Palin is never going to be president. The reason is both fundamental and obvious: She always takes the bait.

Recently confronted with the news that Levi Johnston, the 18-year-old father of her grandchild, had appeared on the Tyra Banks Show chatting about having had sex with Bristol Palin under the abstinence-advocating governor's roof, Palin basically had three options:

1. No comment on a private family matter.
2. “Of course I wish Levi hadn't done this, but he's still the father of my grandchild, and we all have to work together to bring up that beautiful baby.”
3. Publicly trash the little cad, magnifying the story and setting her family up for long-term conflict with Levi’s while—worst of all—making Palin seem much less eager to protect the baby than to whack his father.

Response No. 1 or No. 2 would have kept the story to a minimum and even flattered Palin through the contrast of her classy silence with Johnston's tacky spilling.

Characteristically, she went with No. 3. Game over.

Whatever Palin's defenders may cry, her troubles don’t stem from ideology, misogyny, or snobbery but from personality. To run for national office is to have shots fired constantly at oneself and one's family. To win is to master the art of whether, when, and how to fire back. If Palin can't restrain herself from attacking a teenager who is painfully well placed to attack her back, she is not getting anywhere near the White House. And while she needn't swear off exploiting her family—what politician would?—she does need to get a whole lot more subtle about it.

Palin is hardly the first politician to sell herself as a wonderful family person, and perhaps she is just that. But even more than for other public figures—including other female politicians—Palin’s family is a mixed political blessing. It is the key to her appeal but also a question mark.

This is not due to the headline-grabbing features of her household. It is because, so far, it is in the context of dealing with public revelations about her private life that Palin has expressed her most troubling personal quality—the almost Pavlovian inclination to react without thinking.

Looking back, it didn't bother me that she had a Down syndrome infant and a pregnant teenage daughter. It bothered me, a little, that she acquired both at about the same time and yet—by her own initial account, subsequently altered—she didn't think twice about adding a run for the vice presidency to her chores. (And yes, I would have had the same feeling about a similarly situated male candidate if he were running as the ultimate dad.)

Likewise, it didn't bother me that her daughter's pregnancy failed to reverse Palin's views on abstinence-only education; it bothered me that it seemed not to have occasioned the slightest flicker of doubt in her mind about those views. (Granted, when running for governor,  she did waffle on the abstinence-only question -- but that was politically expedient, not personally thoughtful.) Even now, it doesn't bother me that she wants to shred Levi Johnston for blabbing, which is an entirely normal impulse. But it bothers me a lot that she went ahead and did it—with maximum publicity.

After all, this young man will remain a powerful presence in the life of her daughter and grandson and she only recently portrayed him as her admirable, salt-of-the-earth, son-in-law-to-be. Politically, it couldn't matter less what kind of mother Palin truly is. But it couldn't matter more what kind of mother she seems to be. And increasingly, what she seems to be is craven.

No single such example should be a deal-breaker. And we can debate forever whether any such examples ought to count. But somewhere in that ill-defined yet decisive area of the gut where voters either warm up to or go cold on a candidate, they do count. And in aggregate, they're counting against her.

If this sounds like an attack on female ambition, it's not. On the contrary, I think all women, whatever their politics, should appreciate the way Palin wears her ambition—like a fabulous, flowing cape, not the usual hair shirt. At last, we have a wife-mother-politician—better yet, a right-wing Christian wife-mother-politician—who expresses not a drop of guilt about fitting herself into her own life. Whether by dint of her generation or her nature, Palin clearly feels no need to resort to the tiresome lament, previously required, about how dreadfully torn she feels because whenever she is at work she isn't at home and vice versa. Hallelujah! For that alone, women should cheer her hour upon the national stage.

Not that she's about to make an exit. At least through 2012, Palin will be a fact of political life. And if she stays true to form, she will greet each controversy, personal or political, with her trademark feistiness. Her supporters will love it. The media will love it. Most of all, her political opponents will love it. Because the more that Sarah Palin acts like a pistol, the less she looks less like a president.

Show: Oldest | Newest

11 Comments

Posted by -dan z-, Thursday, June 18, 2009, 1:15 pm Tish Durkin's bio at the end of this piece show her to be a leftliberal writer. As such, she would not be expected to get that most Americans do not appreciate kids bragging to the world how they got away with something under the parent's noses. To Durkin, it is perfectly fine for the kid to do this, but not for Palin to be upset about it. Too bad the same thing hasn't happened to Durkin. She might be more understanding.

Posted by HeliHand, Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:13 am What an asinine view Dan. Did you miss the entire point of the article? Do you really want someone who reacts like that in a public office? Someone who cares more about publicity and airtime than she does the wellbeing of her family? A leftliberal writer? LOL There ya go, start with the labelling. Tish probably pals around with terrorists too. And I'm trying to figure out what you mean by too bad the same thing hasn't happened to Ms. Durkin...you want her daughter to get pregnant outside of wedlock? Could you explain a bit there?

Posted by John Talleos, Friday, July 17, 2009, 9:37 pm To run for national office is to have shots fired constantly at oneself and one's family. This is wrong. No candidate ever had their children attacked till now. This is just a veiled attempt of excusing vociferous hatred from the left. Certainly to you Bill Clinton was poorly treated for the way he used his power to prey on a 19 year old intern and what he put HIS family through for the world to see. But in that instance Conservatives were the bad guy, right?

Posted by wikwox, Saturday, July 18, 2009, 10:05 am Sarah Palin is an Idiot Identifier. If you come across anyone who believes she's presidential materialand is not chumping you you've got a Grade A Idiot on your hands. Best to deflect them by exclaiming Hey! Glenn Beck is on! and make a quick exit.

Posted by HoneyBakedHam, Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 3:37 am iNo candidate ever had their children attacked till now./ipWelcome to the United States... Since you are new here, you might wanna brush up on the public ridicule the Bush daughters took for their public drunkeness. Rush Limbaugh attacked Chelsea Clinton at age 12 for being ugly. The Reagan kids got a share of face time in the press. Even Amy Carter got bruised a bit. pThe kids have always taken a few hits. The Palin kids have a disadvantage. Their mom painted targets on their backs.

Posted by HoneyBakedHam, Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 3:39 am Grrrr... comments work better when we can use basic HTML tags... :

Posted by eggman, Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 6:29 am To run for national office is to have shots fired constantly at oneself and one's family I would like to see the liberal idiots who constantly take shots at Palin to start taking shots at Michelle Obama and her 2 daughters. After all, aren't they fair game also? They never insulted Chelsea Clinton , Amy Carter or the Kennedy kids. What a bunch of a_holes.

Posted by EggBeater, Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 10:22 am Eggman? Rush Limbaugh made fun of Chelsea. He made fun of her for looking like a dog. He did it on his radio show. Before you throw the word a_hole around you better know your history.

Post a Comment

Tish Durkin »

Tish Durkin is a journalist whose work has appeared in publications including the New York Observer, the Atlantic Monthly, the National Journal, and Rolling Stone. After extensive postings in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, she is now based in ... Read Bio

November 27, 2009