This was a bad and unhelpful book.
It was not bad because it was simple. Goldwater (or his ghost) used fewer pages in Conscience of a Conservative and said more. It was not bad because it was autobiographical. Though I don’t like his politics, President Obama confessed more and said it better in Dreams from My Father. If you don’t believe that this book is bad, then read (really do!) Ronald Reagan’s autobiography Where’s the Rest of Me? Ronald Reagan showed more substance in his delightful book written mostly about his time as an actor than Palin shows in her four hundred pages.
Reagan (or his ghost) did not write a wonk book. It is very, very readable, but it wrestles with ideas even in the context of a film star career! It is not Plato, but it is interesting and makes you want to talk to the man who wrote it. There is a man behind the book, the Gipper is in every paragraph, but there is only a ghost of a personality in the corporate machine written Going Rogue.
The best you can say about this book is that it is forgettable and will be forgotten. It is a book-of-the-moment non-book meant to be purchased and given as a Christmas gift to conservatives. It is an utter waste of an opportunity for something better, but it is no worse than most political “memoirs” of its type.
It is better than Pelosi, but damning a person with that comparison is almost too cruel after what Palin has endured.
What are the ten things the book taught me?
First, Palin is a unique political talent, but her abilities do not extend to the written word. That is too bad, because our best politicians may use a ghost at times, but they also know words and do not fear them. Reagan is a great example of this. He could write. Of course, that does not mean she should not be President, but it does limit her.
Her publisher did not fact check this book well (if at all). She was badly served by her publisher and editor. People who criticize me for nit-picking her use of quotations miss the point. I am a fan . . . though now a weary one . . . and I found the errors. The publisher had to know that her critics would check every fact.
How can I in a single day with no help find error after error when I am no writer, no editor (as this blog post indicates), and no specialist?
Second, Sarah Palin has not grown in the year since the election. Those of us who hoped that Palin had been “hidden” by the campaign know the truth now. She still is what she was.
She is smart, but not book-smart. She has common sense, but not practical wisdom. These are not fatal flaws, but she shows no signs of changing or recognizing them.
Third, Palin uses four hundred pages to give her side of things, but I am still at a loss to describe her political or governing philosophy in any detail. President Obama is sickening us all on the academic as commander-in-chief. She is the opposite of President Obama, but the opposite of excess is defect and not virtue. Again, Reagan wrote a breeze easy autobiography from which you could discern a serious man, so I did not want a dissertation, just a better book.
There is plenty of intellectual real estate between this book and a dissertation in which she could have settled.
Fourth, Palin has the makings of a splendid executive and is a gifted speaker. She could learn what she needs to know, but my fear after reading this book is that she does not care to learn it.
The book is not intellectually roguish, but intellectually rougish. It covers up something with the appearance of health, but we are left to wonder what is being covered up.
Fifth, Palin was an effective mayor and governor. McCain destroyed that promise with his doomed campaign. This is another reason to curse the 2008 election.
Sixth, Palin is most effective in new media because the way it is typically used plays to her strengths. However, it also encourages her weaknesses as it tends to build a like minded community with too little criticism and allows her to stick to sound bites and generalities.
Seventh, Palin uses books as entertainment, to get information, and to confirm beliefs. I see no evidence she reads as an intellectual adventure or to change her mind. This is dangerous in a political leader as it tends to make leadership personality driven rather than idea driven.
Eighth, Palin is sensitive to the charge she is “dumb,” but has not been given the tools or the teachers who can help her. (Has she sought them out?) She needs teachers who assume her intelligence, who challenge her, and speak her Evangelical language. Such teachers (see Moreland, J.P.) exist and she should seek them out.
Ninth, Palin has been abused by the culture and is justifiably hurt and enraged.
Tenth, if Palin does not run for President, then all of this is much ado about little. She seems a splendid person who has lived a remarkable life, even if this book did nothing much to help us see this truth.
Sadly, I now believe the burden of proof has shifted. While an excellent chief executive in Alaska, there is reason to believe that Palin lacks the intellectual skills needed to be an effective President. Most important, she does not seem to recognize this and shows no sign of getting them.
I have not given up on Palin and find much in her to admire, but she would not get my primary vote based on this book and what I know about her to date. I hope I am wrong and am open to changing my mind.
She has more promise than any Republican candidate I can name and I still have hopes for Sarah Palin, but hope needs substance or it becomes a disillusioned faith.
Related posts:
November 28th, 2009 | 10:58 pm | #1
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by RobbieSagers, Atticus Stryker. Atticus Stryker said: The Palindrones & Tea Beggars still flocking to see @sarahpalinusa but the hard core Cons giving up on her http://ow.ly/GDYz #p2 #tcot #ocra [...]
November 29th, 2009 | 3:13 am | #2
November 29th, 2009 | 6:59 pm | #3
Wow! As an Alaskan who knows Palin & her political background & ambitions well, congratulations on your insightful & analytically accurate description of our former governor. While most conservatives are loathe to admit Palin’s weaknesses, you have courageously recognized the truth. I hope your words will resonate and spread so that others will reconsider that while they may personally be fans & love her, she is ill-equipped and personally disinterested in the magnitude of knowledge and skills it requires to run a country. If she is allowed to continue and goaded into running, she’ll be nothing more than a sacrificial lamb. Good work.
November 29th, 2009 | 7:29 pm | #4
You should have jumped to #10 and eliminated the first nine. Palin has bigger things in store for this country than running for President.(hopefully). If not a Senator then keep beating the drum and schmoozing the base.
November 29th, 2009 | 7:32 pm | #5
Negatrive reviews that lack concrete examples are worthless. If you found countless errors in the book, let’s see the list.
November 29th, 2009 | 7:41 pm | #6
Care to elaborate on what those bigger things are, or is it a big secret?
November 29th, 2009 | 7:45 pm | #7
I totally agree with NC Mountain Girl. Cite facts, not standoffish opinion. The article expresses jealousy, not reasoning
November 29th, 2009 | 7:46 pm | #8
I love Palin but agree that she hasn’t earned my 2012 primary vote thus far. I’d like to see her serve a term in the US Senate – that could do it for me. She has plenty of time.
November 29th, 2009 | 8:11 pm | #9
http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2009/11/rogue-thoughts-chapter-by-chapter-on-sarah-palin/
Wow NC Mountain Girl, etc- he does list the errors, chapter by chapter in the post mentioned at the end of this Review- called- Related posts: 1. Rogue Thoughts: Chapter by Chapter on Sarah Palin
It is easy to spot- its right at the end of the article and above the Comments thread.
Guess he did exactly what you say he didn’t
November 29th, 2009 | 8:21 pm | #10
“Ninth, Palin has been abused by the culture and is justifiably hurt and enraged.” Oh, really? Mrs. Palin has catapulted to the top echelon of celebrity and earning potential with very little effort on her part. She’s American Idol without the talent or the work ethic. A true American can-do woman with nary a what or a why in sight. I’d say she’s been well served by “the culture”.
November 29th, 2009 | 9:18 pm | #11
You see NC Mountail Girl and Ric is what is wrong with America.
Everybody spouts off without doing the work. (Just like Palin).
Read the whole article and the supporting pieces.
It’s there.
November 29th, 2009 | 9:44 pm | #12
This article from the Alaska Daily News looks carefully at detail in “Going Rogue” and concludes it is, at best, poorly remembered.
http://alaskadispatch.com/news/politics/3059-palin-hunting-devils-in-the-details?showall=1
November 29th, 2009 | 10:36 pm | #13
[...] Sarah Palin’s book Going Rogue when a self-professed fan (though now a weary one, he says) begins his review with the above quote. Add to the ignominy the fact that the review appears in the religious [...]
November 29th, 2009 | 11:25 pm | #14
[...] Heckuva post, Brownie! [...]
November 29th, 2009 | 11:32 pm | #15
Well done with the veiled Obama critique in the last phrase!
November 30th, 2009 | 2:27 am | #16
This is the most intellectually honest review of Going Rogue I have read anywhere. Conservatism can do better than Sarah Palin.
November 30th, 2009 | 2:30 am | #17
[...] via Done at Last: Ten Final Thoughts on Palin and “Going Rogue” » Evangel | A First Things Blog. [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 3:44 am | #18
If Palin was such an “effective governor,” why did she quit? Was she lazy, greedy, or cowardly?
November 30th, 2009 | 6:04 am | #19
The opposite of excess is not “defect,” it is “deficiency.” You, too, could use an editor.
November 30th, 2009 | 9:14 am | #20
I have a lot of respect for the writer of this post. I doubt we would agree on that many issues, but the only way we are all going to move forward is to have honest, thoughtful, intellectual discussions about the issues we’re facing. Thank you for this.
November 30th, 2009 | 11:03 am | #21
As far as I can tell from reading Mr. Reynolds entire review of “Going Rogue”, in a book “riddled with errors”, the only errors identified by Mr. Reynolds are quotes ostensibly from Plato and Aristotle. While that clearly set him off on a bad foot with the author, I don’t think I could consider that “riddled.” The book was neither literary masterpiece nor party platform. It did a good job of explaining where Sarah Palin is coming from, both figuratively and literally, and I think that was its only purpose.
I would like Palin’s policy statements to become more nuanced, and perhaps we will see that from her as she adds policy wonks to her team. But she is not a policy wonk and never will be. Political leadership in this day and age does not require such wonkery; if it did, Hillary Clinton would now be president. Rather, people need to know that their leaders understand them and their problems, and will make a genuine and competent effort to help them solve those problems. Palin can do this.
Mr. Reynolds made many positive statements about Palin and her writing in the course of this book review, despite his dismissive conclusion that this is a bad book, leading me to believe that Mr. Reynolds simply chooses to emphasize the bad. That is his right. But he also must know that Palin’s critics are by and large not so rational, and will seize upon any negative opinion of Palin or her book produced by a conservative. It might be better for the conservative cause to spend more time explaining why she isn’t as bad as is widely thought. My $0.02.
November 30th, 2009 | 11:21 am | #22
“The book is not intellectually roguish, but intellectually rougish. It covers up something with the appearance of health, but we are left to wonder what is being covered up.”
Lovely turn of phrase! I look forward to reading more posts on your blog.
November 30th, 2009 | 11:42 am | #23
Sadly, she has grown, but the reviewer has shrunk, it was a bitter, meanspirited critique, that is not worthy of Richard John Neuhaus’s
imprimatur. It is a review designed to get people not to read the book ito let the lies from the campaign fester, and contaminate the body politic. David Axelrod, couldn’t have asked for a better effort
November 30th, 2009 | 12:22 pm | #24
to alwaysfiredup: In my opinion, it’s Palin’s rabid followers, not her critics, who are “by and large not so rational.” To each his own.
November 30th, 2009 | 12:45 pm | #25
No, I would like to see actual evidence, of the shortcomings you attribute to her, there is little sign that the book was actually read, but it may have blurbed second hand. Her religious convictions are denigrated, her actual public policy achievements are downgraded, the irresponsible nature of this whole project, has of course drawn the trolls. It is a very dissapointing effort
November 30th, 2009 | 2:02 pm | #26
[...] negative review of Going Rogue by John Mark Reynolds. Posted in Politics | No Comments » Leave a [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 2:07 pm | #27
[...] Writes John Mark Reynolds for First Things: Sadly, I now believe the burden of proof has shifted. While an excellent chief executive in Alaska, there is reason to believe that Palin lacks the intellectual skills needed to be an effective President. Most important, she does not seem to recognize this and shows no sign of getting them. [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 4:17 pm | #28
“…but she shows no signs of changing..” – changing to what?
“Third, Palin uses four hundred pages to give her side of things, but I am still at a loss to describe her political or governing philosophy in any detail.” – WOW! Mr. Reynolds, did you read the book? You can find the answers to you lost question starting from page 69.
“Fifth, Palin was an effective mayor and governor.” – you just answered you own question about her governing philosophy.
November 30th, 2009 | 4:20 pm | #29
You’re at a loss to describe her political or governing philosophy in any detail? Did you read the book? I don’t think you did because it quite clearly emphasizes that she’s for smaller government among many other things.
Making that statement indicates to me you didn’t read the book. Or if you did, you sure as heck didn’t sweat that comprehension part.
November 30th, 2009 | 4:22 pm | #30
Except for one snarky uninformed woman, a fair program. I do find it rather odd, that even the uber liberal BBC can have a reasonable discussion about Sarah Palin without going off the deep end. As opposed to the domestic Palin haters found here in the US. Where the misogynist and sexiest lamestream media and many posters, prefer to publically rape her, verbally and in print.
Sarah Palin Million Seller book Going Rogue BBC Reports
(part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QlOd5nA7f8&feature=player_embedded
(part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcyUq_-mq2o&feature=player_embedded
November 30th, 2009 | 4:35 pm | #31
While JMR has a right to his opinion. She doesn’t have practical wisdom? Isn’t that the same as common sense.
She’s not book smart? What were you looking for in this book, a bibliography of all that she has read? I’m sure she isn’t as well read as you, but you are also a seminary prof. What proof do you have to offer about her use of books?
As far as how she would govern and what her policies are did you skip over the chapters regarding her time as mayor, oil regulator and governor? It’s a constant thread throughout the entire book.
While some of your critique is fair, I’m afraid it reveals more about you than it does her book.
You come off sounding haughty.
November 30th, 2009 | 4:39 pm | #32
“Those of us who hoped that Palin had been ‘hidden’ by the campaign know the truth now. She still is what she was.”
Heck, I could’ve told you that even without reading the book. (I’m finishing it now, and coming away with a very different impression.) It happens to be the reason why many of us love her: because she is what she is, no ifs, ands, buts, or smokescreens about it. She doesn’t pretend to be a perfect and holy Messiah like *some* politicians, but she is honest about who she is and what she believes. While opponents were frantically digging for what she REALLY thought and REALLY meant and REALLY did, the truth was there on the surface all along.
And that’s worth something in this Age of Obama.
November 30th, 2009 | 4:51 pm | #33
I thought the essay itself was insightful and honest in its assessment of Sarah Palin but found the chapter by chapter analysis of the book’s short comings to be nit picking to a fault . No doubt each criticism has merit but the sum total seems to have , as at least a significant part of its motivation, a desire to convince us not of Palin’s or her book’s intellectual depth but of the author’s gifts in that area. I guess she should be grateful that John Mark Reynolds thought she was ” she was an excellent chief executive in Alaska” even if he finds her, at present, lacking the “intellectual skills” he, as an expert on Plato, obviously possesses in abundance. Let’s agree that both Palin and Reynolds need work; she could use some intellectual tuning and he a touch of humility. Then again, maybe he and I should try practicing charity as an advent exercise.
November 30th, 2009 | 5:09 pm | #34
To narciso @#25: Thanks to John Mark Reynolds for holding an open and unbiased comments section for all opinions to be expressed.
It’s not for us commentors to label one another as “trolls” or to insult one another, as “Dustin” did in JMR’s previous blog entry (where JMR critiqued “Going Rogue” chapter by chapter). I was quite dismayed, in fact, at Dustin’s vituperative diatribes at so many other commentors, but I certainly applaud JMR’s choice to allow Dustin to have his say.
There are a number of pro-Palin websites, TeamSarah.org and Conservatives4Palin.com, to name two (but there are numerous sites set up by fans), as well as Palin’s own Facebook page, and the universal characteristic of ALL OF THEM seems to be that only positive or laudatory (and/or virulently anti-Obama) comments are allowed — no negative, questioning or differing comments, which are deleted and the poster banned or blocked.
If that kind of censorship is a precursor of the amount of freedom of speech that would be allowed in this country if Sarah Palin were elected President, and she appointed folks like those who run these pro-Palin sites to positions of power, then I fear for those of us who think she’s not fit to rule, er…lead.
Point of fact: Palin just recorded a 2-minute video praising her “patriot friends” at Conservatives4Palin, and the author of that blog, Rebecca Mansour, is working closely with Palin now, so there’s the foundation for my suspicions.
—————-
One thing more: JMR, have you gone over to Palin’s Facebook page on even an occasional basis and perused the comments by Palin’s “friends”? Or gone to the other two sites I named, every so often to read comments?
Sarah Palin doesn’t scare me anywhere NEAR as much as the faceless people who are guiding her through her post-resignation private/public life, and these people who “let it all hang out” at her fan sites.
November 30th, 2009 | 6:27 pm | #35
This is perhaps the only honest and fair review of her book that I’ve read, and I’m especially impressed that it’s by a supporter. I read sites from all political spectrums, but any site that cannot discuss Palin’s weaknesses (or Obama’s, or Romney’s, etc.) as a politician, a writer, and a public figure has no credibility.
Conservatives4Palin is a prime example. That kind of blind adulation actually does her a disservice because it sets up her supporters as mere fanatics, not as thoughtful people with something useful to contribute. Her defensiveness and her unwillingness to engage with anyone who isn’t already a supporter also contributes to the image of her as weak and unprepared. Her numerous potshots at Alaskans, many of them former allies, have also not done her any favors here, and they leave the impression that befriending or supporting her is perilous, at best.
The lack of substantial policy discussion in her book is especially disappointing from someone who regularly criticizes those who chose to stay in office under difficult circumstances. Invoking Ronald Reagan repeatedly is not enough. Any original ideas for contemporary problems? That’s what I’m looking for, and I don’t see it from her. It’s too bad. She had a lot of promise, and so far she hasn’t delivered. I suspect that now that she’s a wealthy celebrity, she won’t.
November 30th, 2009 | 6:47 pm | #36
In 1972 I had a similar reaction to Ronald Reagan when I first heard him speak, listened to his q and a then attended a semi private briefing. I thought him shallow, simple minded and lacking energy. I was wrong about the first two. I wish he had pursued his domestic agenda with more energy. Governor Palin has the energy and fortunately many of the same simple minded views. I thought her book showed her as innocent and too trusting, I doubt she’ll be that three years from now. Some of her interviews cause a cringe now and then, as did some of the miss-quotes in her book. But these are important only because they will be used against her. Let’s see what she learns in the next two years. If not enough to win the Presidency, then let’s try to talk her into taking over OMB. It’s her back bone I most admire. If you’ve been in these circles, its basic understanding of power, fundamental principles and back bone that matters, not subtle handling of abstractions.
November 30th, 2009 | 7:33 pm | #37
KarenJ — censorship?? You *are* familiar with King Barack’s hamfisted attempts to shut down all media outlets that refuse to grovel at his feet, are you not?
As a frequent poster at C4P, I’ve occasionally left comments there about Palin’s weaknesses — for instance, her habit of “burying the lead,” so to speak, when she answers a question. None of my comments has ever been “censored,” to my knowledge. Trolls are kicked out, honest critiques aren’t.
November 30th, 2009 | 7:57 pm | #38
Actually one of the rare things about sites like C4p, is that is meticulously footnoted, with actual links to budgets, the record of supposed library removals, (there were none), the advantages of policy positions like the AGIA line. She goes into nearly nauseating details about what she knows, which is tax policy (ACES) and the AGIA line
Whereas the opposition dwells in untraceable rumor and innuendo, (her son’s birth, her ‘inpending indictment’ back in July, the divorce rumors, back in August. Speculation about Obama’s own role in public policy, is founded on his own record of applying Alinskyite
tactics, like the secessionist rumor spread by an associate of Axelrod, how he cleared a path for his own Senate seat back in 2004, his record
of appointment associations, et al.
December 1st, 2009 | 10:37 am | #39
Reynolds’ frustration with the dishonesty of the book:
Mr. Reynolds’ misses the point. Lying helps Ms. Palin, it encourages her critics to report her dishonesty which helps feed Palinistas “evidence” that “far left liberals” hate Ms. Palin and will do anything to destroy her. Perhaps a dozen times I pointed out dozens of examples* of Ms. Palin telling whoppers, where I didn’t even depend on mainstream media reports, but instead used state and federal records, direct quotes from Sen. McCain, and even sources from the Right. Zero of these people were able to even consider these facts, my pointing out her honestly appeared to actually reinforce the idea that she distinguished herself with her honesty, the exact opposite of reality.
Mr. Reynold’s states:
She is smart, but not book-smart. She has common sense, but not practical wisdom.
Mind-blowingly false. Ms. Palin is adept as positioning herself in a certain manner and it has carried her far beyond her capabilities. She is neither intelligent nor does she possess common sense, she is like a lotto winner who believes she earned her winnings, like Bush waking up on 3rd base thinking he hit a triple. She has proven to be both ambitious and almost totally without scruples. If she were smart she’d be able to speak and write articulately.
Mr. Reynold’s states:
Palin has the makings of a splendid executive . . .
Totally absurd. I don’t believe Ms. Palin would be able to gain an entry-level post-undergrad job at most world-class corporations, let alone become a supervisor, lower-level manager, middle-manager, director, or executive. This perspective comes from someone (me) who managed recruitment for these types of people up to and including director level. If the initial screener had delivered an interview subject to my team as incompetent as Ms. Palin proves every single time she opens her mouth or puts fingers to keyboard, I’d be considering firing the initial screener.
The one exception to my observation is that it is a fact that attractive people enjoy a halo effect that could very well get them through some hiring processes for lower-level jobs. However, I’m comfortable predicting she’d never last at any corporation that extended a lot of responsibility to its employees, let alone advance to an executive level. In fact I observed only four people in last year’s presidential primaries who obviously displayed executive skills: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. The latter two also had demonstrated executive skills, not merely showing aptitude.
Reynolds states:
[Palin] . . . a gifted speaker
Perhaps in certain tightly controlled venues. However, there is absolutely no way Ms. Palin could come out of a press conference unscathed or deliver a speech that would convince well-informed independent thinkers. All she has is shallow talking points and a posse that ignores her inability to speak coherently about any subject matter, which includes the duties she held as governor and on Alaska’s oil & gas commission.
Reynolds states:
Palin is sensitive to the charge she is “dumb,” but has not been given the tools or the teachers who can help her.
Is she a bed-ridden invalid who can’t communicate and can’t get her fanny to a library or bookstore? What an absurd statement. She’s dumb because she both is and is also because she’s willfully ignorant. In fact she’s aggressively ignorant. If she wanted to bone-up she’d have started that many years ago. In addition, she shows absolutely zero capability to study and learn. Forcing herself to go through coaching would only provide her with a more compelling set of talking points, any foundation underlying such talking points would still be non-existent or incapable of adapation to fit the actual environment.
Reynolds states:
While an excellent chief executive in Alaska
Either Mr. Reynolds shares Ms. Palin’s willingness to make statements based on ignorance or he’s depending on his readers’ ignorance regarding the fact that Ms. Palin was such a failure as governor much of her staff and the Alaska Republican party’s state legislators turned on her because of her incompetence. The fact is she got lucky entering office with rising oil prices, by the time she quit even she knew her governorship would result in failure if she remained through the end of her first term, either because she’d have to avoid vetoes by flip-flopping on her VP campaign talking points or having her principles vetoed even by her own party’s legislators.
*Amazon reader reviews – comments section
December 1st, 2009 | 11:08 am | #40
“Well done with the veiled Obama critique in the last phrase!”
Would that be the critique that accuses Obama of doing too little (hope but no ’substance’) or doing too much (‘excess’, point three)?
This is the crux of the complaint with Obama’s presidency. Conservatives have offered nothing but blank-eyed opposition, and assert whatever criticism is convenient to the moment. The only common component of these critiques is the veiled but rarely well-hidden religious pretext, the pretext that conservative equals religious, that Christians have the secret trumps, that our foreign policy should be Rapture-based, etc. At least First Things and the vile Neuhaus subversions of the our Constitution are reasonably open. Only problem with Palin, of course, is that she believes all that tripe and more, and is not nearly half clever enough to take the proper conservative routes to power–hide and dissemble on the theocratic questions in order to get elected, then act. Palin actually believes that a hidden majority of “real Americans” want another cabal of devious fake-Christians in power; she believes that the problems in the nation don’t exist or are but straws in the wind to an aroused Jesus. The nausea that this book has induced in the broad spectrum of thoughtful people, I hope, will doom not just her political fortunes but this entire brand of substanceless negative politics.
“You *are* familiar with King Barack’s hamfisted attempts to shut down all media outlets that refuse to grovel at his feet, are you not?”
Classic example. No evidence of such an effort is offered; it’s taken as a given in the arrogance of the asterisked rhetorical. In fact the previous president was very skilled at precisely this tactic, and the current one has (generally) resisted. Hyperbolic eliminationalist language, a claim to a higher power, the inverted overformal “are you not” to drive home the crisp clarity of a worldview of oppressed struggle…this from the traditional broad majority of christians, the aggrieved victims of election theft (who lost by a greater majority than Jimmy Carter in 1980), the tortured torturers, the bigoted victims of terrible religious bigotry. Sound familiar? Palin’s book is a cover-to-cover whinefest of blaming others for her own failures and weaknesses, a series if imagined Jesus ex Machina moments when her vitality and purity pull her chestnuts from the satanic fires set by her enemies. Her utter unsuitability for higher (or lower) office is the least obvious idea in the book. Frank, even proud detachment from reality is one; a sequence of highly questionable accounts of real events with legal significance is another. Worst, of course, is the brisk, enthusiastic unfamiliarity with even the most minor aspects of policy, governance, economics, political philosophy, the Constitution, and the history of the ignorant, poisonous, and violent populist tradition she now seeks to ride to power.
Lots of people are pleased to see a negative review of Palin’s dreadful book in a religious/conservative forum such as this one. I suppose I agree insofar as the more people who disdain Palin, the more likely we are to make progress against our many pressing problems. But it is praising with faint damning and overlooks, as we might expect of First Things, all of the terrible faults and cynical calculations that the book properly reflects back on this movement.
ice9
December 1st, 2009 | 5:03 pm | #41
Ice9, I was assuming everyone would be familiar with Anita Dunn & Co.’s vendetta against the Fox News Channel. Like it or hate it, I believe it’s hardly the president’s or his staff’s place to dictate what is an acceptable network and what isn’t — as, indeed, the other networks made clear.
December 1st, 2009 | 6:00 pm | #42
Gina @41:
And you are still demonstrating exactly what ice9 was talking about. That you don’t realize this, and that you ignore the rest of the post in its entirety, is rather telling.
December 1st, 2009 | 6:19 pm | #43
[...] at the website of conservative Catholic magazine First Things, John Mark Reynolds renders an exceptionally harsh (and, from the bits of it I have read, fully justified) judgement [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 8:04 pm | #44
I can admit to feeling a trifle uncomfortable with direct administration response to contrary news coverage…beginning with FDR, or Franklin Pierce, and definitely Jefferson. Separate argument, but it’s pretty shallow to assert that Barack Obama is some kind of narcissistic messianic pimp who is powerless despite being President, a fake Christian Muslin Communist who is at the same moment naive and devious, who hates the Constitution he taught about in a real college but doesn’t understand it, and who cheats and lies in plain view even though we can’t actually find any evidence of this because he wants to send us all to Dachau…and occasionally deigns to criticize his critics. Grovel? Get real.
Ice9
December 1st, 2009 | 8:48 pm | #45
I hope nobody says that sort of thing about our President here. Lies don’t benefit the cause. The President is doing things I don’t like and things that are bad for the country . . . and I am not going to vote for him. I don’t feel the need to go further than that.
December 2nd, 2009 | 9:12 am | #46
No, of course, one ignores Mark Lloyd’s effusive praise for Chavez’s ‘wonderful democratic revolution’, Van Jones, ‘give them the wealth’
Marxism, Dunn’s own bizarre praise of Mao, which seems misplaced, if anyone seemed to have the ‘commanding heights; it was Obama and his crew. We don’t need to lie, there own words convict them. Just remember that in his most candid moments, Obama has shown utter contempt for the whole idea of an institution like First Things, and the Manhattan declaration, which are an obstacle to his vision of ‘positive liberty.
Now your haphazard and myopic reading of a memoir, has encouraged the trolls and the plain ignorant, to heap undue contempt on a decent public servant, and has won you praise
from Andrew Sullivan, figure out how that balance squares
December 3rd, 2009 | 7:46 pm | #47
[...] chapter by chapter review of Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. his conclusions, which he summarizes here are similar to mine, an interesting result given that both of us were initially sympathetic to [...]
December 7th, 2009 | 3:02 am | #48
Wow! You found lots more errors than 11 AP fact checkers? But, you fail to mention a single one. Not a good beginning for readers who expect book reviewers to give evidence for their take on a work. Did you give a single quotation or even page citation from the book?
It’s a proper thing to disagree with another person’s positions, but you don’t do that. Instead you focus on Palin as a person and pronounce that she has “not grown” in a year. Now that takes a level of insight most uncommon.
You might want to give G K Chesterton’s “In Defense of Bores” a look for a view of how even the smartest of us can miss true value in another person.
I find Palin’s political philosophy fairly easy to understand. It’s woven all through the book in those sections where she talks about what she did while in office and why. But a very short, easy to read section touches on Sowell’s constrained and unconstrained visions. (pp. 385-386) That would be kind of a summary.
Of course, the book is an autobiography–not a political treatise. If you want a bit more insight on Palin’s political philosophy, you might try reading the pieces she has written for the Wall Street Journal or National Review–or looking over her record and statements as governor of Alaska.
But, your review is really not about the book or about Palin’s political philosophy. That’s why you don’t give a single fact or citation from the book.
This is a personal review. And most of us come up short when trying to judge another person. It’s a kind of God-like attribute to measure other people’s personal growth and abilities. Good luck on that.
December 7th, 2009 | 11:33 am | #49
Sarah strikes me as an empty headed prop who won a popularity contest at a small high school gymnasium by intimidating the other girls and romancing the administration. It looks like she bites the hand that feeds her as she turned on McCain the first chance she got – which was immediately.
That’s the kind of class and dignity we are looking for in a President (?) – Sorry Palin worshipers she may be a sociopath.
The President of the United States is a very serious job. Our spin doctors and campaign managers have turned it into a high school popularity contest, but in reality the stakes are much higher.
You can not govern by slogan. Look at the damage done by deregulating Wall Street. That move was promoted and championed because of two words “free market”. Nice concept but in the intricate world of market economies a complete fallacy. You can not govern by cute little slogans. “Trickle Down” has lead to the unconscionable concentration of wealth in 1% of the population through subsidies and give aways of our tax dollars to the corporate insiders who place their people in our government.
Granted its a costly game of brinkmanship, sloganeering and manipulation to get the population to vote one way or the other, but at the end of the day to the extent we relinquish control and fall prey to easy answers big corporate america runs the show.
And corporatist and corporate america are unqualified to govern the country because their focus is too singular on their particular profit margins. Great focus for a successful business but absolutely wrong and a severe lack of vision for guiding this huge country over the realities of our collective landscape.
The fruit of their electioneering of politics has created an us against them mentality among the citizens in our Country. And it has created an artificial out of touch ruling class that cares only for the acquisition of personal wealth. The reality is that we are all in this together. And if we don’t make room for one another there will be trouble no matter how right one group thinks they are over another.
That is hardly the Country we all want or aspire to and not the vision of the United States we all desire to see unfold. In short we are better than that.
While Sarah might be a fascinating soap opera of a character, fun to loath or root for she is only qualified for a People Magazine Cover in the same respect of a Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan – what will she do/say next escapade.
All of these new media celebrities are the same version of the same m.o. – say or do something shocking to get the world of rubber neckers gawking just like the well worn metaphor of a car wreck.
Whether Glenn Beck is crying or predicting something ludicrous or Rush is flame throwing and lambasting something even he doesn’t believe, or some new media celeb is releasing a sex tape – its all shock value in the mode and method Howard Stern used to get famous and rich.
That may be one way to achieve a personal goal of wealth and fame but that personality trait is absolutely the worst trait to reward in our politicians.
Good governance requires good citizenship an understanding of how our Country works as a Nation of laws, the intricacies of the market place and in getting along with other people who may not share your same views, culture, beliefs and habits. It requires a true patriotism not in name alone but a commitment to actually put the Country and the people first over individual gain, profit and popularity.
Forcing ones self and opinion down another’s throat doesn’t win you many friends. No matter how right you think you are its counter productive and tone deaf.
Creating a nation and world where we are “free to be” as long as we don’t hurt each other and live sustainably side by side is the goal. Jumping up and down screaming my way or the highway leads to bloodshed.
I would put forth that if you aren’t living by these two rules of thumb “live and let live” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – it is you no matter what bible you are carrying or what uniform you are wearing that is doing the wrong thing.
That’s Pollyanna thinking for the Alpha Dogs like Palin but in actuality the alpha dogs are the ones who are clueless when it comes to anything other than their own selfish- self interest.
That kind of self absorbed me first focus might be good for ones bottom line but it’s one helluva lousy way to “govern” a Country.
North Korea goes rogue not the President of the United States.
Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home
December 7th, 2009 | 2:57 pm | #50
Forgive a non-Christian liberal from intruding here. I just wanted to say I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post. Mr. Mark and I will never agree on most issues, but it’s nice to be disagreed with in an intellectually honest manner. This is something both the Right and the Left have pretty much forgotten how to do.
I won’t attempt to rebut the many points on which I disagree. I must, however, strenuously object to Mark’s assertion that he is “not a writer”.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact