Sarah Palin, Oprah, and Cheers

I stayed up late watching a DVD, and when I turned off the television, Fox (Channel 2 here) was showing a Cheers episode. The title of the 1993 episode was "Woody Gets an Election." (Season 11, Episode 21) In this episode, Frasier convinces the hapless Woody Boyd--a genial but vacuous bartender--to run for City Council. Frasier's goal is to create an experiment proving voter ineptitude. Frasier first tells Sam Malone that a monkey could get 10% of the vote, but then tells Sam he'll go one better--he will bet that Woody Boyd can get 10% of the vote:

Look, all I'm saying is that when it comes to voting, people just shut off their brains. I submit we could put a chimpanzee on the ballot and garner ten percent of the vote.

Sam and Frasier make the bet, and we're off to the races. (Anti-Obama people will love Frasier's advice to Woody--just come up with something about "change," he says.) In the middle of the election, Frasier dreams that Woody will eventually move up in the political ranks, become president, and then blow up the entire world. Waking from his nightmare, Frasier convinces Woody to drop out of the race. Even though Woody tells the public he is quitting the race, he wins the election anyway when his wife announces she is pregnant. After Woody's successful election, a despondent, guilt-ridden Frasier believes he has brought about the extinction of the human race as we know it.

As I am watching this episode, I flip to another channel. It's a repeat of Sarah Palin's interview yesterday with Oprah. I keep watching the Cheers episode, and I start wondering whether I've swallowed the red pill ("You take the blue pill--the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill--you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."). I soon realize art is imitating life.

Some of Woody's comments could match up identically with Sarah Palin's words--just switch "hockey mom" with "farmboy" to eliminate the gender issue, and then go watch the Cheers episode. For example, Woody says plenty of folksy stuff about cleaning up city hall--he says he just knows what's on the farm, and as a simple farmboy, he wants to clean up the rats, because with the rats, you won't have a barn. The reporter--who later plays Roz on Frasier's own show--walks away, saying she's never heard such corny stuff, but she's inclined to believe Woody can pull it off. I started thinking about Sarah Palin's anti-corruption campaign promises and her folksy sayings, and the similarities between Sarah Palin and Woody stunned me.

In case you're wondering, Sarah Palin did a decent job in the Oprah interview. She came across as a nice, active mom who loves her family--just like the Woody character comes across as a decent, nice guy who loves his wife. As I watched the interview, I realized Sarah Palin believes that being a decent person is enough to run for office. In other words, if you're not a liar, not evil, and you believe in God, why can't you do good things in public office? It's sort of like asking,"Why can't Woody Boyd represent Boston well?"

Anything's possible, right? Except that these days, being a politician requires more than just being a good person. It means being able to interpret and write good laws. It means being smart enough to understand the intricacies of various legal procedures. It means having more than basic knowledge of American history and economics. It means being able to juggle special interests--public sector unions, corporations, small businesses, etc.--with doing what's right for the people. (San Jose Councilmember Pete Constant needs to do a better job in this regard. As an ex-cop, he did the police union's bidding and voted against government transparency, and then seems to have given me a bogus reason for voting against it. For more, see here).

Now, Sarah Palin might believe she can hire staff members who can handle all the tough, tedious details for her. But the culture of any institution starts at the top. If the leader lacks understanding and direction when it comes to details, the entire organization will eventually get sloppy. We've already seen that phenomenon with George W. Bush: someone interprets a Rumsfeld memo to mean that torturing detainees is perfectly fine. The CIA starts torturing the wrong people and then instead of coming clean, it tries to cover up its mistakes. Instead of complying with reasonable information requests, the DOJ starts finding technical reasons to deny them. And so on. We've already seen what happens when a nice, decent person gets into office. It's a total disaster. After experiencing the George W. Bush years, why would anyone listen to Sarah Palin? She's got as much credibility as Woody Boyd.

Fittingly, the final scene of the Cheers episode shows a nuclear bomb exploding. (Matt "She's Going to Have the Nuclear Codes" Damon would be proud.)

Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits

Good Riddance: Peggy Rips Palin a New One

Someone finally summarizes why Sarah Palin is the wrong choice for the Republican Party...and it's a Republican! I've always liked Peggy Noonan's common sense--it's something the GOP desperately needs right now:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html

[Palin] was not thoughtful...she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough...[s]he is a ponder-free zone...

For national elections, the Republican Party needs to attract more than just religious conservatives to win. Remember: most Americans now live in large cities, a group that is less Christian and more diverse and not particularly attracted to someone like Sarah Palin.

If the Republican Party wants to have any hope of winning national elections, it should ask Palin to create a religiously-inclined third party or handle Midwestern/Southern GOP fundraising efforts. At the same time, the GOP should cast out anyone within its ranks who does not adamantly support the separation of religion and state. Basically, unless Republicans re-affirm the Goldwater/Eisenhower philosophies--limited government and limited interference in other countries' affairs--it will have a tough time winning over voters in metropolitan areas. With these voters, the GOP cannot win the presidency as long as the electoral college system exists.

Ms. Noonan is trying to help the Republican Party. Republicans disregard her advice at their own risk.

Dick Armey's Conservatism

In today's WSJ (11/7/08, A17), Richard "Dick" Armey correctly pinpoints the problem with McCain's campaign--a failure to communicate convincing pride in individualism and small government:

The modern Republican Party has risen above its insecurities to achieve political success [in the past]. [We] understood that big government was cruel and uncaring of individual aspirations. Small government conservatism was, by definition, compassionate--offering every American a way up to self-determination and economic prosperity. Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 because voters no longer saw Republicans as the party of limited government. They have since rejected virtually every opportunity to recapture this identity...The evidence suggests we are still a nation of pocketbook conservatives most happy when government has enough respect to leave us alone and to mind its own business.

The last line is pure poetry. Unfortunately, Dick Armey has the fatal flaw of many Republicans--cultural myopia, which has led him to make insensitive statements against minorities. Cultural insularity was a major problem in McCain's campaign and especially in its VP choice, because unless Republicans convince Americans they stand for more than just quota-type diversity, their ranks will not grow. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Arizona audience for McCain's concession speech, and compare its diversity with the people in Grant Park and worldwide who supported Obama. The United States has changed demographically, but the Republicans seem oblivious.

Cultural insularity is the main reason Sarah Palin was such a controversial choice. Picking her meant the Republican Party consciously closed itself to independents who didn't favor a robust Christianity or who valued intellectualism. Palin famously refused to specify what she read (see Couric interview) and admitted she hadn't traveled much outside of North America before her VP nomination (see Gibson Interview, 9/13/08). But Palin aside, the Republicans desperately need a plan that will make them more attractive to people in larger cities, who tend to be less religious and more diverse. The solution is simple: if Republicans want to beat the Democrats, they must agree to advocate smaller government, lower taxes, and more legal immigration.

The failure to have a coherent immigration policy doomed the Republicans and will continue to doom them as long as they are viewed as a white, Christian party. This is because the electoral college system favors states that attract the most immigrants (or whose residents have the most children). For instance, despite winning only 53% of the popular vote, Obama won around 70% of the vote that matters, the electoral college vote. He won by focusing on diverse, larger cities, and he prevailed even though he received only 30% of working-class white votes. In short, Obama won because he understood that a vote in California is worth more than a vote in Alabama.

Assuming the electoral college system continues, sensitivity to legalized immigration and ethnic and religious diversity will be necessary to win the White House. Every single state with more than 19 electoral votes has either a large immigrant population or is not majority white. Meanwhile, many Republican strongholds, like Alabama and Kentucky, are experiencing depopulation or are sustaining population levels mainly because of foreign immigration. In fact, without immigrants and their children, America would have a negative population growth rate. Assuming naturalized citizens favor legal immigration and do not agree that Christianity is the only path to morality, any continued attempt to support Sarah Palin or persons like her as representative of the Republican Party will exclude immigrants and residents in mega-cities.

Still Pro-Palin? Look at a sample of mega-cities, like Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, San Jose, San Francisco, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia--in all those cities, the white, presumably Christian population is a plurality, not a majority. Outside of Texas, guess how many cities with over a million residents are majority white? Only one--Phoenix, Arizona--and the Republicans already tried winning with that hometown hero.

If you continue to disagree that a pro-immigration, non-religious platform is necessary for the Republicans to recapture the White House, you should study Santa Clara County and North Carolina. Both are microcosms of America in terms of changing demographics.

In Santa Clara County, more than 40% of the residents were born outside the country. An astounding 69% voted for Obama, and only 28% voted for McCain. Those numbers demonstrate how out of touch the Republican Party has become with non-Caucasians and non-Christians. Republicans should be more popular in California--after all, Californians recently elected a Republican governor, and the Republican Party's platform of less spending and lower taxation should appeal to high-earners and people concerned with the state's budget crisis. Yet, Republicans cannot gain a reliable foothold in any county where immigration has exploded. This failure to do better in diverse counties, even in states that badly need fiscal discipline, shows that the Republicans' strategy of focusing on whites, Christians, and senior citizens at the expense of other groups is not viable. This is not to say that Republicans should exclude their core groups of support and suddenly focus on minorities. That strategy shift won't work, either. For example, despite having consistent support from Florida's Cuban population, Republicans lost Florida. In addition, foreign-born Americans are only 12% of the national population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2004 survey.

What's the solution? Again, it's surprisingly simple: Republicans need to focus more on fiscal responsibility, advocate more legal immigration to appear progressive, and excise the fundamentalist religious right from their ranks. To do this, Republicans must cast out Sarah Palin and expressly affirm the separation of church and state. Indeed, despite being accused of practicing fundamentalist Christianity, Sarah Palin never delivered her version of JFK's "Catholic speech" or an Obama/Jeremiah Wright rebuttal. By failing to publicly and openly address concerns that her religious beliefs would interfere with her ability to govern the nation impartially, she hurt the Republican Party in all major urban areas. She also lost an opportunity to show that she understood American values, an opportunity a previous Democratic candidate did not forsake. Historians now agree that JFK won in no small part because of his stand against the commingling of church and state:

I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end...

And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office...

I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion.

If the Grand Old Party wants true reformation, it will condemn in the strongest possible language any Republican who believes that a particular religion is required to gain God's favor. Ironically, this shift will probably cause the Christian right to create the first viable third party in America, which will gain Senate seats from the Midwest and allow them a firmer, more consistent voice in politics. Thus, my proposed solution would create a win-win-win situation.

Still unconvinced? Take a hard look at the evolution of North Carolina. Less than ten years ago, North Carolina voted for a senator, Jesse Helms, who was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and who filibustered the idea of having a national holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. (as you can see, minorities and immigrants have legitimate reasons for not voting Republican). North Carolina voted for Jesse Helms from 1973 to 2003--twenty long years. Recently, however, North Carolina voted out Helms' successor, Elizabeth Dole, in favor of a Democrat, and previously, it elected one of the most liberal Democrats, John Edwards.

The story gets worse for the Republicans. North Carolina voted Republican in every presidential election from 1968 to 2004--until Obama. That's quite a shift from Senator Jesse "Anti-Civil-Rights-Act" Helms in the last ten to twenty years--and the children of recent immigrants, both legal and illegal, haven't even hit voting age yet. North Carolina shows that if Republicans do not disavow themselves of their Palin/Helms strain of right-wing religion and cultural insularity, they will lose America. Not just "real America," but America, period. After all, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States say nothing about Christianity, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. Also, in 1797, George Washington signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which declared that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Demographics are destiny, as the saying goes. For now and the immediate future, the demographics are decidedly in favor of a party that respects and favors legal immigration, diversity, and separation of church and state. That's good news for Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bobby Jindal, and others prescient enough to see the future of American politics.

_________

Blog Post on Immigration Policies of Obama and McCain:

http://claresays.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/mccain-obama-and-immigration/

Update on April 2, 2009: not that it's conclusive evidence of anything, but Newt Gingrich agrees with me.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/02/gingrich-warns-of-third-party-in-2012/

Update on April 2012: for better or worse, urbanization is happening world-wide, not just in the United States: "In the hundred years between 1950 and 2050, the global population is undergoing an irreversible structural transition in the way we live.  Drawn by the economic, lifestyle and social opportunities of urban dwelling, the world's population is migrating from rural areas--accounting for 70% of global population in 1950--to cities--accounting for 70% of of global population by 2050 based on United Nations projections.  In 2009, the percentage of the planet's population living in urban areas crossed the 50% threshold and by 2037 cities in developing nations will contain half the world's total population." (from Credit Suisse, April 2012)

Update on March 2017: "Hillary Clinton, more than others, has a worldview problem because the vast majority of the electorate has already told itself a story about her... I believe there isn't enough money in circulation to persuade those voters that have already made up their minds to change them." -- from Seth Godin's All Marketers are Liars (2005), pp. 81, hardcover.

Update on December 2017: the Republicans won the 2016 election through a twice-divorced candidate who married a legal immigrant, presumably employs numerous immigrants in his businesses, and who has no religious piety or knowledge. Unfortunately--or fortunately--I was wrong about Bobby Jindal's potential. 

Katha Pollitt's Take on Sarah Palin

The Nation's Katha Pollitt has an immensely entertaining piece on Sarah Palin:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/380768_katha28.html

"If she wasn't a big reactionary, she'd make a fantastic community organizer."

"But let's be real: There is just no way Palin is equipped to be vice president, much less president. She doesn't know enough; she lacks the necessary grasp of, and curiosity about, our complex world; her political philosophy could fit on a bumper sticker: Us versus Them."

Yes, it's a lefty view, but it's great writing, so I had to share. I had no idea McCain's campaign demanded and received special debate rules for the Biden-Palin debate. Shame on McCain for making such a demand.

Katha Pollitt has a blog: http://kathapollitt.blogspot.com/

I can't believe I haven't read more by Ms. Pollitt. She is joie de vivre personified.

[Note: this post has been modified since its original publication.]