The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP.
It's difficult not to froth when one reads, as I did again and again this week, doubts about Sarah Palin's “intelligence,” coming especially from women such as PBS's Bonnie Erbe, who, as near as I recall, has not herself heretofore been burdened with the Susan Sontag of Journalism moniker. As Fred Barnes—God help me, I'm agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.
I'm a Democrat, but I've worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin's nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women's rights.
What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
Now by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
Palin's Glass Ceiling Speech
For all those old enough to remember Senator Sam Ervin, the brilliant strict constitutional constructionist and chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee whose patois included “I'm just a country lawyer"...Yup, Palin is that smart.
So no simple task then, this speech on women's rights. For the sin of being a Christian personally opposed to abortion, Palin is being pilloried by the inside-the-Beltway Democrat feminist establishment. (Yes, she is anti-abortion. And yes, instead of buying organic New Zealand lamb at Whole Foods, she joins other Alaskans in hunting for food. That's it. She is not a right-wing nut, and all the rest of the Internet drivel—the book banning at the Library, the rape kits decision—is nonsense. I digress.) Palin's role in this campaign was to energize “the Republican base,” which she has inarguably done. She also was expected to reach out to Hillary Clinton “moderates.” (Right. Only a woman would get both those jobs in either party.) Look, I am obviously personally pro-choice, and I disagree with McCain and Palin on that and a few other issues. But like many other Democrats, including Lynn Rothschild, I'm tired of the Democratic Party taking women for granted. I also happen to believe Sarah Palin supports women's rights, deeply and passionately.
John P. Avlon is the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics. He writes a weekly column for The Daily Beast and is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Previously, he served as Chief Speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun.
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Kevin Buckley was a reporter and Saigon bureau chief for Newsweek between 1968 and 1972. He is the author of Panama—The Whole Story (Simon & Schuster, 1991). He is a contributing editor of Playboy and an adjunct professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Michael O'Hanlon specializes in national security policy at the Brookings Institution. He is senior author of the Iraq Index. As a defense budget analyst, he advised members of Congress on military spending.
Abby Ellin regularly writes the "Vows" column for the New York Times, and previously wrote the "Preludes" column for that newspaper about young people and money. Her work has appeared in a range of publications, including Time, Marie Claire, More, Self and Glamour. She is the author of Teenage Waistland, but her greatest claim to fame is naming “Karamel Sutra” ice cream for Ben and Jerry's.
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
What is the evidence offered for this appraisal of Palin? Am I just supposed to take the author's word on this and ignore the evidence exhibited by Palin's interviews and speeches? As a feminist, I would hope that Ms. Lafferty would have more respect for the intelligence of her readers and provide concrete examples of Palin's supposed intellectual prowess. What does she read? What policy conversation has Ms. Lafferty had with her that showed her Palin's nimble mind? I don't doubt that Sarah Palin is a capable politician, but a brainiac? Please. She didn't even know what a precondition was.
This was an intereting article, but for God's sake, look at what she is saying.
Lafferty mentions that she is being paid by the McCain campaign as a consultant. Is she getting paid as much as Palin's make-up artist and hairdresser?
This is about as substantive as a commentary from Elizabeth Hasselbeck. There is not one, single factual statement in this entire article. Just hearsay. If Palin is such a brainiac where is the evidence of it? Cite some actual examples rather than personal opinion.
Those of us who have watched Palin embarrass herself during very gentle interviews with hand-picked journalists are not objecting to her on the grounds of her political views. They are completely moot at this point. She could not even answer a question about which newspapers she reads.
Does Lafferty seriously mean to suggest that if a man were asked that question and failed to answer it that he would not also be considered to be as dumb as a rock? Grow up.
Frankly, I've been hoping that you would conclude that there weren't functioning works behind her clock because if it's true that she's bright and ambitious, then her threatening way of posturing herself in regard to other countries and world leaders (of all kinds), is nothing short of a plea for aggression. I still can't decide if she's that naive or really, really wants conflict. If nothing else, the business of war should offend her self-proclaimed frugal sensibilities.
Personally, I could never vote for anyone who doesn't support choice and equal rights for gays and lesbians. I don't ever want to hand the keys over to someone who wants to take away any progress made or who operates from such an exclusive mindset. And there's still so far to go for these basic equalities.
Palin tells us she's an expert on energy but when that is defined as oil and oil alone, and it involves extensive drilling of sensitive areas, I'd say her expertise is missing a key component called alternative energy sources, which is what we're really needing, and a respect for the environmental impacts of our actions. Shifting to a dependence on U.S. oil is only one small stepping stone in the move toward and healthy, functioning planet. I have never heard her express any greater vision.
I also would never vote for someone who praises flag waving in crowds as 'patriotic' but is 'annoyed' by relevant questions and people using their own freedom of speech. It's all good. Unless you want to be the V.P. of a herd of sheep.
Ultimately, if she means what she's saying on the campaign trail, she is dangerous. And if she doesn't mean what she's saying, she's dangerous. The feminist definition is irrelevant at this point. I don't think the planet can afford to vote for 'interesting'. And all the executive experience in the world doesn't mean didley squat if there isn't a sign of foresight, compassion, and wisdom.
I feel that this is a piece that is only about the emotional connection that Lafferty has with Palin. I'm not exactly sure how she was okay with signing up with the McCain Camp. And that is somethign that she should deal with herself and has nothing about the rest of us. But if she would like to say that the bulk of us "feminists" have Palin all wrong in saying that she is not a "feminists" then she should have actual facts on where Palin has actually fought for women's rights, not solely on the aspect of abortion but also on equal rights and pay. On a possible right to maternity leave and so forth. Lafferty is more than welcome to have her own opinion, but if she wants to change ours give us actual proof/evidence that we are wrong.
Palin as Einstein?....a little hard to swallow
Lafferty is arguing that she is smart, thoughtful, self aware. She is not arguing, to my reading, that she has a deep understanding of national politics or foreign policy. I think that watching Palin develop as a speaker during the campaign supports the former; the latter is still lacking, which is equally self-evident.
She is addressing issues that are of concern to women and issues that are important to more conservative voters - whether you define confine conservative in terms of certain social issues or in terms of the role of government. I personally share the concern over women's issues and disagree with her on most other policy issues.
Regardless of my personal views, it is still important to listen to and understand other perspectives and to do so without moving to character assassination. She is not highly experienced or necessarily accurate in her comments about Obama's policy statements, but she is in tune with many voters. We should listen for content, criticize her many factual errors and simplifications, and give her credit when credit is due, which is more often than many a liberal might suspect.
I have to agree with smdunne. While, Ms. Lafferty brings up some interesting points regarding the state of the feminist union she is want for actual facts regarding Sara Palin's intelligence. No one is that good an actor.
Lafferty must not have watched the interview in which Palin was asked outright whether she was a feminist and refused to say yes. Instead of taking her own intelligence seriously, she prefers to wink and to pander to her base's worst instincts, fear and bigotry.
She may be smart (Lafferty says you have to know someone personally before you can tell; the evidence of Palin's poor performance are not enough), but Palin prefers to trade on her looks and sex appeal than on whatever intelligence and political acumen she may possess.
That preference belittles all serious women and THAT is why she is not embraced by serious women.
Ms. Lafferty states that she is a Democrat and pro-choice, but is working for a team that wants to defeat the Democrats and destroy choice. I hope the money is good.
I have been a feminist all my life. Sarah Palin may well be a feminist. To be sure, she is a gifted performer. Her debate schtick was boffo! But, she out & out refused to answer the questions and simply spouted memorized talking points. And, I have seen nothing outside of her scripted speeches, red meat campaign rallies and FOX News softball interviews that suggest the intelligence the author claims Ms Palin possesses. Yes, I deplore her politics as much as I deplore Romney's, Guilliani's or Huckabee's but all off them have the brain power to be president. Palin has not demonstrated any such intelligence and she has avoided interviews where she could display the wits the author claims she has. I'm afraid she is a dim wit....not ready to serve.
This reads more like an angry rant then an argument meant to convince anyone Palin is a serious candidate. Sounds more like you are trying to convince yourself, Ms. Lafferty...
Her time will come, but not in November. This woman needs to reevaluate her purpose and stances for middle class women & America. This independent voter has made my decision. She should try again in 2012.
It has become quite obvious that The Daily Beast aims to make its mark by being congenitally contrarian.
It's a simple formula, one Slate has been following for a while, and one that even Salon and other otherwise thoughtful online mags are not above trying now and then: find someone -- anyone! -- who has some press credits, and then have that person declare a general predisposition toward one political side, while taking a specific position that supports the opposite side. Sometimes it can work well and even make news -- such as when the son of the founder of modern conservatism pens a rational argument on why he supports Obama. But most of the time what you get is inane drivel, just like this silly little thing from Lafferty.
I don't know if Lafferty is actually, really and truly, a liberal or a feminist. And I don't care. The only reason she goes on and on about how progressive she is, is to convince readers to accept her argument, since she seems unable to share any actual, you know, evidence or examples, that would demonstrate that Palin actually has a functioning cortex. Lafferty's argument boils down to this: "Trust me because I'm saying something you wouldn't expect someone like me to say. I'm, like, so totally counterintuitive, like Paglia and Hitchens!"
I've seen Palin trying to come up with coherent answers to softball questions in interviews, and I assume Lafferty has too. Palin failed over and over. Palin knows nothing, understands even less, and most depressingly she does not seem interested in learning anything. Even in prepared speeches, when she ostensibly has had the time to read and reflect on what she's going to say, she says the most boneheaded things (is it possible that any educated person in her 40s, in 2008, who's gone to college, or even reads a news magazine or a newspaper now and then, would not know the importance of fruit flies in basic genetic research?). What's worse Palin is so self-righteous about her own ignorance.
Lafferty's argument is actually not counterintuitive at all. It's exactly what you would expect from someone who apparently has as much brain power as Palin.
____________________________________________
Ms. Lafferty is, as disclosed, a paid consultant of the McCain campaign. This is the beginning and the end it. Her blog is nothing more than a paid advertisement for McCain. My only question is why is this not stated clearly in the headline or byline? Buyer beware.
Where in that article is the evidence that she's smart?
"...how sad for feminist leaders to sink this low..." You meant, "liberal feminists," right?
You lose your "Dem" cred when you admit that you have been working as a "consultant" for the McCain campaign. That makes you as much of a Democrat as Joe Lieberman...or Strom Thurmond for that matter. There is no objectivity here, just more of the same tactical recharacterization of Palin's flaws as something other than they are.
In all fairness, I never believed she was stupid, crazy or especially disingenuous (common charges against her). I do however believe that she is dangerously naive and anti-intellectual, that she is an Alaska-first devotee and does not have the well-being of America in mind. For these reasons, she has no business being vice-president, let alone president.
If this weak argument is the best that the McCain/Palin camp can muster, then we might begin to feel actual sympathy for Gov. Palin. The fact that Lady de Rothschild has thrown her support and money behind Palin is as meaningless as the fact that the author is a former Ms. Magazine editor. The reality is that Palin lacks the education and the intellectual curiosity to hold high office. She was put in place in a cynical attempt to grab disaffected Clinton supporters, and to "energize" the right wing of the GOP. No one, not even the formidable Lady de Rothschild, can really believe in their hearts, that she is remotely qualified to be President of the United States. To simply claim that she is -- despite her clear lack of knowledge about the world beyond Alaska, despite her limited understanding of science, and despite her complete lack of even a basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution -- is simply to ignore reality to suit short-term political needs.
The sexism at work here is that of the GOP strategists who think that this farce will fool American voters -- both men and women who will not once again be fooled by Rovian tactics of divisiveness and distraction.
Laughable commentary. For someone with a photographic memory, wouldn't you think she'd be able to remember the Constitutional duties of the Veep? Or wait, has she even READ the document? I see the future of the GOP and it is W in better clothes and heels, but with the same vacant mind.....
Why exactly are book-banning and making women pay for rape kits "nonsense?" Maybe if Sarah Palin would grant more than a handful of interviews and stop giving the same speech over and over we would all come to realize how nimble and curious her mind is.
Elaine makes an interesting case for the real Sarah Palin, because she has seen it close up, as do my friends who know the real John McCain.
It is frightening to think we as Americans should be resigned to believing the word of any columnist, editorialist, or other pundit, instead of actually seeing those traits in a person who has been introduced to us as a candidate for the office of Vice President.
Instead what we have seen, through the stump speeches, and the media coverge is a partisan, trained monkey, (pardon me for not including lipstick in that description).
I watch, read and engage in all manner of media from a multitude of sources, both right and left and centrist leaning yet the real Sarah Palin that Elaine sees still escapes me, in spite of my own desperate desire to see the white heterosexual male old boys of politics get set on their ears.
If I thought Governer Palin had made the case for why she is the one to do that, I could be supportive, but she hasn't and it would be crazy to assume she would once she hit the floor of the white house in any capacity.
Maybe we will see her grow in national prominence if the Republicans don't win this time around, and maybe we will see the depth of intellectual curiosity, wisdom, analytical skills and leadership she is purported to have, but right now all I see is an attractive, divisive pawn being used to secure the base of the party that John McCain didn't have a shot at.
I have to agree with smdunne, where are the facts to substantiate your feelings on Palins intelligence. Your feeling it means nothing to the rest of us. Who is "Elaine Lafferty" for that matter? Am I to assume you have some superior intellect and can pick out "Braniacs" based on a conversation? I for one have a verified IQ over 178, but I do not assume to tell other people about how smart someone else is and expect them to go on my word.
Interesting use of words however. Do you realize the word "Braniac" comes from the name of an Evil Supervillian in the DC Superman comics?
Anyway, lets see some SAT scores, an IQ test, ASVAB scores, or something, anything that says she is a genius other that the word of another self appointed "Smart" person.
Sorry, I know what you're selling, but I just ain't buying it.
In case you're a reader like smdunne who needs to see the bulge of a tongue pressed against a cheek, here are a few tips for detecting sarcasm.
Take Lafferty's words, "I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. "
In an argument about intelligence, the term "photographic memory" begs to be followed by a joke, since a photographic memory has nothing to do with intelligence. And it is! "She sees [the words written for her]. "She processes" [i.e. repeats them to herself]. "She questions" [the pronunciation of the unfamiliar words]. "And only then, she acts." [And only after she knows what she's supposed to say does she go before a crowd and say it].
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.