If, in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 election, you had asked me to put together a broad-based panel on reviving the right, I would surely have chosen to include David Frum. Yeah, I know he had been strongly critical of John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, but, at the time, he seemed to have based his objections on rational arguments, notably her lack of experience on the national stage.
But, lately amidst the many good ideas he has offered for GOP rebuilding and strong arguments he has made against the policies of the Obama Administration, he has manifested a peculiar animus toward certain figures, not just Mrs. Palin, who have found an enthusiastic following among conservatives outside the intellectual enclaves in coastal (and near-coastal cities).
This week, he offered a rather strange comment about her appeal:
This is a woman who has got into a position of leadership by sending very powerful sexual signals. And we see that in the way that men like her much more than women do.
Dan Riehl (whose post alerted me to the comment) contends that “Frum is obviously reacting to Paln as a homosexual would.” And while I do grant some gay men have strange reactions to strong and capable women, many of us appreciate such ladies. At the Log Cabin luncheon in St. Paul last summer, the gay men there were most enthusiastic about the GOP Vice-Presidential nominee.
Indeed, McCain’s choice of the then-Alaska Governor increased the esteem in which one of our readers, a gay man who supported Hillary for the Democratic nomination, held the Arizona Senator.
As to Frum’s contention that men like Palin more than women do, I suggest he take a look at footage of the lines to see that reformer on her book tour. In Michigan, it appeared to be at least 60% female. When Mark Steyn saw her campaign in New Hampshire “he was surrounded by moms with strollers.”
Frankly, I don’t see her sending out sexual signals. When certain female celebrities do that, it turns me off. Yet, if Palin gives off any particularly feminine signals, they’re more maternal or sororal than sexual. And maybe that’s why women like her so much. Most have warm feelings for their mother and sisters, but bristle a rival for the affection of their man.
Last night, I saw a few of her supporters interviewed on On the Record with Greta, with the women offering particularly heartfelt statements of admiration for this woman and support for her ideas. Most of them seemed more animated than the men chiming in. Sarah Palin’s appear is more than sexual.
And yet some men reduce her appeal to a sexual one. This allows them to ignore this charismatic reformer’s ideas and accomplishments, misrepresenting the nature of her appeal and dismissing the concerns of those who admire her.
That’s like hiring Bob Shrum or Susan Estrich to come up with a winning campaign strategy.
I’m not climbing into a tent that is large enough to include Democrats but too small for conservative Republicans.
I’m not a psychologist so I can’t diagnose “projection”, but I can note that the people who elected B. Hussein Obama because he was good-looking, clean and articulate are the same ones who claim conservatives adore Sarah only for her looks.
Now *Todd’s* appeal is something else altogether . . .
As for Dan Riehl’s statement I think he should read Hillbuzz because that is now how this group are reacting either and they were moderate Democrats 🙂
It’s easy for a “male chauvinist pig” to dismiss Sarah Palin as just a dumb broad. It’s what they do with smart, strong women. I’m just sad that David Brooks and David Frum are in that category of sexists.
have you heard him talk?
I don’t understand Riehl’s comment, “Frum is obviously reacting to Palin as a homosexual would”… except that, in context, he may be trying to say something absurd in mockery of Andrew Sullivan. It’s unclear.
i will vote for sarah in 2012! i pray for her and her family’s saftey. she is a real threat to the democratic party. she is also a fighter. when she was out there campaigning, she made me proud and said everything i felt for america!
make no mistake, her book interviews show a very subdued sarah, believe me, she will be a force to rekon with when she starts her campaign.
Well said, Dan.
This business of “sexual signals” said far more about Frum than it did of Palin. It’s an odd bit of inverted projection.
The attraction of Palin is that she indeed goes “rogue” – for example, she has completely deaked Davie and the Media Squishes and gone ’round to Reagan and Levin and to Classical Liberalism. It’s a market demand she’s meeting better than Frum and Brooks… and it irritates them. There’s just nothing sexy or masculine about squishy “moderation” or acceptance of the Left’s premises. The market is demanding solid counterarguments to the Left’s soft tyranny, and they ain’t offering – Palin is.
This is an interesting post. It is very true that Palin wears high heels and clothes that many women wear in businesses and towns around the country.
It is also true that women politicians do not wear those clothes, for they have been forged in the furnace of political correctness. One must dress to hide one’s sexuality so as to be taken seriously as a politician.
I suspect that Washington insiders, including politicians and journalists, and university professors, etc. think of her as a dweeb for not understanding that. I suspect they would be surprised to learn that most of USA doesn’t care about that level of political correctness, and they are so inoculated that it stuns them to see Palin ‘ignore’ it. She needs to wear the uniform.
I find it refreshing that she ignores all their trappings. I suspect most of USA doesn’t even notice.