The Destructiveness of Palin's Candidacy

Since the day after Ms. Palin's candidacy was announced, I've been in a state of shock. It's not the fact that a woman was chosen as the Republican vice presidential candidate. No, it's not that. Certainly there's no reason for a woman to be running, for one to be taken seriously as a potential president, for one to engage this country and forever change the "flavor" of politics. It's not the fact that Palin is female. It's not even the fact that she's a woman whose beliefs don't even come close to matching mine.

No, it's the way that other women in this country have almost blindly jumped on her bandwagon. Immediately after the announcement of McCain's choice, women started going nuts. And I don't mean that in a funny way; I swear--it seems that some women have completely lost it. I'm wondering if they took one look at Palin and suddenly lost the capacity to reason.

Sure seems that way.

Here's an example of what I mean: I was listening to several women discussing Ms. Palin's candidacy, and all they focused on was how cool it is that she's female and that she's pretty, to boot. Apparently, her main qualifications for office are that she doesn't have a y-chromosome and that she looks good in those glasses, with her hair put up in that casually-disarrayed kind of style. The conversation on which I so rudely eavesdropped didn't ever progress to anything substantial. It never went into territory that explored, say, what her basic approach to the environment, or to the threat from Islamic terrorists, or how she feels about gays in the military, or whatever. None of that was ever discussed; neither was anything else substantial.

I figured, okay--it will take a few days for people to really get their heads around who she is and start talking about that. Well, no. Never happened, at least not in my experience. I had a conversation with a female colleague about a week after the announcement, and I asked point blank if she knew what Palin's stance was on abortion, the war in Iraq, etc. Not a clue. But whatever her stances are, they must be just peachy-keen, or McCain wouldn't have chosen her. "What about her asking that librarian what she'd do if Palin asked her to remove some books from the shelves?" I asked. "Well," my colleague said, "I'm sure that's just the liberal media spreading rumors about Palin." Really? So, basically, the librarian's own statement about it--that doesn't signify? Or, I asked my friend the environmentalist (also a female, also giddy about Palin's candidacy), what about how Palin has addressed environmental issues? Do you know how she votes when it comes to, say, endangered wildlife, or hunting laws, etc.? No, not really, my friend told me, but she'd for sure check on all that.

Shouldn't the giddiness happen AFTER the checking? I mean, what if Palin is a nepotistic, wildlife-endangering proponent of censorship? Shouldn't we find that out before we get giddy about her candidacy? My colleague and friend had never heard of Palin before the nomination, but there they were--effing ECSTATIC about her.

If that were all, just giddiness and ecstasy, I'd be less horrified than I am at the moment. But it's not just that. No, huh uh, no way. What I am getting also is rage--pure, unadulterated RAGE--whenever I dare to ask questions about Ms. Palin's stances or her comments or her fitness for office. It's as if I'm betraying some sisterhood by even considering that she might not be the best choice. Or, no, even worse--it's that I don't just blindly accept that she's the best choice. That's what enrages the people I've spoken with.

I see it online--so many women pissed off that Oprah won't have Palin on her show, and their reasoning? It must be that Oprah is a racist who is betraying her sisters-in-arms (read: her female viewers) by not giving broadcast time to Palin. Now, Oprah has had Obama on her show, but that was before he decided to run for office. Since then, she's had no one on there. She has endorsed Obama (as is her right), and she's done it publicly (still her right; OUR right is to decide whether that's meaningful to us and act accordingly), but I haven't heard of her using her show since the campaign began. But the enraged female posters on her Oprah community site don't really seem to focus on that. No, their anger is so fierce, burns so strongly in them, that they can barely be prevailed upon to reason at all.

Here's the deal as I see it: Palin is no sister of mine. The fact that she has ovaries and breasts doesn't make her my sister. It takes a heck of a lot more for me to claim someone as my sister. She would have to bear my scrutiny for a while before I pinned on a Palin button.

I think that the women who won't allow for scrutiny, who get enraged when anyone dares to question Palin's stances and candidacy, who take it PERSONALLY whenever someone does that--those women have apparently had their brains sucked out by some horrible HooverBrainivac or something. Or, worse, there was nothing to hoover out in the first place. THAT really worries me.

Ladies (and I use that term loosely, as your rage leads you to speak in ways more commonly associated with sociopaths)--don't get enraged. Instead, calmly point out the research you've done (and I don't mean what you've heard someone else say or what Palin herself says about her stances, etc.) that leads you to believe her an excellent choice for VP. Point out the legislation she's pushed through that you totally agree with. Show, clearly and concisely, what it is about all that she's DONE that you agree with and support. Point to actual legal records of her actions and governance. Then, and only then, can you even begin to discuss her candidacy in a reasonable and fair-minded way.

Right now, those of you who are frothing at the mouth over how Palin is being questioned only come across as even less competent and reasonable than she is. And that's saying something.