Since being chosen to fill the VP slot on McCain's ailing campaign the political world has been in a frenzy over who she is and why-o-why would John pick her. Indeed, she has a lot going against her: gross inexperience, a bevy of scandals, family problems that ought to sink her with the Republican base, and a "moral flexibility" that ought to sink her with everyone else. She has been compared unfavorably with Bush, Cheney and even Britney Spear's mom. Nevertheless, despite all of her dishonesty, manipulation, obvious ignorance and being clearly unfit, she has enjoyed a ridiculously positive reception. Speculated reasons for this seemingly inexplicable choice have ranged from "she's a stand in for Hillary" to "she's and example of McCain's rash rejection of his campaign's efforts to shackle him". These are wrong. Choosing Palin was McCain's last, best hope. It was pure genius. And everything that has followed was entirely predictable.
Make the jump to see why.
First a little background on Authoritarianism. Since the 1940's psychologists and sociologists have been studying what it is that leads people to voluntarily abrogate their personal liberty in the service of a repressive state. These days, we know quite a lot about this process, what characteristics facilitate this transformation, and something about the people who utilize it for invariably sinister purposes. Dr. Robert Altemeyer, whose work was extensively quoted in John Dean's "Conservatives Without an Conscience", has been at the forefront of these efforts for more than 30 years now, and has recently published another book summarizing the state of our knowledge about this process, The Authoritarians. It is available online for free, and I would encourage anyone to read it post haste! Especially if the parade of Republican hypocrisy is becoming (has become?) maddeningly frustrating.
So, what do we know? (And I mean "we" in the generic sense, I am an astrophysicist, not a sociologist.) Everybody exhibits what Altemeyer calls Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) characteristics: a deference to established authorities, a willingness to agress on the behalf of established authorities, and a high degree of "conventionalism" (the idea that we ought to all be "normal"). During times of national crisis (e.g., 9/11) our RWA traits are enhanced, which I'm sure many recall at that time ("country coming together", etc.). However, there is a subset of the population which exhibits a high degree of RWA traits at all times. Perhaps unsurprisingly, empirically this group is very strongly correlated with Conservatives, and much more strongly with religious fundamentalists, which are empirically indistinguishable from evangelicals, who make up the Religious Right. These people, high-RWAs, are very submissive, hard working, easily organized.
Worse, by their very nature, their reasoning process is badly malformed. They parrot what their leaders say, rarely pausing to thinking carefully about what they are saying. This is directly responsible for what we perceive as "hypocrisy". They don't even recognize the two competing ideas (e.g., Bristol Palin's pregnancy and Jamie-Lynn Spear's pregnancy) are related. A by product of their broken reasoning is their desire to reason by conclusion. That is, they will believe anything that ends in something they "know to be true". For example, Sarah Palin must be a fiscal conservative because they know that she is a Republican, and Republican's are responsible with the public's money. While we can supply numerous counter examples (well documented!), the high-RWAs require only a fig-leaf of assurance from their "authorities" to believe. Because they want to believe. There is literally nothing you can say to the high-RWAs that could convince them otherwise, since you are not a recognized "authority". (Should Dobson denounce Palin, that might be another story.) For this reason, they are remarkably forgiving. At least when it comes to people in their group. They are also very dangerous since they vote.
But that is only half the story. The second half of the rise of Totalitarianism is the people who would lead. Again, 30 years of research has something to say about that. A subset of people, nearly (but very importantly, not completely) disjoint from the high-RWAs are the Social Dominators. These are the sum'bitches of the world. They are amoral, willing to lie, cheat and steal in their quest for power over others. And once power is purchased, it is used. They say so, when surveyed anonymously. Now, again, there is a spectrum, and all who seek power are not defective. There are noble uses for power, and noble champions (though too few). But by and large, high-Social Dominators are the last people you want in charge. (Well 2nd-to-last.) Unfortunately, if power is what you want, there are a number of people who would readily fall in line, the high-RWAs. For this reason these two groups form a parasitic relationship: high-RWAs falling in line for somebody they think is like them, because the high-Social Dominator has no compunctions about lying to them at every turn, but is really a nut. John McCain is almost certainly a high-Social Dominator. Cheney absolutely is.
But the real bastards are the "double-highs", that tiny group that are both high-RWAs and high-Social Dominators. These take the worst attributes from each group: they are amoral power seekers who hold the prejudices and failed thinking of the high-RWAs. They are usually overtly religious, though frequently not privately so (like Delay or Bush Jr.), and as such can easily ape the religious leaders that enjoy such authority with the high-RWAs that make up the Religious Right. Sarah Palin is a classic "double-high". She is Cheney's equal on duplicity, but she vastly surpasses his ability to identify and mobilize the "troops".
Where John McCain has the will, he has not the way to mobilize the staunchly Conservative "values" base. Simply by joining the ticket Sarah Palin has made it okay for the "base", to be motivated for John McCain. By their nature, this group is impervious to rational attacks against Palin, calling into question her qualifications, honesty, integrity, fiscal responsibility, and general fitness to be President in waiting. She is a rationalization unto herself for these people. In one fell swoop McCain threw Democrats a curve ball and more than just unified the base, he energized his (her) base! While we scramble around for political ammunition, they have instantly erected fortified positions. And they will lie. All the time. Easily discredited lies. Obvious lies. Laughable lies. And those lies will work with the "base". Every time. By their very nature, the "base" is programmed to believe them.
While I dream of a strong Obama-Bidden offensive on the Palin record as much as anyone, I know that it would fail if it were aimed at the "base". It is all a show for the moderate-RWAs and low-RWAs that form the swing-vote. And that is where our target lies. While many high-RWAs are actually good people (charitable at home, will help you change your tire on a rainy day on the side of the highway, might even buy you a hot dinner in your time of need), they are beyond our reach with only 56 days left. Palin's star is on the rise with the Conservatives, and we'd had better prepare ourselves for the battle for the undecideds/independents. This will be a down-and-dirty, in-the-trenches fight for the future of our country. Over what kind of world we will bequeath to our children. And we'd better get to know our enemy, fast.
Some more DKos links here on Authoritarianism, and to Dr. Altemeyer's book (again):
The Disconnect Is ASTONISHING, But Not Unexpected
Purity, or Do You Turn on a Dime?
It's not hypocrisy. It's concepts vs. realms.
Hillary Clinton has an authoritarianism problem.
The Religious Right in 2008
The Authoritarians