To those of us who occupy the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, Sarah Palin is an object of ridicule, a person so abjectly unprepared for high office as to invite unqualified scorn and contempt. But in spite of demonstration after demonstration of her ineptitude, she is not going away. In fact, she has formed a Political Action Committee with the evident intention of preparing to run for the Presidency in 2012. And Rush Limbaugh has stated outright that he hopes and expects her soon to assume the position of unofficial leader of the Republican Party. Insofar as he represents the spokesman-in-chief for all the baser instincts of conservatism, his opinion in such matters cannot be ignored.
Which raises the question: What is the true source of Sarah Palin's continuing appeal? Why has she not been abandoned by the Republicans as damaged goods? Is it all just based on her looks? Or is she truly charismatic? Or is she actually more intelligent than she appears to be?
Chris Matthews recently addressed this question with a couple of analysts on his show. He examined the matter in terms of charisma versus brains. He pointed out that a politician with brains can never acquire charisma, whereas a politician with charisma can always study up.
But this distinction raised another in turn: Is Palin merely lacking in knowledge of world affairs? Or is she also lacking in pure intelligence, the kind of aptitude that enables a person to process information with insight and sound judgment?
Matthews declared that Palin is merely lacking in knowledge. He thinks she has intellectual aptitude, and can acquire the base of information she is currently missing. His guests agreed with him.
I think Matthews is dead wrong, and the reasons need to be spelled out. Palin is too dangerous a politician to be misunderstood. In my view, she lacks not only knowledge, but basic intelligence as well. She is completely devoid of sound judgment, intellectual curiosity, mental agility, or insight. This conclusion is inescapable if you actually listen to her express herself, unscripted, for any length of time.
But this conclusion only raises more sharply the question, What is the source of her appeal? To answer that, we need to reflect on the qualities of a demagogue.
A demagogue is someone who has mastered a single art: to stir up and play upon the fears and emotions of a large audience by means of public oratory. It is not an art that requires either knowledge or intellectual aptitude. What it requires is skill in public speaking, coupled with a deep and abiding instinct for self-promotion. In literature, the archetype of a demagogue is Elmer Gantry. In history, the archetype is Hitler.
I propose that Sarah Palin is best understood in archetypal demagogic terms.
During the recent campaign, Palin was sometimes criticized for having attended several different colleges, and for not living up to the promise implied by her major in journalism. But these criticisms miss a crucial point: Palin did not major in journalism in order to acquire expertise in gathering and analyzing information and presenting it coherently. She studied journalism to learn how to be a TV personality, a newscaster, someone who could attract attention and win over an audience on the small screen. And that is the preeminent skill she has brought to her political career. That is the skill she demonstrated in her address to the Republican National Convention, which was the springboard for her current popularity.
The trouble with that skill is, it requires somebody else to write the script. As soon as she is interviewed off script, Palin falls apart. Even she is not yet fully in touch with this fact, which is why she keeps on trying.
But make no mistake: She has the skill of public oratory, which she has learned to transfer from television to a large public audience in person. So long as somebody is feeding her the script, she knows how to deliver it. That is the true source of her appeal.
Today Palin seems like a pathetic non-entity, but we are still flush with Obama's victory. What if the economy does not turn around after two or three years? What if there is another, and more serious, terrorist attack on American soil? What if Bill Clinton again embarrasses his wife and the whole Democratic Party?
Sarah Palin will be back. It is a mistake to underestimate her -- or to misunderestimate her. Far better to understand the true source of her appeal in order to expose the true poverty of her mind.