POLITICS NOVEMBER 25, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Last week, I clicked over to the CNN home page and there, in a rundown of the day’s most important news, I saw a headline announcing that Nicole Richie had pneumonia. I immediately thought of Sarah Palin: I fully expect that, five or ten or 15 years from now, I’ll be reading a similar headline about her.
That’s not because I wish pneumonia on Palin. Nor do I think any of her future illnesses will be newsworthy--like, say, the illness of an important politician would be. The notion that she has a future in electoral politics outside of Alaska (and probably not even there) is absurd. As Ross Douthat has ably explained, Palin faced a choice--seriousness or celebrity--and she chose the latter.
But while Palin’s choice means that we’ll be spared of the prospect of Senator Palin or President Palin, that doesn’t mean that we’ll be rid of her any time soon. In fact, Palin’s choice augurs a longer period of relevance for her. Defeated politicians fade away (Mike Dukakis anyone?), but, in this day and age, celebrities, even talentless ones, linger. Less like pneumonia and more like a certain communicable disease, I’m afraid Sarah Palin is one of those things that will always be with us.
The reason for Palin’s staying power will be the same thing that keeps a celebrity like Richie’s old running partner, Paris Hilton, in the spotlight. No, not a sex tape, thank God, but something related: shamelessness. These days, once someone has attained a certain level of celebrity (as Hilton and Palin have), if that person is willing to say or do anything (as Hilton and Palin are), then it’s pretty much impossible to lose it (which Hilton and Palin won’t). New technologies like Facebook and Twitter have made that even easier, rendering it impossible for the media to ignore these celebs even if it were inclined to. Now, celebs can circumvent the media filter and communicate directly with the public. It’s no coincidence that Palin has taken to issuing all of her big pronouncement over Facebook. Granted, the press would probably cover whatever she’s saying at the moment. But when the day comes that the press isn’t interested, that won’t stop Palin from getting out word of her doings.
Indeed, it’s hard to think of any circumstance in which Palin would lose the dynamic--hated by some, loved by others--that makes her such a pop culture staple. Her future successes will be cheered by her admirers and scorned by her detractors; and her missteps will warm the hearts of her haters while being excused--and serving as more evidence that she’s being persecuted--by her fans. And if Palin were to somehow just try to go away? (Doubtful, I know.) Well, that in and of itself will become a story--like Britney disappearing for a stretch.
You might think that an ideological transformation would doom Palin, but I think she’d even survive that. What if, say, she were to suddenly renounce her conservative positions, become pro-choice, and join the anti-meat conspiracy as a card-carrying member of PETA? Sure, she’d lose the fans she has now, but she’d become a hero to all of her detractors. If you think changing your ideological colors is a career killer, then you should ask Norma McCorvey or David Brock how it turned out for him. There may be no better career move than switching political sides, and then confirming for your new ideological allies every bad thing they suspected about your old ones.
I suppose the only thing that could stop Palin from being a continuing player in our culture is sheer laziness. After all, one way to interpret her decision to choose celebrity over serious politics is that celebrity is easier. For the moment, that is. Eventually, Palin will have to work at staying in the public eye. Perhaps she’ll really put her head down and do the hard slog of hosting a TV talk show: Could she one day try to fill Oprah’s shoes? Or occupy the conservative chair on “The View”? If that’s too laborious, maybe she could go the Ann Coulter route and churn out designed-to-offend columns and speeches. Of course, even hackery like that takes some effort.
No, I think Palin will likely do the bare minimum and stay in the public eye through Facebook statements and Tweets and the occasional public scandal, not to mention the occasional bronchial infection. Alas, that’s probably enough to do the trick. Just ask Nicole Richie.
Jason Zengerle is a senior editor of The New Republic.
13 comments
So who would be most excited if a Palin sex tape were to surface? Democrats or Republicans?
- JEFF FREY
November 25, 2009 at 12:33am
Poor broken down old Rush would keel over from a heart attack in the first frame.
- WandreyCer
November 25, 2009 at 7:05am
Jason: "The notion that she has a future in electoral politics outside of Alaska (and probably not even there) is absurd." Why are you so certain of this? Why is it absurd? S*rew Ross Douthat, I want some evidence >for *your theory*<; a proper defense of your conclusion (in as few words as possible, of course). I don't think it's the least bit absurd to imagine her making a credible, and formidable, candidate for Prez. I cite Ronald Reagan's first run for the GOP nomination, when liberals, including TNR, wrote him off as a second rate actor applying for a screen test. Do you not ever learn??
- Tgossard
November 25, 2009 at 8:44am
As for your Paris Hilton analogy, I can imagine MSM sleazing off Hilton, with the help of radright and GOP fog machine politicking, as the Next Big Thing in American electoral politics. I can imagine it easily.
- Tgossard
November 25, 2009 at 8:55am
Tgossard, when Reagan ran for President in 1976 he had been the head of a major union for seven years and the governor of the largest state in the Union for eight years, in addition to stints as a national spokesman for GM for several years. Palin was the part-time mayor for six years of a town with less than 7,000 residents and the governor of the second smallest state in the Union (whose distinctly socialistic economics are nothing like those of the rest of the country) for slightly over two years, before abruptly resigning for reasons that are probably only clear to her. TNR may have been wrong about Reagan in 1976, but comparing his record and experience then with Sarah Palin's now is ridiculous. And, needless to say, Reagan did not spend his post-governor years writing and promoting glossy behind-the-scenes, tell-all biographies.
- wildboy
November 25, 2009 at 9:37am
You're right wildboy but so is Tgossard. Don't you think truth mattered just a little bit more back then? I feel like truth slowly stopped mattering around 1992 and its only gotten worse. It doesn't matter in the slightest now.
- WandreyCer
November 25, 2009 at 10:12am
BTW - Along the lines of celeb think a bit: Michelle Obama looked absolutely stunning at the exciting first Obama state dinner. I am proud to be American always, but the Obamas made me glow with it last night.
- WandreyCer
November 25, 2009 at 10:20am
It's hard for me to imagine Palin having a serious chance at national office -- campaign ads featuring her incomprehensible resignation speech ought to be very effective. I'd consider running a 1-2 minute long ad featuring a long, rambling clip of her contrasted with a concise, positive message from the opponent. And Wandrey is right -- whatever one thinks about Reagan, her experience was nothing like his, and won't be unless she takes and holds a serious job for a few years, which I doubt she will do. As for her prospects here in Alaska, I think they are actually fairly dim. Her positives were dropping steadily as she bumbled her way through her second year in office (she did pretty much nothing right on the home front from summer 2008, and was already declining when picked for VP). Her resignation went over badly. Her worshippers still adore her, but many former supporters are disillusioned, and she has polarized the electorate so that most people are now either for or against her. Even some of the reactionary trolls that infest the comments section of our local newspaper's online section are now dismissive of her for quitting. It would take real work to undo that, not just charm, although what makes it possible is that she probably only has to win the Republican nomination for whatever to be elected.
- JEFF FREY
November 25, 2009 at 12:21pm
wildboy said: "Tgossard, when Reagan ran for President in 1976 he had been the head of a major union for seven years and the governor of the largest state in the Union for eight years, in addition to stints as a national spokesman for GM for several years. Palin was the part-time mayor for six years of a town with less than 7,000 residents and the governor of the second smallest state in the Union (whose distinctly socialistic economics are nothing like those of the rest of the country) for slightly over two years, before abruptly resigning for reasons that are probably only clear to her. TNR may have been wrong about Reagan in 1976, but comparing his record and experience then with Sarah Palin's now is ridiculous. And, needless to say, Reagan did not spend his post-governor years writing and promoting glossy behind-the-scenes, tell-all biographies." Granted, but as Wandrey reminds the political anatomies of the 1970s-80s are past and gone (think late Quaternary period). By now homo politicus has split into at least two branches, one of which suggests evolutionarily retrograde motion. ;)
- Tgossard
November 25, 2009 at 1:51pm
Tgoss: "homo politicus" leading to "retrograde motion" ... hmmm ... sounds sexy, but not entirely appropriate in a family magazine. Probably. Could TNR please pick another topic off the tabloids for its entertainment section? I mean, Palin was interesting at some point, I guess, when she was winking at the camera like a strumpet or a slutty drag queen, but this is wearing thin. I mean, I don't bear the woman any ill-will (I do, but can't admit it out loud), but you know, she's involved in a spat with a 19-yo Playgirl model right now, and I have to wonder - I really have to wonder - which is more obscene: the Palin's commenting on a "porn" shoot - a photo shoot, I mean - or Tgoss's retrograde motion. Homo politicus retrograde motion, at that. Because, you know, it's hard to judge, right now, really hard to judge, between the two.
- icarusr
November 25, 2009 at 3:39pm
icarus, exactly. exactly. as we in the community of the gay are wont to say [lord, it rhymes...well, there you have it]: "What's a girl to do???" Happy Bird-day, everybody!
- Tgossard
November 25, 2009 at 6:56pm
Look at Ariana Huffington. She did a sharp left turn from her conservative politics and actually is 'taken seriously' (as a draw) by news show producers.
- CAMtwo
November 25, 2009 at 7:11pm
Er, Cam, I gather you are being, er, um, ironic about your post. Because, you know, if you are seriously comparing Arianna (several books to her name, though she is NOT running for public office and does not pretend to be more than a talking head, no better than many other morons who appear on TV) and the Palin (one ghost written book, a silly Governorship she quit from, and the mayor of a city with fewer residents than I had constituents as an elected student politician at the age of 21), then it kinda shows: 1) you have no conception whatever of the difference between infotainment and politics; 2) you have no sense of comparison of accomplishments; and 3) you have no sense at all. Now, as I said, I am assuming that you made that comment with tongue firmly in cheek, and if you did, consider me red-faced. Tgoss: (= 'tit goss = petit gamin (fr.) = young urchin looking for a sugar daddy). Retrograde motion, my, er, eye.
- icarusr
November 25, 2009 at 8:41pm