Palin is the Psyche-logical Favorite
Andrew Sullivan on Sarah Palin’s upcoming trip to Israel (emphasis mine)
The appeal of Sarah Palin as a GOP nominee is not just about domestic resentments. It is also about foreign policy revanchism. And it seems rash to me to dismiss the importance of this. There is something about an attractive woman wielding military force that reaches those parts of the psyche that no-drama Obama never will or can. Ask Thatcher or Meir (or Elizabeth I or Indira Gandhi).
Golda Meir is beloved by me, and Margaret Thatcher is an ideological hero (I’m neutral on Indira Gandi, and indifferent to Elizabeth I).
By Sullivan’s psyche-logical standard, Palin will be the next President of the United States, should she choose to run, and in very good historical company.
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I too admired Thatcher and Milwaukee's most famous daughter Golda Meir but pass on Gandhi (corrupt tyrant) and Elizabeth I (police state). But none of them were even close to being attractive women. In fact, Meir looked like LBJ's uglier twin sister.
But is she Trig's real mother?
(This is THAT Andrew Sullivan, right?)
I swear, my head is hurting from all of the turning it's having to do….
How to say it politely? Palin has an inspirational feminine ballsiness, Hillary a mean defeminized one, and Obama a haughty-passive thoroughly neutered sense of self and US.
For the sexually, politically and ethically alive, there's NO contest here.
In these busy times when I can't seem to find the time to keep up with everything, I have a simple rule of thumb:
If Andrew Sullivan is for something, I'm against it, and vice versa.
This is powerful stuff. Thank you for sharing it. I think this actually brings home the points that had not yet been made clear. I've linked this post here (and added Legal Insurrection to my little blog's sidebar): A Leader Shows the Way: Sarah Palin goes to Israel
A better comparison might be Isabella of Castile who acceded to a throne surrounded by habitually murderous grandees at a time and place when women were expected to remain in the background. She was then was promptly attacked from three sides by France, Portugal and Granada. She emerged as one of the giant historical figures of the second millennium.
I don't get it, are you literally saying that Sarah Palin would make a good president?
She's far greater a man than the president we have now.
Oh, wait.. read Sullivan's piece – She's the "Scary Evangelical" who wants to usher in the Biblical end of times. He's sounding Beck-esque, huh? Palinoia is alive and well.
Why are people still paying attention to the lunatic's ravings?
I ALWAYS refer to Margaret Thatcher, the Last Man in Europe as "Margaret Thatcher, the Last Man in Europe". When speaking to my Euroweenie friends, I do so as often as possible, just to annoy them.
Isabella of Castile is a good call.
Indira is a good negative call, leftist tyrant, forced sterilizations, corrupt. So is Elizabeth I, ran a police state, as already noted, persecuted and murdered Roman Catholics and Jews, and a certain Scot whose claim to the throne surpassed her own.
Golda held her country together, indomitable, courageous, skillful, good at picking talent, and looked like an unmade bed.
Sarah reminds me of Lakshmibai, the heroine of Indian independence, including to carrying her baby into battle, her stunning feminine personal beauty and her utter disregard for conventions that separate human beings from their nature, which is Liberty. She also arrived in the center of affairs from a place and to a purpose unexpected by venal courtiers and smug rulers. She embodied the resolution of life to make its own way against enemies (the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:26 means to slice off the head of, customarily euphemized to "rule over" or "master"): namely, pests and predators (Genesis: "beasts," "birds" and "fishes," meaning not animals per se but powers of anti-life, of non-being; cf. the Pauline reference to Greco-Roman belief in "principalities and powers" who control life to unhappy ends).
Catherine the Great isn't mentioned, perhaps should be.
Sarah's persona and effects recall those of Margaret, Isabella, Golda and, par excellence, Lakshmibai, as I see it. She personally takes to the field of battle, a characteristic of leadership by heroism. Her skill thereat is unsurpassed. And her cause is just. She prevails for that reason.