Why Liberals hate Sarah Palin - lack of clear thinking

 In 2008, Sarah Palin entered the political fray igniting a liberal and conservative firestorm.  Conservatives loved her fresh face while ace feminist Gloria Steinem fumed.

  In an article for the Los Angeles Times, Steinem claimed that Palin is unqualified (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/04/news/OE-STEINEM4).  Watching Palin in debate, I felt she needed a bit more seasoning and so I agree with her on this point, but that is not the main substance of Steinem’s criticisms.  Her problems with Palin are more ideological because Palin, she believes, doesn’t support what women support and hence is a slave to patriarchy.  Steinem says:

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

   Let’s take this paragraph point by point.  According to the gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx) and common experience derived from merely stepping into a church, it would be incorrect to state that women as a rule do not support the teaching of creationism.

   Steinem links gun control with the control of women’s wombs by prohibiting abortion.  Here the logic gets ridiculous.  What is the connection?  As gallup shows, it is not true that women necessarily support abortion on demand (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx).  Even if they did, the abortion debate is concerned with when the right to life begins, what the fetus is, and what responsibilities we have toward it and others.  The gun debate is concerned with the right to control a weapon for either self defense or sport.  There is no overlap between the two issues and one can legitimately argue that one can own a gun because the constitution allows it and it is necessary for self defense and killing the unborn is immoral since unborn children have a right to live just as others.

   As far as global warming, again there is no logical reason to suggest women would or would not believe the Earth is warming because of man-made causes.  Of course Al Gore is one of the more prominent proponents that humans are causing the warming, but the opposite case should be looked at also. (See the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, for instance.)

   As far as abstinence and stem cells, there seems to be some good information that useful research is derived from adult stem cells, not fetal ones (http://www.lutheranscience.org/2005-EmbryonicStemCell1.html).  The reason the use of fetal stem cells is so important to her, I think, is abortion.  If liberals can suggest that more fetuses can be destroyed to produce positive effects, then the case for abortion is strengthened (which is what she wants).

   Her comment on abstinence reveals common liberal thought.  Notice that she attributes sexual diseases, abortion, and unwanted births to abstinence programs.  Such programs do not cause these problems; such problems would not exist were it not for sexual intercourse.  Apparently it is not abstinence teaching that causes the problems but the inability to abstain! (Following Steinem’s logic, if someone buys a gun and shoots a person despite proclamations to limit gun use, we blame the anti-gun message rather than the person who shoots the gun.)

   We see here the common liberal desire to wish Americans held liberal beliefs as they fail to admit such ideologies are out of step with Americans.  Steinem should be seen for what she is:  an old liberal hag who wants all women to be what she thinks they should be.

   Speaking of patriarchy, an interesting book I picked up years ago was Rene Denfeld’s The New Victorians.  Denfeld is no conservative but does poke holes in the modern feminist movement partly because it does not deal with modern issues important to women and hence most women today do not label themselves “feminists.”  These feminists are more concerned with their battle against “patriarchy” – however loosely defined.

  For example, Anne Merkelson, a production coordinator whom Denfeld quotes, suggests many in the new feminist movement look at things negatively as if a giant conspiracy exists to keep women down.  Life is not that simple. “For me,” Anne says, “it’s much more natural to look at individuals. When it starts getting blanket, I think that’s also why I’m not involved.  I can’t look at things that broadly.  It just doesn’t work for me.”  Denfeld sums up that “feminists have found something to lash out against, and that’s the patriarchy. But instead of venting frustration and then moving to change things, they have sunk into the miasma of their own theory.  They have created a straw man to condemn.”  Contrary to patriarchy, these feminists have proposed a utopia that promises peace, but this is based on bad science and sexist stereotypes that threaten to undo many hard-won victories and plunge the movement into a quest for an unattainable goal.        (p. 154-155)

  We see that Steinem is exactly the type of feminist that Denfeld is describing.  Steinem also, according to Peter Schweizer in his book Do As I Say (Not As I Do), doesn’t practice what she preaches.  She has criticized women who put so much stress on their looks, but she herself has given herself an occasional “touch up.”  She has promoted the view that men are not needed by women and merely an appendage, but has been in numerous romances herself.  Steinem should be cheering Palin for her popularity, but she can’t.  Palin is simply not Steinem’s kind of bigoted woman.

Jeff Stueber

jstueber@charter.net

welcome to my blog - who gets whose wealth?

Thanks for viewing my first blog.  I wanted to take this opportunity to tell you a little bit about it's purpose. If you see the title, it says "logic in exile."  That means there are times when logical thought takes a vacation in people's minds and illogic takes over- most of the time, actually.  This blog is devoted to exposing that illogic.  In essence, at times logic goes into exile.  Hence, the title of this blog.

I've noticed this in fifteen or so years of researching religion, philosophy, and politics.  For instance, I wrote an essay years ago exposing the faulty arguments of the pro-abortion movement and detailed them at http://webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber/abortwr.htm#N_3_  and I've also detailed faulty evolutionist arguments as well at http://webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber/foolsus.htm Last, but not the least, I took on several liberal themes at http://webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber/libralsm.htm.  There are plenty of things to criticize everywhere and the "magic" continues with the current Obama administration.

Take for example Obama's suggestion to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."  (http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-tells-tax-burdened-plumber-the-plan-is-to-spread-the-wealth-around/)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html

This exchange received much press in conservative venues and without a fair listing of the entire conversation, one might not know why this comment came out.  Obama is concerned with bringing up the lower classes by spreading more of the upper class's wealth to them so that there is upward mobility.  So he had more noble goals in mind than conservatives gave him credit for even though this quote reveals a philosophy that is not reasonable. Let's unpack the parts of his argument to expose the issues that we must factor in to figure out what is being said here.

1.  We are dealing with wealth which is, for the most part, money gained by people for doing useful work.
2.  We are dealing with people who need to gain money to give themselves  upward mobility (that is to say ability to buy more and better things).
3.  We are dealing with the taking, through tax policy, of more money from some segments of the population to give to others through tax policy.

Numerous assumptions reveal themselves here.  First, Obama assumes that the taking of one group's money is morally justified.  Let's shift gears here.  I make somewhere between $10 per hour and $15  per hour and them some additional money through a paper route. Through the years I've saved some money up in investments and, of course, have more money than my oldest son who is starting out just as I did in my first job.  Would it be (a) moral for any government offical or organization to take some of my money to give to him to "spread the wealth around" or (b) stimulating to the economy if he spent that money rather than I did? Now it is doubtful that anybody would consider (a) morally appropriate and neither would they suspect that (b) is true either. So why does Obama suppose that this is true unless he has a dogmatic belief that denies people have a moral right to earn their due and believes that economic activity can be enhanced by taking from one group and giving to another?

Second, Obama presumes that the only way for people in the lower classes to move up the progress ladder is by increasing the taxes of those in the upper-income brackets.  Now that has certainly not been true in the past and not true when I was entering the job market (otherwise I would not be in a position where I am now) and it is questionable whether it would be true in the future as long there is economic opportunity for people to create jobs and obtain them.  I've worked jobs where I've been rewarded for hard work and most likely that is true all around the United States.  Hard work creates upward mobility and the ability to save what one earns.  Taking from one group of people to give to another is only rational if (a) it is moral and (b) the economy can be stimulated by doing so which would suppose that the "rich" do not spend their money on activities that could possibly create jobs and lower income people could spend it better than them.  Both are in doubt.

My suspicions are that Obama is not really concerned about the inequity present in our economy as much as creating a climate in which it is proper to take from others.  Since those in the higher incomes are those others are most jealous of, than they are natural targets for confiscatory taxation.