George Will makes a point about Sarah Palin that I made a week ago [here and here]:
Conservatives, who rightly respect markets as generally reliable gauges of consumer preferences, should notice that the political market is speaking clearly: The more attention Palin receives, the fewer Americans consider her presidential timber. The latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans — including 52 percent of Republicans — think she is not qualified to be president.
I note this, if anything, because I know people who are convinced that the opposite is occurring: that her star in on the rise and that the more people see of her, the more they like her. Of course, the empirical evidence suggests the opposite (as a graphic here demonstrates). My guess is that their opinions are formed by very narrow news consumption.
In regards to Palin and the media, Will writes:
Palin is united with the media in a relationship of mutual loathing.
I think that it is actually much more of a love-fest (although a clearly dysfunctional one) than Will suggests (or that many of Palin’s fan will allow). The truth of the matter is, the media love to cover Palin (she draws eyeballs) and Palin loves the attention and has effectively used it, in controlled ways, to make a lot of money and further her career. Like Will, however, I don’t see that career culminating in a stint as resident of the White House (nor as GOP nominees, for that matter).
Still, like the Klein and Broder pieces from last week underscore, she hardly receives only scorn from the MSM (although, yes, examples of such can be readily found).
Regardless, the Palin-MSM relationship is far more symbiotic than some Palinites often contend. If the MSM truly hated her (to use an oft-deployed phrase) and wished her harm, they would ignore her.
On populistic politics, Will notes:
…populism, [is] a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites. Besides, full-throated populism has not won a national election in 178 years, since Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832.
[….]
Populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.
Indeed.
Apropos of nothing more than it amused me, I loved this line (emphasis mine):
In 1992, Ross Perot, an only-in-America phenomenon — a billionaire populist — won 19 percent of the popular vote.
February 18th, 2024 at 2:23 pm
Regardless, the Palin-MSM relationship is far more symbiotic than some Palinites often contend. If the MSM truly hated her (to use an oft-deployed phrase) and wished her harm, they would ignore her.
To add the obvious–she is part of the mainstream media as a staff member of the most popular cable news network!