Sarah’s Stalwarts

I, like many others, enjoyed the introduction to the most recent Saturday Night Live programme, which featured two actresses impersonating Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. In particular, the Governor Palin impersonator was spot on, not only capturing her look and mannerisms, but also her accent.

Perhaps it is a peculiarity of the British, but here we have a particularly strong sensitivity to not just what is being said, but also to how one speaks. An accent can not only state where one comes from, but it also delineates class boundaries: it’s easy to tell who is upper class and who is not. There are even some individuals who can discern what school someone may have attended, merely by hearing a few phrases.

This capability is not nearly so prominent in the United States, but it may be one of the factors which is enabling John McCain and Sarah Palin to connect with the wider public. It may also be partially what is driving the liberals mad.

When he is not attempting to put on the pronunciation and cadence of a South Side preacher, Barack Obama’s accent is neutral, unadorned. It speaks of no particular origin, apart from the occasional Midwestern consonant that slips through. In this sense, his words are “cosmopolitan”, rootless: it dovetails nicely with the same “masking” of accents that flows through the lips of many in the liberal elite. Charles Gibson speaks this form of “received English”, as does Katie Couric and George Stephanopolous. For all of his ballyhooed working class origins, Joe Biden suffers from a similar neutrality in his speech: it is usually just his content which is far from typical and not altogether in a good way.

Sarah Palin is not like the media or most politicians: her accent is definitely regional, and it contains echoes of a number of influences. Some of her pronunciation sounds akin to the vowels one would find in the upper Midwest. The way she draws out some of her words has a definite Western tang. However, all these factors combined produce someone whose words are reassuringly normal. The popularity of “I Am Sarah Palin” t-shirts is likely not because she is solely a candidate whose position in life was similar to that of many working women, it may very well be because she also speaks the same language and in the same way.

The fact that Sarah does not adhere to the elite-defined “standard” speech pattern is doubtless a factor in what is driving liberal rage against her. The attempts to smear her as somehow “small town” contain familiar archaic British elements of class snobbery and derision. This is an old game they’re playing; the elites mocking her may as well call her accent “provincial”, and refer to her as an “upstart” for all the difference it would make. The situation is worsened because of her education was at an institution the liberal aristocracy does not recognise (the University of Idaho) as it is not part of the vaunted Ivy League, a set of universities which has consistently produced more traitors to the United States than any other. Indeed, she is so far outside of what they expect, they automatically question her qualifications, no matter how much her life and practical experience may have prepared her for the Vice Presidency. In their crude calculations, she did not attend the right schools, does not know the right people, does not speak in the right way, and therefore, she’s a “rube”.

All this may sound very troubling to Americans who are reared with the idea that their nation is a meritocracy. Any palpitations should be limited; America remains a meritocracy, if only partially; it is mostly so in places where people sound more like Sarah Palin than they do Barack Obama. If you show determination, passion and ability, these places will reward you with high office, but once there, you’re expected not to forget those who elected you.

In the latte-drinking environs of the liberal aristocracy, the scenario is altogether different; your accent, education, breeding and reading habits are all determinant of your social standing. What you do is less important than where you were: if you are related to the Kennedys, went to Harvard, and worked as an aide to Frank Lautenberg, you’re made. In short, your respect flows not from deeds but heritage and adherence to a particular set of values. If it didn’t wear Birkenstocks and reside in small flats in Greenwich Village or Haight-Ashbury, we could just as easily be talking about landed gentry.

It can seem somewhat daunting for those who remain in the truly American parts of America that there is such a powerful, narrow class to overcome in achieving political victory. After all, they do control many of the streams of popular culture as well as the educational establishment. However, disdain is a double edged sword; as Governor Palin showed in her acceptance speech, the idea of storming the Bastille of the liberal gentry can be a powerful motivation. It was similar forces at work that allowed a Texan with a down home accent and vocabulary to overcome left wing hauteur and outwit it for eight years, much to the chagrin of the elite. You may have heard of him: George W. Bush.

The Canadian writer Naomi Klein is one of those thankfully rare individuals that is not at all bothered by hypocrisy: she denounces capitalism on the one hand, yet makes a good living out of selling books through a major publisher. Her last book, “The Shock Doctrine”, which suggests that business is making a profit out of disaster, is all so very typical in its blather about the greed and evil of corporations.

Yet, she is the proverbial blind squirrel who sometimes does happen upon an acorn of truth in spite of her best intentions. Her previous book to “The Shock Doctrine”, “No Logo”, is also full of nonsense, however one item is worth mentioning: she stated that Nike is not a shoes and sportswear company.

This may come as a surprise, considering the longevity of the “Just Do It” commercials and the presence of the Nike swoosh on so many shoes and clothes. However, Klein rightly points out that Nike does not actually make the products: they are virtually all outsourced to third parties in the Far East. While there are some research and development functions that remains in the United States, our traditional expectations of a manufacturer (that they own rubber plantations in Malaysia, nylon factories in America, and so on), are now invalid. As Klein points out, Nike makes nothing in particular except for its brand, and this phenomenon is spreading.

According to Klein, brand is all. If there wasn’t the Nike brand, there is not a great deal to separate Nike shoes and t-shirts from generic items, and as a trip to Wal Mart shows, the price differential between branded and unbranded items can be enormous. We are programmed to assume that the values of a brand, (in Nike’s case, the epitome of modern athleticism) translate into the quality of the goods. This assumption is faulty, particularly since generic items and Nike items are made side by side. It is, however, symptomatic of an entrenched public belief in spin over substance.

This leads us neatly to Barack Obama: I have no hesitation in saying that Obama is a brand. His website and the well-designed “O” logo are symptomatic of a candidate who has been aggressively marketing in a modern way: he is trying to associate his very name with certain values, i.e., “change”, “renewal”, “hope”. The branding work has been well executed; he has managed to make it so that his name and his logo are now interchangeable. For a time, the t-shirts, bumper stickers and pins adorned with the logo were sought after items. However it is worth asking, if the Nike swoosh is just covering up for overpriced shoes, what is the “O” brand hiding?

Perhaps the most telling event in this campaign was Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama. While news outlets hailed this as a passing of the torch from JFK’s valiant stalwarts to the next generation, this is inaccurate: rather, Obama is the embodiment of the hopes of the Northeastern liberal establishment, in its desire to reassert control over the American polity.

Believe it or not, the government of the United States used to do a lot more than it does now. There was a point that America had wage and price controls; even President Nixon was forced to admit, “We’re all Keynesians now”. The economy was much more heavily regulated overall; few people recollect the revolutionary changes instituted by President Reagan. The media was much more narrow: most Americans only had the alphabet networks and the major newspapers to keep them informed about the day’s events. From the liberals’ perspective, the height of their powers was achieved in 1976, when Jimmy Carter was elected President. They held all the levers of the government, the economy and the media. Ted Kennedy, Tip O’Neill, and yes, Joe Biden, were all in clover. Only the National Review and Ronald Reagan appeared to be swimming valiantly against the tide.

Because Reagan was one of the greatest men of the twentieth century and because the elite made a hash of it, this has all been overturned: liberalism was pushed back. The internet and Fox News have beaten the traditional media within an inch of its life. The electorate has largely moved to the right; no presidential candidate could now admit to being an out and out liberal and survive. Hence, the only method by which the old order could reassert itself was to “rebrand”, thanks to the assistance of the ambitious Mr. Obama. Far from being the avatar of change, he is the icon of reaction, wishing to march the country backwards to the 1970’s. Perhaps the most telling item was when he stated that he wanted to make government “cool” again; this hinted at the ambition to expand the role of the state, and at the same time, the rebranding he wished to apply.

The Obama campaign is thus supremely cynical, and represents the masking of revanchist tendencies with modern marketing techniques. However, there is a problem: people are voting for someone to lead them, to keep the nation safe, to make wise and firm decisions. Reducing this calculation to the same parameters that one would apply to buying shoes is underestimating the intelligence and character of the American electorate, indeed, it shows the contempt that Obama and his advisors have for the citizens he wishes to persuade. Obama’s slippage in the polls is partially due to his errors, but it is just as likely due to the deep-set rot of faulty branding: the contrast of Sarah Palin, unadorned, unbranded and genuine, has only made this situation even more stark. More and more will begin to see that there is no change in Obama to believe in, but rather reversion. There is nothing new beneath the rhetoric and pyrotechnics, just old fashioned liberalism. Only emptiness lies beneath the brand, except for the last, wispy gasps of a now-dying elite.

I suggest that if Obama loses, the elite will learn very little from it; they may try to resurrect the Clinton brand for a run in 2012. However, if the economy improves, Iraq stabilises and America remains secure, the Democrats’ moment can said to have passed. Given the cynicism, opportunism, and sneering contempt that lies at the heart of their vision for America, the loss of their big chance is cause for relief.

As one of Her Majesty’s subjects, I can only express my deep regret at the behaviour of Russell Brand at the MTV awards: fortunately, given it was MTV, few people were watching. The fact that someone of Mr. Brand’s limited mental capacity felt qualified to call President Bush a “retard” and to beg Americans to vote for Obama only certified him as a bore and a boor. I can only assume he is in America because Britain tired of him: we had gotten sick of his mincing, nancy boy behaviour on Channel 4. His book, entitled “My Booky Wook”, is the strongest argument for recycling and conservation I’ve seen in recent years: if one thinks about the amount of paper, ink and fuel consumed just to get the pitiful volume published and on the shelves of bookstores across the land, one is staggered by the sheer amount of waste.

However, I am not surprised by his extreme recitation of liberal homilies; after all, he and Barack Obama are kindred spirits in many respects. Both are what could be called “plastic celebrities”.

What is a plastic celebrity? We can begin our description by describing what constitutes a genuine celebrity: a genuine celebrity has actually achieved something in order to be famous. Dame Judy Dench, for example, is a genuine celebrity because she can act. Patrick Stewart is also genuine; after all, he learned to act with the Royal Shakespeare Company and can hold his own on stage as well as on television and film. Even Salman Rushdie qualifies; he had to go through the trouble of writing several books and nearly got killed for his trouble.

A plastic celebrity is someone who is famous just because they’re famous. In Britain, we have Russell Brand and the model Agyness Deyn; there were no accomplishments from either of them to suggest they deserved any attention whatsoever. By rights, Mr. Brand should have to get his hair cut and look for a genuine job. Paris Hilton is a prominent American example; her sole claims to fame are appearing in a homemade sex video and being very rich.

This situation would be laughable, and merely regarded as a media eccentricity if a plastic celebrity wasn’t running for the most powerful office in Western civilisation. Barack Obama has all the hallmarks of “polyester stardom”. First, his resume is very thin. As Governor Palin starkly reminded us, he has never authored a single major bill or reform. A great many of his votes in the Illinois State Senate were merely “present”. He barely has any character references to testify to what he has done for his constituents or those who he was supposed to help as a “community organiser”. He is a mystery, a cipher, a man without a past with the exception of what he has fabricated for the press; I suggest that his career moves were precisely intended to avoid making a stand on anything, so that he was unhindered in seeking higher office. Yet, his image, his words and his persona are splashed across the canvas of the media like giant daubs of Jackson Pollock paints.

Strangely, the only genuine flashes of the man come from his wife, who says things like she wishes she could meet the Obama as described in print. She also has spoken openly about some of his other habits, such as being relatively messy and disorganised; she has criticised him openly for leaving his socks on the floor. These touches ring true; but one wonders why Mrs. Obama felt the necessity of making these comments, which only serve to belittle the man. Could it be that no one is more annoyed by her husband’s plastic celebrity than she is?

It may very well be that the reason why Obama had difficulty in “closing the sale” with the Democrats, and why his numbers appear to be brittle now is that most Americans, like most Britons, have an aversion to media creatures. If you asked the average Briton about Russell Brand, you would likely find few true fans, rather a few words would be said: “mad as a hatter”, “looks like a woofter”, “sex addict”, “loony”. It’s no wonder he had to go to America; his shelf life here had expired. Similarly, Obama’s poll numbers reflect a fatigue with his mantra of “hope and change”; what kind of change? Why should we hope? What have you done, Senator Obama, to make us believe? As Newt Gingrich said, all he’s done is “talk and write”; this looks pale compared to the achievements of the War Hero and the Hockey Mom Governor. Perhaps that’s why Obama came to Europe, because he was hoping that European adoration would somehow translate into a revival at home.

Neither Obama nor Brand understand there is a sickness at the heart of phony fame: to what end is it being used? On some level, Russell Brand must know that a day is coming when the camera will switch off, the bright spotlights will turn away and he will be consigned to the back pages of tabloids as an object of ridicule. He should be preparing for that day right now, because each sunrise and sunset draws that point of termination closer. Obama is a more frightening case, as his star would likely blink out completely the moment he got into the Oval Office; to lead is to decide, and he has had the luxury so far of not having had to decide much of anything. Certainly, he has had to have a hand in organising his campaign, but working out a salesman’s patter is not the same as guiding a nation: there is nothing in his makeup that indicates he understands the life and death consequences of having to make these decisions. I suggest that if he did become President, it would be a period of inertia, which he would initially try to disguise with rhetoric: rather like Bill Clinton, he would try not to offend anyone. Probably, he would start campaigning for re-election as soon as he took the Oath of Office. His Presidency would likely be full of the pomp of office, but have none of its substance. He would propose “eye-catching initiatives” which would either be voted down or fail. A “progressive” president, he would represent no progress; his sole refuge would be the liberal shibboleths of ages past.

Some Americans may not want to face these truths, but in the final analysis, they are a practical people, well trained by the likes of P.T. Barnum to spot a fraud. The polls now indicate that the awakening process has begun. The glamour fades, the spotlights are shifting elsewhere, the country is intellectually moving forward and thinking about what genuine reform of its political institutions will require. Just as genuine entertainment does not require Russell Brand, true politics in the finest traditions of American representative government, does not require celebrity and myth. America’s electorate is stirring; the dawn of realisation will be wondrous to behold.

I have vivid memories of the 2004 election.  In particular, I recall the home stretch, approximately a month before Election Day; it was about that time that rumours began to surface about some sort of DUI offense that President Bush had committed as a young man.  If memory serves, the rumour was stirred up by Kitty Kelly and her gang of gossip mongerers.  Ms. Kelly was previously famous for the absurd allegation that Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra had a romantic affair.

The reaction from the far left to the DUI story was predictable.  While there was no evidence to back up the assertion, they seized upon it like hungry wolves that had been thrown a giant piece of uncooked steak.  Indeed, the way it was referred to by at least one of them was as “real, raw meat”.   They gobbled it up with relish.

While there was a great deal of sound and fury about the story, in the end, it achieved very little for John Kerry; even Kerry had to quickly accept that President Bush had won a decisive victory.  The “raw meat”, if anything, may have inspired the base to come out in greater numbers to ensure President Bush was elected.

Here we are, four years later and we’ve found out what the left has learned from previous experience: nothing.  If anything, the “meat” is much more blood filled and gamey than it was four years ago: trying to nail someone over a criminal offense in their past is one thing, trying to nail someone for being an allegedly bad mother is quite another.   The nonsense stirred up about Sarah Palin’s motherhood skills, and whether or not she is Trig Palin’s mother or grandmother, and her supposed membership of the Alaska Independence Party has been as pernicious as it has been untrue.

By far the silliest item was the question of Trig Palin’s parentage.  A single post on the Daily Kos, in which a young left winger let fly with a primal scream that Sarah Palin was lying, was sufficient to send the media into a tizzy for several days.  In the end, it was proven to be physiologically impossible.   But the source alone should have been sufficient to discourage the story from being reported on in the first place; rather, it deserved to remain the ranting of a fringe nutcase, whose day job probably consists of shouting at passersby on street corners.

In response to the smears, the conservative base has rallied to Sarah’s defence; the polls indicate the public believes the left wing media is out to get her, and mistrust has been the result, as well as declining sales.  All recent polls indicate support for the McCain / Palin ticket is strengthening.  A writer for the left-wing Observer newspaper in Britain stated that Barack was being hurt by “his friends” acting like “berzerkers”.  Yet, there is no indication that they are willing to stop.

The question remains: why?  Why can’t they see that they are hurting themselves by behaving this way?

Probably some of this behaviour stems from frustration; the present set of circumstances should be ideal for a Democrat to win the White House.  While not in recession, the economy is slow: people are naturally concerned about the future.  Furthermore, there is a natural amount of fatigue associated with having the same man in office for 8 years.  There is a sense that America needs “something new”, if only to sweep away the cobwebs that accumulate on any administration.  Yet, Obama has not been able to pull away.  The left doesn’t understand what’s “wrong with the American people”, or they think the American people have been somehow “brainwashed”.    Their odd behaviour could be considered their primal scream, an expression of outrage.

Some of the behaviour is probably due to a lack of things to say.  If they had attacked President Bush on policy, they would have had to present viable alternatives of their own.  Note the word “viable”; Obama has been more cautious than Kerry about making particular commitments, because this opens the following line of attack: “How are you going to pay for it?”  Every Democrat is open to this particular critique, and the stock answer of “taxing the rich” is rarely believed.  Most people see a tax increase as a tax increase, regardless of where it is levied, and have become wary of them.

I suggest that most of the madness comes from the visceral nature of the liberal mindset.  While no side has a monopoly on anger, it is difficult to imagine a riot of conservatives.  If we regard Democratic Underground as the “id” of the liberal psyche, we can see frequent threats of violence (if matters do not go their way) as the undercurrent in their psychological makeup.  They want, therefore they must get.  Most adults develop, in Freudian terms, an ego and a superego, which informs the id of the constraints of the real world and of conscience; this appears to be absent in the political outbursts of liberals.  They want, therefore they have to have, and if they don’t get, then threats of violence, outbursts of rage and yes, attacking children with smears and insults, will result.  Furthermore, as there is no “ego” and “superego”, they don’t understand why these manifestations are met with scorn by anyone who does not share them.

Al Gore once reminded the public that one of the definitions of insanity was to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result; how ironic that this neatly applies to how his followers are behaving now.  The raw meat diet appears to be the left’s main form of sustenance.  The raw meat diet may be what dooms them this November.

My father, a retired banker, is one of the most intelligent people I know. I spoke to him on the telephone yesterday, and the conversation inevitably turned to the impending election in America.

“I think Sarah Palin is terrific,” he said; one of the benefits of being retired was that he had time watch her convention speech, live. He feels, as I do, that there are definite echoes of Mrs. Thatcher in the strength of her convictions and in her determination.

He reads the Financial Times; he said that even the FT didn’t know what to make of her at first, and had joined in the “gob fest” along with the rest of the media. “It won’t work,” he concluded, “they went too far and they underestimated her.”

He then expressed one concern about the McCain campaign that I haven’t been able to get out of my mind. “They haven’t yet fully explained the relationship between energy and security,” he said.

“What do you mean?” I asked.

“The Democrats are dismissing domestic energy production as being insufficient to cover America’s needs; the Republicans not only need to say that it will reduce dependence on foreign oil, but it also gives leverage. If America produces 10-15% of its oil, that is sufficient to strengthen America’s bargaining position with the likes of Russia.”

“There was a run on the rouble this week,” I replied. It was due to foreign investors bailing out due to Russia’s invasion of Georgia.

“Right. A lot of these Middle Eastern countries have nothing but oil - Dubai is an exception, they apparently want to turn themselves into Disneyland - and for all Russia’s vaunted military might, they are solely dependent on energy. If America can cut into that, not only will there be a collapse in the price of oil, it will also make hostile nations more compliant: after all, they will have had their wallets emptied.”

“So what do you think McCain needs to do?”

“He needs to say, if you want the economy to revive, drill here. If drilling in Alaska occurs, the price of oil will likely drop to $70 / $80 a barrel. If you want secure energy supplies, drill here. If you want to stop giving money to terrorists and hostile nations, drill here.”

“To be fair, McCain has mentioned this,” I said.

“It needs to be the central theme.”

“You’re taking quite an interest in this election,” I remarked.

“It’s a matter of survival for all of us. Europe is not in a position to do anything; take a look, Spain, France, Germany as well as Britain are sliding into recession. Ireland has fallen off of an economic cliff. Japan is in chaos. Only China and the energy producing nations are avoiding outright recession; but the so-called de-coupling between America and the world economy has turned out to be a load of tosh. If America suffers, so do we all. And Obama hasn’t a clue.”

We talked a bit longer, mostly about how Gordon Brown and Labour are rapidly sinking out of sight; however the points he raised have stuck with me. Domestic energy production is not just a matter of expediency or convenience, it is the key to everything else. John McCain now has the spokesman for the economic benefits; he needs to step up and speak about the foreign policy implications. In this area, the Democrat response is going to be found wanting: Obama can only preach conservation without alienating his core vote, but this is unlikely to play well with middle America, nor is the idea that dependence on foreign oil will continue. I am sure others have done it, but credit to my father: he neatly threaded the needle. I hope McCain’s strategists do the same.

Almost twenty years ago, when I was a very callow youth indeed, I attended the Young Conservatives conference in Torquay, in the West of England. I was one among many of Margaret Thatcher’s footsoldiers, full of hope and idealism.

The conference was perhaps the best political event I’ve ever attended. Many of the speeches were illuminating and interesting; I recall another delegate, probably only a few years older than myself, unleashed a blazing stemwinder about privatising the BBC, which received thunderous applause.

However, the highlight of the event was at its end; Mrs. Thatcher, who was then Prime Minister, came from London to address us.

I sat about twenty to thirty feet away from the platform. I saw her arrive; she was not particularly tall, but perfectly made up and she wore a magenta suit. As she approached the dais, she was speaking to her aides, obviously clarifying if some tasks were in hand. Without missing a beat, she stepped up to the podium, gave us a smile, and spoke.

I don’t recall the details of what she said, but I do remember that she delivered her points with wit and crispness. Our socialist opponents were wrong, and liberty plus further Conservative governance, was the answer. It is rare to be seized by a political emotion, however as I listened, I could not help but feel certainty. This confidence came from the belief that everything she said was true. Furthermore, she radiated strength in a manner that no other male politician could have done. It was not the type of strength that came across as brash or overbearing: one wouldn’t mess with Mrs. Thatcher, but one couldn’t help but venerate her either.

When she finished, we young Tories rose as one and gave her a standing ovation that lasted till my palms were red and raw. I was certain that we were on the cusp of yet another decade of Conservative government, with Mrs. Thatcher continuing as our leader. Replacing her was simply unthinkable, as she was irreplaceable.

Sadly, she was out of office only three years after the event. However, I was fortunate to have that experience because it gave me a ready answer whenever anyone wanted to confuse conservatism with misogyny: what about Mrs. Thatcher?

The truth is, conservatives (both male and female) have a soft spot for Iron Ladies. I saw it with Mrs. Thatcher; Sarah Palin has the same magnetic pull. Mrs. Thatcher was the daughter of a Lincolnshire grocer; Sarah Palin is a mayor from a small town in Alaska. Both pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps to become successful, and yet did not disfigure their souls in the process. Conservatives do recognise that sexism does exist; however, we believe it is far more in evidence from the patronising condescension of the self-described feminist left, than it is from anything a conservative politician has said in the past fifty years. Generally speaking, when we see people tested against obvious obstacles, and overcome them with character and dignity, we cannot help but stand in awe.

Liberals can’t stand Iron Ladies because they grate against their idea of what a real woman should be: in their view , no one is defined by the obstacles she or he faced and how these barriers were overcome, rather it has to do with adhering to left wing political orthodoxy. For example, we hear about the “achievements” of Barbara Boxer, whom the Left venerates, however her triumphs are marginal: being elected Senator in California if you’re far to the left is similar in difficulty to running fast if you’re Usain Bolt. However, because she believes that partial birth abortion is somehow acceptable, she is lauded as if she represents the pinnacle of genius by those who lack any real acquaintance with what higher intelligence is. The feminist ideal perhaps was embodied by a character I once saw on the “West Wing”: i didn’t stick around long enough to watch the entire episode, however, the actor in question was glassy eyed, complaining, demanding pro-abortion candidates up and down the line for a particular position, and totally uninterested in anything anyone else had to say.

This peculiar sense of “success” dovetails with a wider Left wing prejudice against being effective. For example, there are many AIDS activists in Hollywood; there are very few who go to Africa to dispense retrovirals, most are interested in “spreading awareness”. A woman who protests for the Equal Rights Amendment in vain for twenty years is seen as a success; Carly Fiorina, who headed a business, is not. But then again, Ms. Fiorina is an advisor to Senator McCain.

Indeed, the Left finds the likes of Mrs. Thatcher and Sarah Palin entirely intolerable; many of the attacks on Governor Palin are very familiar to me, they sound like they came from incensed Labour activists in the 1980’s. However, because they are operating on an emotional basis, they have difficulty understanding the results of their hysteria: conservatives love their Iron Ladies, and Iron Ladies generally find that conservatives will go, cheerfully and powerfully, into battle for them. The equation is simple: the more vicious and unfounded the attack, the stronger the conservative response. In Britain, this lead to 3 straight election victories for the Conservative Party; now, Sarah Palin is facing attacks that are even more base than anything attempted by the left wing smear merchants on Fleet Street. I have to smile, knowing the conservative response is coming; God knows what it will sweep away when it does.

Economic illiteracy is rife. The most recent demonstration of this ignorance was on my television this morning: the BBC sent a reporter to New Mexico to ask residents of Taos about their voting intentions. One by one, the owner of a car dealership, and several of his mechanics all stated they preferred Obama for the following reasons:

1. The economy is bad.
2. Obama says we need a change.
3. We agree it needs to change.

There was no mention of any specific proposals by Obama that had caught their eye, not even the supposed “middle class tax cut” (an old gambit by Democrat politicians) sprung to their lips as a reason for supporting the man.

I am not sure how Americans are educated in economics these days; if it’s anything like Britain, you’re barely taught the subject and it’s generally in reference to managing one’s own money. Wider, more strategic concepts remain locked in the dry lectures at universities, and buried beneath intensely dull texts by the likes of Paul Krugman. Fortunately, I’ve been luckier than most in this regard: I can state clearly why “Obamanomics” is dangerous.

Some people might want to classify this as unfair right off the bat; after all, Obama has not been particularly forthcoming with details of his economic plan. All we know is that he says he wants to cut taxes on the middle class, raise taxes on the “rich”, and increase spending on healthcare and education.

These statements are sufficient for us to work from in providing a critique. As Milton Friedman pointed out, there are four kinds of spending:

1. You spend your money on yourself: this set of circumstances motivates you to get the best deal at the best price.
2. You spend your money on other people: this set of circumstances motivates you to be as economical as possible.
3. You spend other people’s money on yourself: this scenario implies cost is no object, and spending happens in accordance.
4. You spend other people’s money on other people: in which case neither cost nor value has any meaning.

Spending is more than just the weekly shop, it constitutes investment. When you buy a chocolate bar, you’re not just paying the store that provides it and the people who made it: you’re paying for cocoa and sugar farms, the workers on those cocoa and sugar farms, the trucks and ships that transport the sugar cane and cocoa beans, the dairies that provide the milk, the processing plants and so on. There is a cascade of investment which comes from every single purchase made, which flows up and down the supply chain. Category one and to a lesser extent, category two spending means that this investment rewards the best and most efficient producers. When John McCain and Sarah Palin talk about cutting taxes, they are precisely calling for a stimulus in efficient investment, to bolster good businesses, so they can provide more employment and wealth.

The vast majority of government spending falls into category four; earmarks can be said to be in category three. In this instance, investment allocation is not happening on the basis of efficiency, it is being done on the basis of supposition (as in category four) or on the basis of personal greed at the expense of others (category three). What Obama is advocating by increasing government spending is more of this kind of inefficient investment. He is, in effect, severing the relationship between money and the effect it should have with the producing areas of the economy.

Worse, there is an effect in economics known as “crowding out”; when government expenditure increases, the amount of private expenditure and investment decreases: there is only so much liquidity in an economy at any one time and government liquidity can only happen if private liquidity reduces. If the government does more category four things, this will come at the direct expense of category one things.

When only inefficient behaviour is rewarded, this makes the economy dysfunctional: one of the reasons why the USSR collapsed is because all spending fit into category four and category three. This system could not provide for basic needs such as food and housing, let alone enable adequate provision for modern healthcare and other necessities; it also created a class of white collar criminals known as “tolkachi” (“pushers”) who stole resources from the state for the purposes of category three expenditure. In a more normal scenario, a dysfunctional economy will not produce adequate tax revenues to cover the expenses of the state, in which case, as in Britain, the government will seek to tax everyone one, either directly or by stealth, to cover the shortfall.

These basic facts, simple, clear and direct are seldom discussed. Obama would like to shield the truth from people’s eyes with misty rhetoric, but what he is asking the American public to believe is that somehow idealism will make he and his minions in Washington as careful and responsible spenders as the average individual spending for themselves. Indeed, he is implying this is a superior form of investment. While the sentiment is lofty, it should be greeted with Alaskan-cold scepticism. Our friends in New Mexico may want the economy to improve; hope alone, however, is not the answer. Being logical, and voting McCain / Palin, is.

It’s rather pleasing to know that journalists are so pure and upright these days that issues like teenage pregnancy and a 22-year old Driving While Intoxicated charge fill them with righteous indignation. No doubt they lead a cloistered existence, rather like monks, which involves the hairshirt, ritual prayer, self-denial and abstraction from the realities of every day life.

This is in stark contrast to the image I always had of them as being nothing more than petty, self-aggrandising, slothful and mindlessly left wing fools with a penchant for substance abuse and cheap prostitutes, the latter inclination being a necessity as no other class of individual would want to chance perpetuating the genes that produced a journalist in the first place.

I am being sarcastic, of course. However if the present idiocy regarding the so-called “scandals” in Sarah Palin’s history proves anything, it clearly demonstrates that journalists have become the parasitical class in American society.

Journalists, as P.J. O’Rourke, has admitted, are extremely lazy. This is why they tend to graviate towards anything immediate and sensational: war in Iraq works, because it is easy to blast out a thousand words about grenades going off and people dying. Complex and endemic corruption within, say, the state of New Jersey does not, because it would require extensive interviews, research and distilling complex ideas into a limited-word format, a skill which most journalists do not possess. Furthermore, it would require having people skills, which the likes of Helen Thomas prove are in short supply in the media.

What journalists do have is the natural instinct of the lazy: they constantly find the shortest route to completing a task, even if it means the task is poorly done. If John McCain stands up today at the Republican National Convention and says, “I believe in motherhood. I believe Sarah Palin is a fine mother; and Bristol Palin has an excellent example to follow”, the journalist is trained to spot any hidden denigration in order to create a firestorm where none was intended. The mythical McCain statement I just proposed, for example, contains the following kernel of negativity: it can be read as an attempt by McCain to smooth over the Bristol Palin pregnancy story. Or alternatively, it can be seen as a message attempting to reassure “shaky” evangelical voters (all the journalists need to find is one who likes having their name in the paper). Alternatively, it can be read as a “diss” of Bristol Palin, a sideswipe telling her, “be like your mother”. If one’s mind is trained to see the dark cloud in every silver lining, the opportunities for producing scandal mongering material are endless.

Sarah Palin is a “target rich” environment for the press, as she is relentlessly normal. She has a middle class background. She went to the University of Idaho. As a teenager, she wore t-shirts with humorous slogans on them. She has five children, sometimes they misbehave. Todd Palin races snowmobiles and in his youth, once got caught drink driving. None of these things are particularly remarkable; in fact, compared to the “snorting cocaine off a glass table in an oil sheik’s apartment” lifestyle that many journalists have, it’s saintly. But their laziness kicks in, as does their false pride in being the supposed “defenders of the Republic”, a title which was meant for journalists in a bygone era that rewarded skepticism and logic rather than idleness and narcissism.

I have no doubt that the parasitical class will continue to look for things to hit Sarah Palin with, for a simple reason: this political season was supposed to be very predictable. They could write up articles about how well Obama is doing in a variety of battleground states, throw in the occasional “disgruntled Hillary supporters” item to maintain credibility, and then go fishing (though presumably not in Alaska). Sarah Palin changed the narrative of the race. She is normal. She is someone to whom most Americans can relate. Her problems are not extraordinary ones, though she has shown extraordinary composure in facing them. She doesn’t do “cool” things like get whacked out on drugs and sleep with Marilyn Monroe like JFK. She didn’t hang out with Sixties radicals who wanted to plant bombs. If she ever got to office, journalists would have to work to find something else to write about. And we can’t have that.

“This Week” has fallen in grace and stature over the years, however, even its gratuitous flaws were insufficient to mask the milquetoast responses of Lindsay Graham on today’s programme. When confronted by George Stephanopolous about Governor Palin’s so-called lack of qualifications to lead the nation should something happen to John McCain, he kept on trying to dodge the issue by referring back to Obama.

While Obama’s lack of experience is certainly an issue, this dodge has a fundamental intellectual flaw: there is an acceptance inherent in this approach that Governor Palin is not ready to lead from the moment she should be called to do so. This is not only dangerous, it is wrong.

Let us begin by saying that experience is only one component associated with being able to do a job. When I hire, I don’t necessarily only look at the variety of positions that one has held: that does not necessarily indicate that one would be good at a particular position. There is an interview; sometimes one is interviewed once, twice, three times - I talk to the applicant about what has motivated them, what they are interested in doing, what they would do if I gave them the job. In short, I look at the person’s imagination, intellect and character and to how these were applied to their set of experiences. These are often far more important than having say, worked for IBM or Oracle; I have turned down applicants who had blue chip experience because they lacked anything besides acronyms on a resume. I have never regretted it.

Have no doubt, Sarah Palin not only has excellent experience, she also has shown tenacity, character and imagination in accruing it. Her road to politics is paved with numerous ethical stands: rather than do what was convenient or easy, she did what was right. For example, she resigned from her post on the commission governing Alaska’s oil industry in order to denounce corruption. She took on an entrenched political machine, with no certain prospect of winning. This speaks of someone who has that most scarce of political resources: courage.

Courage is a quality that extends into her personal life as well; let there be no doubt that it is far more convenient to be a hypocrite than to live by one’s beliefs. She could have aborted her Down’s Syndrome child, Trig; yet, she chose to bring him to term, in spite of the extra care that it would imply. Love and bravery triumphed over expediency. When did Biden have to make such a decision? When did Obama? No doubt their lives have contained difficulties, but seldom are forks in the road so clearly labelled.

Beyond courage, no one can deny she is highly intelligent. Her interviews sparkle with it; but this is not the abstracted intelligence of the type we saw in John Kerry. Hers is a practical mentality, which has translated into practical benefits for the people of Alaska. Their fuel bills were too high? She instituted a rebate.

Finally, she has the quality of connection. If one seeks to lead a nation, one must have an insight into the life of the nation. Were she not a politician, she would be carrying on with her solidly middle class life: her life story contains all the hallmarks of middle class aspirations. She only became a beauty pageant contestant to pay for university. She did not have the luxury or opportunity to obtain a Harvard scholarship; thus her path was only smoothed by hard graft. This experience sits far more comfortably with most Americans than the cosetted experience of the Democrat political elite, whose attendance at Ivy League schools has only served to reinforce their snobbery regarding the way most Americans work, struggle, aspire and succeed.

Does she have much foreign policy experience? I dare say that it is never far from her mind: Alaska is wedged in between friendly Canada on one side (with whom she negotiated on one side) and unfriendly Russia on the other. Alaska’s national guard are also in her care; and furthermore, she knows that if she becomes President that any foreign policy decision is going to have a direct bearing on where her enlisted son goes. This is experience and a stake in foreign policy that no one on the Democrat side has.

The likes of Lindsay Graham should keep in mind that all of Sarah Palin’s life has prepared her for this, to show her quality at times when things may not go well, not necessarily when the bright sun of happy times is shining down on the country. Experience in and of itself means nothing: as a Briton, I know this better than most. Our present Prime Minister had ten years to prepare for the role, and once in office, his lack of character and gumption means his reign is floundering. Paul Martin, the former Canadian Finance Minister, was nicknamed “Mr. Dithers” once he ascended to the Prime Minister’s role, and his administration similarly failed.

Not just experience, but experience coupled to character is what matters. Sarah Palin has this in spades. Anyone who says otherwise can go to hell.