"I seldom read fiction-- and I tend to regard autobiographies as fiction."--
Thomas SowellIf anyone thought that Sarah Palin’s fifteen minutes of fame were about up with the fall of the McCain candidacy last year, just a pretty footnote in history, as I blithely assumed, we have certainly been shown up. One probably should have seen the writing on the wall when those ‘tea parties’ got rolling last summer, which pretty much had the same heady admixture of visceral contempt for Barack Hussein Obama and rah-rah patriotism for Republican Americanism that Palin’s campaigning exuded.
And now she comes out with this autobiography, “Going Rogue”, that has become a publishing phenomenon, albeit written by an other, naturally, since she can give people the idea that English is only her second language, as though she might be more comfortable speaking in tongues.
Googling around the Net for more information, I wanted to see what the Amazon reviewers had to say about “Going Rogue”, and I enjoyed a good chuckle, seeing vividly that familiar refrain being played out again: people either lover her or hate her. 319 readers gave the book Amazon’s most exalted rating of five stars, while 205 readers went to the other extreme and gave her one star, with only about sixty readers split fairly evenly in rating the book between two and four stars. It is funny to see that bar graph, with those two long colored bars far extended at the top and bottom, and those three colored bars in the middle just barely existent.
Of the professional (and politically interested) reviews,
Andrew Sullivan serves up a dish more to my liking, coming from a perspective which sees Palin, with perhaps only a little exaggeration, as being one of the greatest threats to America, a woman who would make George W. Bush look like a brilliant and diplomatic statesman and a veritable Pericles:
"Going Rogue" is such a postmodern book that treating it as some kind of factual narrative to check (as I began to), or comparing its version of events with her previous versions of the same events (as I have), and comparing all those versions with what we know is empirical reality (so many lies, so little time) is just a dizzying task. The lies and truths and half-truths and the facts and non-facts are all blurred together in a pious puree of such ghastly prose that, in the end, the book can only really be read as a some kind of chapter in a cheap nineteenth century edition of "Lives of the Saints." But as autobiography.
It is a religious book, full of myths and parables. And yet it is also crafted politically, with every single "detail" of the narrative honed carefully for specific constituencies. It is also some kind of manifesto - but not in the usual sense of a collection of policy proposals. It is a manifesto for the imagined life of an imagined Sarah Palin as a leader for all those who identify with the image and background she relentlessly claims to represent.
In this, the book is emblematic of late degenerate Republicanism, which is based not on actual policies, but on slogans now so exhausted by over-use they retain no real meaning: free enterprise is great, God loves us all, America is fabulous, foreigners are suspect, we need to be tough, we can't dither, we must always cut taxes, government is bad, liberals are socialists, the media hates you, etc etc.
And it is not like Sully is a Christian-basher who would be repulsed by a person’s religiosity. Rather, he is a faithful Catholic who, I suppose, sees Palin’s politics as being actually un-Christian, being uncharitable to the poor and to minorities, including gays. Sully is the one who coined the term “Christianist”, which is something of a parallel to “Islamist”, and it refers to those with a narrowly fundamentalist and aggressively politicized conception of Christianity. For example, think of those fundamentalists who do not believe in evolution and insist on having creationism taught in public classrooms! Palin may be characterized as one of these Christianists.
Since I do not read the right-wing blogosphere, I have only come upon one positive book review, which was given by
Stanley Fish in his New York Times column. You can tell by his opening that he knows he is swimming against a riptide current:
When I walked into the Strand Bookstore in Manhattan last week, I headed straight for the bright young thing who wore an “Ask Me” button, and asked her to point me to the section of the store where I might find Sarah Palin’s memoir, “Going Rogue: An American Life.” She looked at me as if I had requested a copy of “Mein Kampf” signed in blood by the author, and directed me to the nearest Barnes and Noble, where, presumably, readers of dubious taste and sensibility could find what they wanted.
In his review, though, Mr. Fish eschews the whole fact-checking business, saying that such may be fair game for a biography, but an autobiography is a different game, in which the truth that the writer is trying to convey is the truth about herself and the kind of person she is, and she only needs to convey this truth in an artful way, and one gathers that Fish regards autobiography as being much more art than fact, for what is the truth of any person, really? Autobiography is more like poetry, trying to capture the ineffable self. And he judges that Palin succeeds well in this personal journey.
Perhaps. I only hope that her journey will not include the White House, except maybe as a guest, and even that is a little too close to power for my own peace of mind.
We are often assured that there is little chance that she will ever be president, and
polls are cited showing how an overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe that Palin is qualified to be president of the United States. Even some conservatives who feel she is still a contender will say that it will not happen in 2012, not until she becomes more steeped in policy and better exudes gravitas.
But I do not feel assured. The campaign for the American presidency seems too much like a Reality-TV show these days, and I do not think that Americans really want to vote Sarah off the island, whatever they may say in polls today. She may not be intellectually gifted by either nature or nurture, but she does give off that all-American aura and she looks good with the flag draped around her body.
I don't see any horns, do you?