Most of my liberal friends (yes, true, that’s practically the only people I know) are mystified by the success of Sarah Palin. They don’t like her positions, they are condescending about her background and preparation, and they are disdainful of her intellect. For what it’s worth, the more I think about politics, the more I’ve come to believe that intellect is the at once the most essential attribute a political leader must possess, and the most overrated. Intellect without the ability to connect with people is the set-up for failure. “First class temperament, second class intellect,” was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.‘s famous assessment of Franklin Roosevelt (although Richard Posner argues that Holmes was actually describing Theodore Roosevelt.) I think Holmes undervalued FDR’s intellect, but it’s really his point about temperament that matters.
Whatever: back to the mystery of Sarah Palin. First, there shouldn’t be any mystery. She’s an attractive woman with a good figure and good legs. One can bemoan and belittle the significance of that finding, but let’s face it: a woman with those credentials possesses bona fides that earn her a seat at any table in America. (All right, maybe she wouldn’t be welcome at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. And maybe she won’t keep that seat for very long in some cases. But you get my point.)
But Palin has a larger gift. In an excellent article on The Daily Beast today, Howard Kurtz puts it as well as anyone: “Palin is, if nothing else, a master controversialist.” That’s an excellent way to phrase it. Controversialists don’t usually have the most talent or the greatest ability, but they are usually shrewd, and they always possess the gift of being able to say and do things that excite people, capture attention, and force people to react, usually on a visceral level. That is the knack that Palin possesses, the knack for interjecting herself into conflicts, for brazening her way through with a soundbite or a tweet, and for dunking on her adversaries with sharp line. I don’t think liberals like to admit it–I don’t like to admit it–but her “How’s that hopey-changey thing workin’ for ya?”, delivered in her smug, snide, Mean Girls chirp, was just devastating. It was a high school-worthy line, and it induced a high school- worthy cringe.
The most gifted controversialist of my era has been Madonna. Madonna was an average beauty–good-looking but no knockout–and a very ordinary singer. But right from the start and then repeatedly, throughout her career, she seized the public’s attention. “Like A Virgin” was an electric phrase that she helped elevate by rolling on the floor in her lingerie; “Material Girl” was a forgettable ditty that caught attention when she appropriated the mantle of Marilyn Monroe for her video. “Dress You Up” infuriated Tipper Gore. “Papa Don’t Preach” defiantly punched the teenage pregnancy button. “Like a Prayer” angered the Catholic Church and Pepsi. She used Sean Penn to advance her Hollywood career, tamed Dennis Rodman, bewildered Warren Beatty, and as she smoked a cigar and giggled, called David Letterman “a sick fuck.” Until she jumped the shark with The Sex Book, she was invincible.
And so on. Madonna shocked people; she traded on the shock. In a different way, Palin is also trading on shock–the shock that she is succeeding, the shock that she is overcoming expectations. And she has her fans who will carry her a long way, perhaps all the way to the GOP presidential nomination. I don’t think she can go farther. Madonna could sell a lot of records and get movie roles and sell out a lot of concerts even when a huge part of the audience didn’t like her or didn’t care about her. But presidents still need a majority of the voters (or a number close to it), and I just don’t think Palin’s shock appeal will go that far. If she wins the nomination, she will be the Republican McGovern. But as any sports fan will tell you, underdogs sometimes win the title.