Palinism: Calling the RINO bluff
posted at 4:20 pm on May 20, 2009 by CK MacLeod
In prior posts on Sarah Palin and the work in progress I call “Palinism,” I’ve tried to reserve judgment as to whether its place in our political world, its effective meaning, will have to be defined and developed by someone else and under another name. No matter how explicitly stated, however, this reservation doesn’t prevent commenters from immediately returning to tiresome, trivially personalized discussion, a game of political Mystery Date in which the media construction “Palin” is compared unfavorably to some dream bachelorette or perhaps to the steady date currently in the White House.
Yet even if assorted provocateurs, obsessives, and open political enemies just want to re-cycle Campaign ’08 video and data files, their reaction is justified in one respect: As willing as we may remain to accept some other political author if he or she comes along and gives a better presentation, Governor Palin obviously retains a political right of first refusal on Palinism. The project is hers if she wants it.
There’s new evidence that she may, indeed, be exercising her option. Her latest release at SarahPAC indicate that, at a minimum, she is working up a treatment, possibly a full-fledged script, and that she intends to be directly involved in any negotiations on the property.
The relatively short statement is worth looking at closely. I think it gives us a working outline – or good piece of it – for our rough draft.
1) Confront Obama Directly and Define Him as an Establishment Politician
The transition from Candidate Obama to President Obama has been as predictable as Alaska’s winter snow.
While aligning herself with those who never trusted Obama the nominee’s posturing as a centrist, in her opening sentence Palin also speaks to the broader suspicion of all politicians who campaign one way, and govern another. “Alaska’s winter snow” can perhaps join death, taxes, and lying politicians among the great certainties of life. Obviously, the invocation of Alaska also reminds us of who the speaker is – this woman of the open frontier, as far removed from the Obamas of the world as you can be and still remain on the same political continent.
2) Define The Issues Broadly
We are now witnessing actions that will lead to a monumental shift away from free market capitalism and the strong work ethic that built this great country.
Conservative Republicans, the so-called “base,” do not hold with the likes of Colin Powell, David Frum, David Brooks, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Huntsman, and others, that there’s a future or even much of a purpose for a Republican Party that merely offers somewhat “less of same” against the Democratic Party. While the moderates obsessively pore over demographic studies and try to imagine tactics that would rent out “more young people, more people of color, more people who are urban-dwellers, more who are the intelligentsia in America” for whatever election day, the Palinists insist on addressing core issues which in some respects haven’t changed since the Founding, always producing two “natural parties,” if under changing names and particular justifications, around the contradiction between centralization of power and fundamental civil liberties.
It’s hard to imagine how “less of same” can rise to “monumental” challenges. In the current epoch, under actual and proposed radical expansion of the public sector and radically increased public intervention by the state, Palinists see themselves as the defenders of democratic capitalism and the American way of life, not the party of more effective midnight basketball, new PCs for the GAO, or a more intellectually elegant division of spoils.
3) Emphasize and Broaden the Fiscal Conservative Message
“Change” in this administration has meant rapid movement toward massive government growth, huge tax burdens on future generations, and an unprecedented reliance upon foreign countries.
Further to #2, but focusing on Obamanomics, on which the political fortunes of the Obama Administration and the Democratic congressional majority will tend to rest. The “unprecedented reliance upon foreign countries” may loom larger in critiques of Obamanomics as we move forward, especially as debt obligations and the potential end of the dollar as international reserve currency come into focus – and the ringing of the global financial alarm clock becomes too loud for us to ignore.
4) Concretely Explain Why Expanding Federal Government Is The Wrong Answer To Our Problems
Today, we learned that Obama’s decisions continue to impact Alaskans; while we as taxpayers now own General Motors, Obama closes another dealership – this time in Soldotna as more of Alaskans’ hard-earned money and jobs are lost to big government. Government should not be in the auto industry business. In Alaska, we have also seen a shift in federal priorities that threaten the loss of subsidized village health care services under the same candidate who led you to believe he’d insure all Americans. The inconsistent messages and actions are unsettling.
While continually returning to general principles, Palin’s statement lines up simple, comprehensible examples of why the inequity, uncertainty, and economic dislocations caused when distant DC overlords run the lives of all its far flungs slaves.
5) Fight For The Soul Of The Party
But we have another voice in Washington, DC – a man who understands what Alaskans believe: less centralized government control, restrained budgets, more opportunity for development, and fewer taxes. Today, we have a friend in RNC Chairman Michael Steele and his bold and courageous speech defines his leadership goals that will guide us all through this most difficult time for our nation.
In order to grain strategic control of the party, Palinists will need allies. Embracing Michael Steele, at a moment when the usual suspects are busily trying to undermine him, when his own early stumbles have weakened his position, but when his own feisty statements and his own well-received, Reaganite speech show he’s still got some fight in him, may turn out to be a deft political move.
Party “kingmakers,” “insiders,” and reformo “consultants” (very partial link-roll) seem hardly to have missed a chance in recent weeks to minimize Palin, pushing her down the list of important players and possible nominees, when not completely deleting her from it. A different but partly overlapping group, including some of Palin’s strongest supporters but also many of her critics and potential competitors, has been turning on Steele, scant months after his selection.
By backing Steele, Palin is calling the moderates’ and insiders’ bluff. If her party adversaries really think that they can do without her and her supporters, all they have to do now is get rid of Steele and put some faceless Crist-Huntsman-Powell “insider” in his place.
Odds favor Palin’s play on this one, I think. Consistency and honor are not strong points among the moderates, but even they would have a hard time continuing to pretend that they’re the ones in favor of a “big tent” while busily purging the Republican Party of Sarah Palin and Michael Steele, and de-funding the whole operation.
Strange things happen in politics, and best-laid schemes go far agley in a minute, but why shouldn’t it be more likely – and a stronger move, incidentally – for the party’s most charismatic and base-beloved politician to end up working shoulder to shoulder, or tag by tag, with a strengthened party chairman now finding his feet?
On the other hand, if Palin’s play somehow fails, what does she have to lose? There doesn’t seem to be much role for her anyway in a party run by and for the current crop of Republican “insiders.” If the Palinists are going to have to fight a nuclear war toe to toe for the soul of the party, then why not get it over with earlier rather than later?
As for the wanna-be realists, maybe they’ll finally get real, and either start working with the team, or change uniforms and be done with it.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
I beg to differ. When Sarah was being Sarah she always wowed the populace. When she succumed to the desires of her handlers in Team McCain she lost most of what America loves about her.
The SarahCuda will be a force to be reconned with as long as she stays true to her beliefs.
CK MacLeod, great article. It is about time we saw a decent Sarah topic here again. Indeed, it was long overdue.
DannoJyd on May 20, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Admittedly, you are unprepared, blind, and/or deaf.
Admittedly, the money, the crowds, and the vote convinced you of nothing. Admittedly, your words are touched with just a hint of venom. Admittedly, ‘The Won’ needed two years, the entire lame stream media, George Soros and King Abdullah’s checkbook, nationwide voter fraud, a manufactured crisis, one aging rino, and still barely took the vote.
Oh, and one more thing, admittedly, there are a few unresolved issues with the last national election.
Blacksmith8 on May 20, 2009 at 10:17 PM
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Not angry. Huntsman can do whatever he wants to. But, if he wants to push the GOP to the left, and then take a job with the Obama administration, I for one will be calling it as I see it: Good luck, and good riddance.
cs89 on May 20, 2009 at 11:10 PM
I remember in Rocky lV when his Coach died…who trained him….Apollo…changed everything. Your quote is a HOMERUN.
will sass u on May 20, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Since the moonbats and demo-freaks think Palin is the death of the Republican Party, I surely hope they are all going over to the SarahPAC website and filling its coffers.
ROFL….they’re not….they’re SOILING themselves at the thought of the Magic Marxist facing the ‘cuda.
(assuming of course that Soetoro hasn’t been frogmarched out of the White House by then).
ex-Democrat on May 20, 2009 at 11:28 PM
btw, follow Sarah on twitter here:
http://twitter.com/AKGovSarahPalin
In just a couple of weeks she has 21,000+ followers.
BARRACUDA!
ex-Democrat on May 20, 2009 at 11:30 PM
But you aren’t mad.
petunia on May 21, 2009 at 12:04 AM
I don’t know. I think Palin’s a great presidential prospect, but I’m thinking that the American people will most likely stick with the idea of big government and the affirmative action prez.
Because with all those trillions floating around out there, most are thinking that some might end up in their pockets…a lottery mentality if you will.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 21, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Divisive means division, which implies at least two sides. So why no comments about the Palin opponents who are divisive? Or are we to believe that it’s only the supporters who want to start things?
Given the sheer number of people posting attacks on Sarah Palin at a conservative web site, I’m inclined to doubt it’s her supporters who are being divisive.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 21, 2009 at 1:50 AM
This is true of every political campaign and candidate.
That ‘lottery mentality’ is what killed the Roman Republic and replaced it with the Roman Empire and the Caesars. I can only pray that the ‘lottery mentality’ hasn’t planted itself in a majority of the minds of Americans.
Otherwise, not even Christ could save this nation.
Chaz706 on May 21, 2009 at 1:54 AM
Dr. ZhivBlago:
Let me repeat what I have written in several posts regarding the political attributes of Sarah Palin:
1)She is charming, charismatic and good-looking
2)She is authentic, eloquent and cogent when she speaks
3)She has the ability to raise as much money as she needs to compete in any contest
Most politicians would be happy to have only 1 of these 3 attributes in spades. Sarah has all three. That is what makes her a political superstar in the same mode as Tiger Woods.
Now the only reason that the Sarah Palin would not be in the top 2 during the primary season is if she decided not to run for POTUS in 2012. Other than that it is a virtual certainty that Sarah will a finalist competing against somebody like Romney, Huckabee, or someone else.
Yes, Sarah could lose in the primaries because of crossover voting but I would be willing to bet that once she got that far her organization would see to it that she got over the top.
Yes Sarah Palin is a grest presidential prospect, but to hundreds of thousands of political junkies she is the only hope that Obama can be beaten in 2012.
For that reason alone her most ardent supporters will never desert her (unless she doesn’t run). Where else do we have to go?
technopeasant on May 21, 2009 at 2:00 AM
petunia, not once have I criticized another Republican. For example on Bill Bennett’s program I thought it was wrong for Michael Steele to call attention to Romney’s Mormon religion as one reason that Mitt did not gain the nod in 2008.
Most Palin supporters you will find are more pro-Palin than anti-?.
technopeasant on May 21, 2009 at 2:04 AM
As it should be. Conservatives are for a smaller government that focuses on legitimate government functions. For example, conservatives favor more spending on national defense. At the state and local level, conservatives very often favor spending more money on police and prisons.
Liberals though would put the government at the center of everything, not just legitimate government duties. If a child is born, liberals want government programs to supply formula to the baby, provide breakfast and child care to the toddler, provide breakfast, school, and after-school programs to the school-age child, and give a government grant or loan to the college student. After which, they want to offer employment assistance, perhaps a nice union position, etc throughout the adult’s life, and a pension when retirement comes. And now they want to add universal healthcare.
Conservatives, by contrast, believe in spending money as needed to protect the people from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and let the people make their own money and provide for their own families. In the few government functions that conservatives believe in, they may well spend a lot more money than liberals. But overall, it’s not hard to see that government will be smaller.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 21, 2009 at 2:04 AM
I’m past it. I think the up chick person saying Romney and Huntsman were fake got under my skin… but that’s done. I actually feel pretty stupid.
Like Glen Beck I claim illness for my bad taste and poor judgement today… tomorrow I might even outright apologize. But not tonight. I seldom can hang on to anger the trick is getting others to forgive your hot headedness.
CK? Maybe tomorrow.
petunia on May 21, 2009 at 2:18 AM
Oh and for the record I think Palin is probably the best we have now that we are making a litmus test for candidacy. You have what you have.
petunia on May 21, 2009 at 2:21 AM
:::stands and applauds CK Mac:::
Excellent post with some intriguing viewpoint.
Sarah represents middle America better than any candidate I can remember in recent memory. Her values are spot on, she fights government corruption and the ‘old boy network’ on behalf of the people, she’s fiscally conservative in a sensible manner and ‘gets’ the need for American energy sources.
Best of all, she’s a DC outsider who I would feel comfortable with sitting down to one of her home cooked meals. Truly a modern woman for all to admire, respect and revel in the glory that is Sarah Palin.
America needs her now more than ever.
Mr Purple on May 21, 2009 at 3:23 AM
Mr Purple i for one could not agree more.
heshtesh on May 21, 2009 at 3:26 AM
CK – Loved your post!
Excellent analysis of Palin’s statements re: Obama & Steele.
You get 2 thumbs up and a double snap! ;)
sarahpalinfan99 on May 21, 2009 at 5:10 AM
I had to check the name of who would post this because you know Allahpundit has no kind words for Palin.
Sarah Palin is the leader that we are being told we should become in order to take back our country. Get involved, they tell us. Run for office. Go to school board meetings. All these things, and more, Sarah Palin has done, and done so breathtakingly well that the MSM had to make lies to trash her.
Will she be the Phoenix that rises from the ashes of Fashion-gate? You betcha. Will she somehow rebound from Trig-gate? Yes, she can.
And one by one by one, people will come out from their stupor. One by one by one, times 60 million, the people will demand change. Real change. And then we can talk abou trials and prisons for ex-goverment employees who were scamming us.
Ohio Granny on May 21, 2009 at 8:03 AM
Sigh. You can see anger wherever you want to. I happen to be pretty in tune with my emotions, and anger isn’t something I’m experiencing in regards to Huntsman.
When I saw his name becoming more prominent I thought “Huh? Who’s that?” The information I saw about him pushing to moderate the GOP caused a “wait a minute. Don’t go there” kind of reaction, the Obama “we’re really scared of him” caused a “yeah right” reaction. When he took the China post, I understand the draw it holds for him from what I’ve read of his background, but think a strongly-rooted GOP traditionalist would have rejected the job based on his new chain-of-command (how can you advance fiscal economic policy while reporting to the Obama admin?)
Anger? No.
Willing to argue against the logic of “he’s just like Palin!” Any day.
cs89 on May 21, 2009 at 8:31 AM
Palinism vs. Bidenism — more of a slam dunk for Sarahcuda every day!
littleguy on May 21, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Highlander……your problem is that Palinism is already defined.
Redefining it may prove a hill too steep.
Homo sapiens sapiens learns things easily, especially strange or salicious things, and unlearns things hard.
It can take 10,000 repetitions to unlearn something once learned.
Your leadership has abandoned Palin because they have done the math.
She can’t win.
OTOH, I think she will be the nominee, because the base believes in her.
But I think it is mathematically improbable, if not impossible, for Palin to redefine herself to a significant proportion of the between 63% and 67% of the electorate that has already learned a definition of Palinism.
The MSM will be reinforcing the learned definition at every opportunity.
For me, Palin defined herself right here.
I believe her.
The meme that will can substitute for intellect and skill, like sending JTP to Israel to report or to congress to represent. Could one really run the greatest nation on the planet in the 21st century with a cabinet made up of yeoman conservatives powered by “commonsense” and “gut instinct”?
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Also, I just started the Jefferson book.
;)
If you have done nothing else here, you have inculcated a love of American presidential history in this humble aukousmatikos.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Keep selling — perhaps you will convince yourself. Intellect and skill have been fully evident in Palin’s administration. It’s Bidenism that reigns in DC today, repleat with ill-timed brain freezes, rhetorical bumbles, and illogical policy twists to compensate for the latest polling. It’s your meme that tries to trump intellect with will, and we will see O’Biden’s failure work itself into the polling numbers over the next several years. Bye, bye “O”!
littleguy on May 21, 2009 at 10:17 AM
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Yes, American presidential history is tops, rivaled only by Byzantine Imperial history, and with more pictures. On the other hand, I don’t know which Jefferson book you’re referring to.
I haven’t replied to your contributions on this thread a) because I think the comments should belong to the commenters except possibly when the post-writer is called out or… comes up with some other good reason to hog even more bandwidth, and b) you’ve repeated many points that we’ve discussed earlier, on other threads, at some length.
I don’t see you advancing your arguments much. For instance, you’ve brought up that “elitism” definition numerous times, and you’ve never answered my question: How would your hero-idol have replied to that question or close variation – how do you define “elitism” or the “elites”(since the issue has been giving you problems) – in some intellectually superior and politically more effective way? I have a feeling he would have said just about exactly the same thing as Palin did, but in about 10 to 100 times as many words – thus persuading you of some greater nuance and complexity in his understanding, while leaving me further persuaded that he’s an evasive windbag.
As for the rest of your analysis, I think you compare somewhat similar but un-like elements and ideas impressionistically, if not promiscuously. It’s a sloppy method unlikely to lead to trustworthy results, not least because highly vulnerable to bias and prejudice, even when employed by an experienced writer like Peggy Noonan.
The impression of a political candidate or program is not like riding a bicycle or fear of barking dogs. Voting decisions and popularity can be highly volatile as any close observer of politics is very aware. You seem to forget that world enemy and traitor to Oceania George W Bush had higher personal approval numbers at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom and through the Fall of Baghdad than your hero-idol has now. World enemy and traitor to Oceania George HW Bush had 90% approval numbers at the conclusion of his own military enterprise, then reversed himself on his no-tax pledge – driving a stake through the heart of Reaganism – and lost the presidency, though still managed to crawl back into the game.
I frankly don’t understand how a citizen with a minimum of self-respect can write a sentence like “The MSM will be reinforcing the learned definition at every opportunity” as an argument against the person thus defamed. It’s particularly disheartening to see self-appointed representatives of the younger generation so hapy to be led around by the nose by the prigs, hacks, and hypocrites of the mass media, while unquestioningly accepting their presumptions and ape their attitudes and substitute-values.
See you at the 2-minute hate.
CK MacLeod on May 21, 2009 at 11:39 AM
I watched an excellent show on PBS recently about Thomas Jefferson’s arch-nemesis Alexander Hamilton. Both served in George Washington’s cabinet and were friendly until that famous dinner at Jefferson’s Maiden Lane home with VP John Adams; this moment was the birth of the Republican party which I see unchanged essentially from that moment, and it clarifies the definition of elitism.
The Democrats, then calling themselves Federalists (or the Statists) are the same, as well. Hamilton believed in using minorities to do grunt work for the party and serve in a meritocracy which would replace the British monarchy. He quoted his favorite philosopher John Hume and praised the Brits’ constitution, which he called nearly perfect, except the House of Commons should have more power. This freaked out Jefferson and convinced him that Hamilton was part of a conspiracy to thwart our fledgling government and hand the reins over to a shadow kleptocracy.
chunderroad on May 21, 2009 at 11:56 AM
CK Macleod on May 21, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Mark Levin has a name for ‘the self-appointed representatives of the younger generation so happy to be led around by the nose by the prigs, hacks, and hypocrites of the mass media, while unquestionly accepting their presumptions and ape their attitudes and substitute values’: drones.
Unfortunately the nation’s most prominent thinkers that once promoted an enlightened education system that promoted the free flow and exchange of ideas among graduates of intellectual honesty now have to sit on the sidelines in old age reflecting on how they missed the insidious and incremental signs of how passionate revolutionaries like Alinsky, Ayres, and Wright were so successful in advocating and advancing a Marxist form of inculcation in institutions of higher learning that over the last 30 years has molded tens of millions of Americans into ‘drones’ and directly led to the election of Obama and perhaps the destruction of the American way of life.
technopeasant on May 21, 2009 at 12:00 PM
It is the machiavellian pragmatic in me. In courts of law, this is used as a tactic based on the knowledge of human nature called catalepsis, to be seized. The adversarial attornies introduce outrageous statements that they know will be overruled, for the purpose of embedding the content in the jury’s mind. There has been significant research on learning and unlearning in cognitive psyc that supports the paradigm…learning is flash, unlearning is work.
Hardly.
Obama’s cabinet for example is a study in upper-right-tailism. But the liberal elite don’t have the problem that the conservative elite have….Liberal elites can be leaders because their base doesn’t expect co-membership…they just expect bribes. OTOH, conservative elites, in order to lead, must be able to successfully pretend they are yeoman conservatives.
Do you really think Palin could lead the greatest country on earth in the 21st century with cabinet advisors made up of Joe the Plumber clones?
The truth is, the facts, Highlander, that some people ARE more gifted, in intelligence, in skill, in ability, in charisma, in appearance.
Her apparent denial of those facts is either pandering or ignorance.
I want neither of those in a candidate.
I have Randall’s book on Jefferson to start…is that a good one?
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Jackson had the same reaction to Adams.
Still, Thomas Jefferson, polymath, is the epitome of elite as described by Palinism.
I’d be fine with you guyz emulating Jefferson on the separation of church and state, and the value of freedom of the individual.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 12:23 PM
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM
When you you say ‘some people are more gifted, in intelligence, in skill, in ability, in charisma, in appearance are you talking about Hank Paulson and Timothy Geithner who together who have taken America down the road to financial suicide and perhaps destroyed the American way of life for all time.
Could idiots like Joe The Plumber and Sarah Palin have inflicted this kind of damage on America: not in a million years.
technopeasant on May 21, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Your position is that I have brainwashed by public school?
But I started out republican.
My virgin vote went to Bush.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 12:26 PM
History has shown us who Jackson was.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson, land owner of multigenerational wealth, was the definitive elite by Hamiltonian standards. It was Jefferson’s recognition that ownership of private property should be the American dream that distinguished him Hamilton and makes him a Republican to emulate by Palin standards. Her homesteading roots would make her sympathetic to the ideals of our early landed gentry.
chunderroad on May 21, 2009 at 12:56 PM
The First Amendment says there should be no established national religion, and that includes atheism.
Individual freedom should not be the freedom to murder your child for whatever perceived convenience’ sake.
Undecided voters choose the most superficially attractive candidate. Your mother voted for Bush, as well, and you had very little to inform your decision. (However, coincidence would have it that Bush was the better candidate.)
chunderroad on May 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I suspect no one cares about your lost political virginity, strangelet, or expects consistency from you, and you seem to be the only one who believes you’re representative of much of anything. I consider you kind of peculiar. If you showed better manners – more in your conduct toward others in my virtual presence, than to me personally (other than in your repetitiousness, which is inconsiderate, literally) – I might even kind of like you.
You refuse to answer simple, direct questions. Instead, you typically change the subject to matters that relate superficially at best, eliding differences while proceeding to some flimsy and self-serving extrapolation (a cabinet of yeoman plumbers).
CK MacLeod on May 21, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Has anyone noticed not one other potential GOP Presidential candidate for 2012 has come out publicly in support of Michael Steele’s speech and message.
You would think that party unity would be a parmount goal for all Republicans.
Remember in the 21st century, don’t ASSUME anything!
Perhaps the RINO’s and moderate Republicans have decided that if they cannot destroy the conservative faction of the Republican party they would rather see America turned into a one-party state led permanently by Obama and the Republican party destroyed forever.
Is it possible that some these moderates and RINO’s despise Sarah Palin and the conservatives more than they do Obama?
You betcha! And there you have the main problem of the Republican party.
technopeasant on May 21, 2009 at 1:13 PM
JTP will not be a cabinet member in anyone’s administration, but he certainly managed to school Obama in the gentlemenly art of argumentation one sunny day. To me, this suggests the much-maligned plummer could very well be our boy-genius President’s intellectual superior.
littleguy on May 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Sorry… plumber.
littleguy on May 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM
littleguy on May 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Little is made of this now but over 200 esteemed economists came out against TARP at the end of September 2008. If JTP were in Paulson’s position do you think he might have sought the opinion of some these folks and perhaps embarked on a program with the help of these experts to maintain the integrity of the free enterprise system and capitalism and promoted the unleashing of American personal initiative to dig America out of its economic morass.
Sure JTP may not be a genius but he is not so arrogant to ignore the pleas of 200 recognized economists.
technopeasant on May 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM
What homesteading roots? This what I object to…you guys hang all sorts of belief fenestrations on her with zero evidence.
I don’t read it that way at all….Jefferson was an elite, the landholders were elites, Palin is a yeoman conservative, without “the advantages” of travel, fancy education, monied “landholder” lineage or political insidership.
I go by what she has actually said…when asked the passport question, she replied “I was not one that was raised with those advantages.”
Highlander, is that Jefferson good, or should I buy Hitch’s?
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM
I
That is what The MacLeod says. That the leadership must aquiesce to the wisdom of the base. But it is pretty obvious that they don’t believe she can win.
Isn’t all about winning?
If you don’t win, you have no power.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Okfine ……..if Obama was asked the same question I think he would have answered on the basis of meritocracy, the idea of excellence…..that the elite rise in the ranks.
But Palin made her anti-elite, anti-intellectual stance a big part of her campaign. Obama would not have been asked that question.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Their problem is that they DO believe she can win. They want the upper hand when Obama inevitably falls. Watch and learn.
littleguy on May 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM
I haven’t read either book, strangelet. If I was thinking about going on a Jefferson jag (and I might, but probably not right away), I’d feast on the big fat well-received book by the mainstream historian, then perhaps polish off the book by an opinionated polemicist like Hitchens, whom I’m not inclined to trust, for dessert.
CK MacLeod on May 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM
you guys hang all sorts of belief fenestrations … with zero evidence
Palin made her … anti-intellectual stance a big part of her campaign
Any evidence for this serial assertion, Strange?
littleguy on May 21, 2009 at 2:25 PM
I think you’re wrong. I think Obama would have made some professorial distinction between “elitism” – bad, bad, bad – and “elite” in the sense of excelling. He’d find some “false choice” to decry, then offer up a piece of that peculiar brand of non-self-deprecating self-deprecation that he’s mastered, pretending not to consider himself a member of the elite in words and tones that expressed the exact opposite, and that invited his supporters to consider themselves honorary fellow members by virtue of their identification with him.
In short, it would have been a few hundred words whose tonic was Palin’s stance, but whose overtones, as ever, were “whatever turns you on” to those who might differ on the “nuances.” For further references, look how he and his campaign handled the “bitter clinger” problem, among other things by picking the “kid from Scranton” for VP. Real right-tailism or whatever you call it, eh?
And, no, “winning” is not the only thing. If it were, we’d all have jumped on the Democrat bandwagon a long time ago. All of this discussion of Palin, conservative vs RINO, etc., is on one level about envisioning a victory worth having. Even if winning were the only thing, if we assume that “joining ‘em” isn’t an option, the question becomes whether there’s ANY reason to believe that a D-lite Republican Party of minor adjustments would have any better chance against Obama than an R-hard Republican Party of real hope and real change (or possibly of economic and political reconstruction). It’s hard for me to construct a scenario other than purely personal scandal or other dramatic dereliction in which that would be the case – or very desirable even if it was achievable.
CK MacLeod on May 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I’m also very attracted to the Jefferson/Adams letters book….to get more of the flavor directly, without an interpretor between me and the man. I wonder if I should read that first even…
I have never read history for pleasure before…always science, math, technology, fiction and poetry.
Its delicious.
;)
Littleguy, she ran as an outsider, a reformer, she had several diatribes against the “elite media”, and against “intellectuals and academics”.
Watch the clip again.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM
hehe, trudat….Reagan had that too…the inclusiveness, anyone can join, right?
I have read some Reagan speeches and seen old video….he had that lovely self-deprecating/self-promoting tension down pat, just like Obama. And he was wonderfully calm….nothing riled him..unflappable. He had a twinkle in his eye, that he used like O flashes his moviestar grin.
Disarming.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM
You have convinced me on the party split though. The elites should listen to the base, or quit the party. In fact, a lot of them are probably doing just that.
It is like Bagehot says, trust the wisdom of the people, even though “they are stupid.”
The conservative elite have abandoned Palin as a candidate because they don’t think she can win.
But winning isn’t everything.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM
As far as I am concerned the term ‘conservative elite’ in 2009 is an oxymoron.
technopeasant on May 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Perhaps you should watch, and listen, to the clip again. She articulates her opposition to “elitism”, not to intelligence, accomplishment, those who are expert. This is the distinction MacLeod was attempting to make, and which you continue to ignore. I was thinking you were confused, but now you just seem disingenuous. If you can actually cite a reference for a true “diatribe” against those with demonstrated intellect and superior accademic achievement, then by all means produce it. I know of no such Palin speech or press release, either real or imagined, so I am keenly awaiting your post.
littleguy on May 21, 2009 at 3:16 PM
While I’m patiently waiting, let me say again — party insiders and elitISTS fear she WILL win. For principled persons, winning isn’t everything — I’m not certain of the elitISTS motives, but I don’t believe they act out of principle. These individuals want power and influence. The fact that they are willing to ingraciate themselves to Obama to the detriment of the GOP suggests to me that keeping Palin from the nomination is a back-up plan in case Obama does fail, which is looking increasing likely to them, and they must run their candidate to maintain their influence, prestige and power.
littleguy on May 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Palin on Washington elite.
She says…”anyone that thinks they are better than someone else.”
People are better and worse than others. America is a meritocracy.
Better people rise to the top.
Some are more intelligent, better-educated, more skilled than others.
Posner phrases Palinism as the substitution of will for intellect.
More Palin.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM
It becomes more so as you get older. When you’re young, it’s more fun to think about the future and unlimited possibilities. As I approach “middle age,” the future shrinks, and I become ever more curious about the other club I know I’ll soon be joining.
CK MacLeod on May 21, 2009 at 3:47 PM
I just don’t see it.
What she says is “anyone that thinks they are better than someone else”.
Do you think you are better than someone else, littleguy?
One person?
I’m better than a lot of people, but not as good as some others.
I see zero evidence that she values education and academics, her two older children dropped out of high school and had to finish either on-line or delayed. Neither has college plans at the moment. She doesn’t seem to have read many books (I can only find 2 references, to CS Lewis and the Little House books), and she did not distinguish herself in her own academic career.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 3:54 PM
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Discussed on earlier threads. Posner’s statements were ahistorical and superficial to the point of being foolish. In addition to needing more history, Posner could stand more Schopenhauer and especially Nietzsche’s response to Schopenhauer, and more contemporary cognitive science. Intellect and will are not separate and cannot be separated.
Or maybe Milton would do – as the angel says to Adam:
CK MacLeod on May 21, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Judgment ain’t yours. You persist in judging the whole of a person on the basis of one particular attribute or set of them. Also discussed at length on a separate thread. You never could answer whether Robert E Lee was “better” than the least slave. He wasn’t, not in a democratic republic in which all men are created equal – all created equal inalienably.
CK MacLeod on May 21, 2009 at 4:03 PM
This nation’s Founding Fathers expressed a similar disdain for the elitists of their day. In the Declaration of Independence it is stated this way, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
Posner is simply being myopic and disingenuous, as are you, by advancing a meme that is demonstrably, illogical and patently false. Not all persons advance on their merit, nor is a professor’s opinion necessarily any more correct than a plumber’s — most especially political insiders and Washington media types with a partisan agenda. Palin has no more animus toward experts or intellectuals than anyone else — less so than Obama, who ignored the expert advice of his own and previous administration’s national defense experts to release secret memos describing the EIT for partisan political advantage.
Your (and Posner’s) meme of Palin being anti-intellect and anti-idea is ridiculous on it’s face and eminently worthy of disdain, much the same as King George’s claims on his “subjects” were to Jefferson and the others.
littleguy on May 21, 2009 at 4:26 PM
see, there you are.
All men are equal under the law, but no men are equal under the genes.
Pure Palinism, right there.
But you see….there is so little data. We both have to guess what she means.
I can put her “who are the elites” statement + she hasn’t read many books + a definite de-emphasis on education as demonstrated by her academics and the academics of her family, and say, yes her anti-elitism seems to me to include animus towards intellectual elites.
I can take her passport statement and parse that….”I was not one that was raised with those advantages.” Sounds resentful to me….. and classist.
It would be great if she gave out more data to evaluate her on, but she didn’t.
She let those snippets define peoples opinions.
After the Couric interview, she retreated and hid from the press.
To me….that wasn’t brave.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Oh that’s easy.
created with certain unalienable rights!
Col. Lee was equal to the slave under the law, but not under genetic or memetic inheritance, or under acquired education and skillz.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Actually, Lee at whatever rank was never equal to the slave under the law of his state or of his temporary country.
Apparently, you have no sense of or interest in a moral or spiritual dimension of life – which might make Robert E Lee, the slave, and the Founders superior to you as they were superior to the beasts. It would also meant that the dimensions of their existence that they held to be most important would have no place in yours.
I have no idea what you consider to be the “good.” Without the good, then there is only “good for,” “better” is purely an instrumental question, and we all might as well be slaves, our fates a matter of complete indifference, even to ourselves.
CK MacLeod on May 21, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Yes we discussed that.
Success is 10% aptitude(natural talent, genetics, memetics) and 90% attitude (will)
What Kylon said, and what I think Palin believes, is that there is nothing BUT will.
That natural talent or genetics or skill simply don’t matter.
That a small town PTA mom with an indifferent academic record can govern just as well as a cosmopolitan con-law Harvard grad, who, like Andy Jackson, was tempered in fire on his way to the top.
You see what you want to see in her, Highlander.
You are mesmerized.
But we will find out.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 7:57 PM
LOL. God knows what you mean by that. Community organizing with the socialist-activist front groups of Chicago? Cry me an effin river.
CK MacLeod on May 21, 2009 at 8:34 PM
divorced parents, schlepped around the world, on food stamps at one time, watched his mom die, never knew his dad, grew up B-L-A-C-K in a sometime slave nation, scholarshipped through school, turned down the big money law firm for work as (yup, sneer away) a community organizer.
Let me axe you a question, Highlander.
Would Palin even have made it as far as governor if she had looked like….say Janet Reno?
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 9:09 PM
I mean….Palin’s looks at least are elite
/wicked grin
And that is a good thing, a gift like charm and charisma and making great speeches.
But there has to be more than just the glossy candy coating.
Something inside.
I just don’t see it.
strangelet on May 21, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Sorry, strange, that ain’t “tempered in fire.” Not close. Not by Jackson standards, not even by the standards of late 20th C USA. That’s “had some challenges.”
Palin’s a handsome woman, not a beauty queen by any means, and we’ll never know where she would have gotten if she’d been harder on the eyes and had been forced to compensate. I think a lot of her supposed prettiness is just good health, self-discipline, physical culture, and maybe some Norman Vincent Peale power of positive thinking – and also, though you deny it, native intelligence and activity of mind. It may be that her greater strengths are intuitive than discursive. Milton would approve if so.
And it’s pretty silly anyway for an Obamanaught to be ridiculing any other politician for taking some kind of unfair advantage of superficial appeal. You’re twisted about Palin, strangelet. How could you expect to see “it” about her when that place in your heart is filled with Barry, Barry, Barry, to the point that that you’re constantly projecting your own attitude toward Obama onto other people? You’re the lover who assumes the whole world must share the wonderful feelings you feel.
I think you should make a serious effort to talk about issues in relationship to Palin and BO both, stick to objective factors, maintain greater respect for uncertainty, set aside the impressionism for a while.
CK MacLeod on May 21, 2009 at 10:33 PM
There just isn’t enough data.
Perhaps there will be later.
For me, as a pythagorean, just the whiff of the villager’s torches is enough to make me bolt. I definitely get that coming off of Palin.
Maybe I’m wrong, I’d be glad to see it.
However, you have convinced me that Frum, Parker, Powell, etc were wrong to tactlessly reject Palin when she is the choice of the base. Bagehot’s wisdom of crowds.
The people will instinctively choose what leader they need in this slice of spacetime. That certainly seems to be Palin.
I predict she will run.
I would be scared if I thought she could win.
strangelet on May 22, 2009 at 9:21 AM
I don’t buy the food stamps story, because his grandmother was VP of a bank in Hawaii. His white mother worked for the Ford Foundation with Tim Geithner’s father in Indonesia, and she was married to an oil company exec. Obama’s fellow alum from Punahou include pro golfer Michelle Wi, Travolta wife Kelly Preston and AOL CEO Steve Case. The up-from-the- streets economic populist Horatio Alger tale is malarkey.
Obama knew his father Frank Marshall Davis. He looks more like him than Barack Obama, Sr. I think that’s the reason pops took off on Obama’s slutty mom, too. The kid was not his, and it was obvious at age 2. Barry had no exposure to the mainland racism and legacy of slavery in Indonesia and Hawaii. Davis was there working with the indigenous native population which always resented the US. He was working to radicalize minorities and develop a model for export.
As for this noble turning down of big-paying corporate jobs, Obama has never had any interest in capitalism or playing along with the system to get ahead. He wanted to work with the Donks and dive into machine politics in a big city like Chicago, the most corrupt in the entire country. His wife Michelle introduced him to the players in Daley’s administration, since her father was a precinct captain.
This is what the Democrats, the former Federalists, the Statists, Communists, Collectivists, Socialists, Fascists, whatever you want to call them… mean by a “meritocracy.” Pay your dues, never rat on friend, pay to play, and you can one day be at the top of the pyramid. It’s disgusting.
chunderroad on May 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM
OKthen.
:)
I still don’t catch the torch-reek off him like I do off Palin.
The Highlander is right….. he guessed I am an elite, or what Palin would describe as an elite.
I had “those advantages”. Child of priviledge. Good schools, my parents house has a library with a fireplace and a leather couch and at least a thousand books, most of which I read growing up.
But in the end, its tribal.
You vote your tribe, unless there is war or an econopalypse.
And then you vote for the best and brightest.
Obama is in my tribe.
strangelet on May 22, 2009 at 1:54 PM
ORLY? You didn’t catch the “torch-reek” when President Obama threatened bankers, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
Fine, then. You subscribe to tribalism. Then please refrain from any future mention of your political cherry. It makes most of us TUIOMAL.
chunderroad on May 22, 2009 at 2:33 PM
You don’t understand do you? Obama as an elite leader was holding back the tide of populism that wanted to burn down the bankers for giving bonuses, bonuses that were legally negotiated according to the rule of law.
Could I have liked Palin? Sure, if she had loved books and the life of the mind like I do. And a person like me, someone from my tribe, could have chewed up Katie Couric up and spat out the pieces. I even rode hunters and jumpers like Katie did on the horseshow circuit.
That isn’t what the GOP needs now, though.
I respect the wisdom of crowds. Palin is exactly what the GOP base needs now.
I don’t know what will happen to the GOP in the long run….it may become the Whig party, or be reborn, tempered in the fire of adversity.
I just ask questions.
I would have liked Palin a lot if she had exhibited some of my ‘satiable curtiousity.
;)
strangelet on May 22, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Darn – I’m so out of it. What’s TUIOMAL? I believe as the author of this topic, I have a right to ask!
CK MacLeod on May 22, 2009 at 4:14 PM
that he helped to generate, as per habit
Did the Benevolent Protector of Beleaguered Bankers, In-Chief, ever point this out? I don’t recall him ever doing so.
There are a thousand ways that someone could chew up Katie Couris and spit her out that would be personally very satisfying, perhaps appealing to one or another segment of the electorate, but highly damaging to one’s political prospects. In avoiding them, Palin came up with a poor substitute – underlining the fact she was less ready to run than would have been desirable, but saying little about her ability to govern or about who or what she really is (unless you’re one of those people who really believes that she can’t read or never knew anything about Supreme Court cases).
I don’t know you well enough, strangelet, to propose a comparable circumstance, but take the most difficult interpersonal exchange of your life (job interview, first date, big speech, PhD orals, whatever), multiply it by 300 million or so, and you’ll understand how much pressure Palin was under, and why the vast majority of voters wouldn’t and shouldn’t have any difficulty setting it aside if and when they determined that what she represented was to their advantage.
One of my favorite things about the 19th Century US political history I’ve been reading lately is observing the differences between 21st C political culture and early 19th: Jackson’s “radical” notion that a president might address the people directly ever, other than through their elected representatives; the tradition that presidents wouldn’t campaign for themselves at all, but rely completely on surrogates… (while 85% of eligible voters turned out, and vast crowds gathered to hear multi-hour debates on the most important and divisive issues of the day).
Needless to say, there’s little reason to hope that we’ll get back to that kind of politics, but it makes em think of what else politics is about other than American Idol + sound bites.
CK MacLeod on May 22, 2009 at 4:35 PM
You imply that her response was a choice.
It looked like a a choke moment to me, a deer in the headlights moment.
Afterwards she tried to front it with Carl Cameron and Patterico didn’t even believe her.
strangelet on May 22, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Sure, she choked. I don’t see how it affects the analysis substantially. If tens of millions of people weren’t watching and the fate of the universe wasn’t in balance, she might have said something unprintable and unkind about Katie. If she had been a seasoned pro, she would have had an answer prepared or just answered the question she wanted to answer rather than the one posed to her. They weren’t difficult questions, but they were odd questions, apparently full of unusual implications regarding Couric’s view of her, her view of the issues, her role in the campaign, and so on. As new VP nominee at a late and crucial stage in SOMEONE ELSE’s campaign, she wasn’t in any kind of position to just “be herself” and let the chips fall where they may. Say she went “meta” on the questions with some relatively polite version of “why the Hell are you asking these stupid questions?” Headlines: Palin gets into fight with Katie Couric… McCain’s VP mentally unbalanced… at war with press… claws come out in political-journalistic cat fight being the sub-text.
So, like I said, she choked. She was accessing her memory banks for correct, properly vetted, effective answers and coming up blank. Off balance, she threw up a shot that missed the basket, hoping for a foul call, but the ref was on the other team…
CK MacLeod on May 22, 2009 at 8:24 PM
No they were not odd, it was total softball.
Her crude attempt at recovery on FOX didn’t help her.
Unprepared or unpreparable?
It is ludicrous to think that Team McCain failed her or sandbagged her.
They exploited the heck out of her as an attack dog and a stage prop.
Why do you suppose Obama ignores her? He could totally win the GOP base’s allegiance by tapping her for a committee on special ed or abortion mitigation.
Reaching out to Palin would be his style, and he could win you guyz over inna heartbeat very cheap.
I wonder if this is why.
I’m sure that unintentional on her part, inexperienced and clueless about public speaking and flash mob behavior…..still…..I wonder if Michelle Obama put a smackdown on any outreach to Palin because of that.
strangelet on May 23, 2009 at 9:10 AM
I suppose you could call those questions “softballs,” but that doesn’t change the fact that they were odd. They were like changeup pitches, coming from reporters whose condescending hostility charged every interchange. (It makes me think back to one of my most embarrasing moments as a child, joining some kids who didn’t know me for a game. They wanted to test how well I could catch, so the captain of the team prepared to throw to me. I braced for a fastball, and instead he threw a little teardrop suitable for a toddler. So of course I muffed it.)
You have your opinion about her recovery attempt on Fox. No one’s obligated to share your impresson of it. You’re the kind of person who at least until a couple of weeks ago was given to asserting that she’d never read a book. I’ve noticed that you’ve amended that to “never read many books,” so I guess you’re progressing, even though it’s a ridiculous assertion that still makes you seem biased.
“lynch mob atmosphere” is a far more excessive description of the campaign rallies than “palling around with terrorists” is of Barack Obama’s long history of palling around with terrorists.
The idea of Obama inviting Palin to help with “abortion mitigation” is ludicrous. I guess you haven’t yet noticed that on abortion Obama’s a Spartan. And you should know better than to suggest that there is anything Obama could or would do to “totally win the GOP base’s allegiance.” I have no doubt that MO isn’t a huge fan of Palin’s. I suspect the feeling’s mutual.
Harry Truman could have answered poor, poor pitiful MO’s question to Valerie Jarret. Palin tells the truth, gets a few people properly excited, and suddenly MO think it’s Hell. People like BO and MO have grown so used to claiming that conservatives are destroying the country, violating its values, etc., that they don’t even realize they’re doing it, and react like political virgins when someone turns it back to them. How many “MO IS A C&NT” t-shirts did you see at GOP rallies? How many depictions of Obama as Hitler?
It’s pretty much just you and me here, strangelet. Be honest about the people you’ve cast your lot with. I don’t claim we’re all saints and geniuses on the right, do you really deny that the left maintains legions of foul hypocrites and ranting nutjobs?
CK MacLeod on May 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Plenty at the teaparties, and Glenn Beck the Insane Clown juxtaposes Hitler and Obama in wall sized slide shows.
But the other guy did it too isn’t an excuse.
Sure there’s frothers and ravers on both sides. I realize that, but…..
So what?
This is what I see happening to the GOP.
Thing is, when exposed to someone like Beck, sane people back away slowly while avoiding eyecontact. I’ve seen AllahP do it. But the base and a whole lot of the rest of you excuse Beck and even agree with him because you see it as turning the adversary’s tactics back on them.
In the end, Palin let the MSM and her gaffes define her.
There are two possible reasons that she didn’t try to reclaim the message–
1. She didn’t want to, for w/e reason.
or 2. She couldn’t…….. for lack of substrate.
I’m goin’ with 2.
strangelet on May 24, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Only two possible reasons.
strangelet on May 24, 2009 at 8:22 AM
You missed the obvious reason, strangelet. IT WASN’T HER CAMPAIGN. The “message” was supposed to be McCain’s and about McCain. It wasn’t supposed to be about her, but she had dramatically outshined the top of the ticket – something that McCain still jokes about.
She wasn’t a free agent, and she was unprepared to run, but she had become a focus of attention to an unprecedented extent for a VP candidate – a condition that persists to this day and to this post. Her public and media appearances were limited and what she could say was strictly constrained by campaign-strategic decisions, good and bad.
CK MacLeod on May 24, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Blow’s article is typical virtually apolitical political analysis. The Republican Party “waiting to emerge” is devoid of content. It doesn’t stand for anything at all other than a dream of attracting “moderates,” without any convincing political proposition to attract them. It’s “move left and hope” (don’t pray, though, that’s too scarily immoderate).
I won’t bother trying to defend the Tea Parties or Glenn Beck. I’ll just point out that obviously neither were part of the McCain campaign. You essentially concede my point by reaching for them.
CK MacLeod on May 24, 2009 at 11:11 AM
BS.
She went rogue a bunch of times, like on McCain pulling out of Michigan, and that pallin’ around with terrorists statement wasn’t written for her by Schmidt and Co.
I’m an empiricist.
There is very little there for someone like me.
It hardly matters.
She is going to get the nom.
And you will lose badly.
_tant pis_
strangelet on May 24, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Which phraseology proves my point: The handful of times she broke free or was seen to have broken free of campaign strictures were dismissed and even made the subject of ridicule (including on SNL) – “oh what a lousy candidate she is, unable even to stick to the script, foolishly going ‘rogue.’” It was a fight for her even to get permission to go on rightwing and right-center radio – something she should have been doing from day 1, virtually every day.
As for predictions, I’ve been around too long to see much value in them. Certainly the scenario of her running and getting nominated is among the easier ones to envision. It’s very hard for me to imagine a scenario – other than perhaps TEOTWAWKI and military dictatorship in the offing – in which she would lose badly, but some other known Republican would win, or lose less badly.
CK MacLeod on May 24, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5