Times reader schools Stanley Fish on how to read Palin

[BurtWorm]

The literature professor Stanley Fish, while justly criticizing vacuous talking heads for their clueless gas spewing over Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin's press conferences, unjustly elevates Sanford and Palin into tragic figures of Shakespearean stature to make his point in a blog post at the NY Times:


http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/in-defense-of-palin-and-sanford/

Palin had barely finished speaking when MSNBC paraded analysts from both sides of the aisle (Matt Lewis and Chris Kofinis) who agreed that (1) it was a disastrous performance and (2) they couldn’t for the life of them figure out why she had delivered it. Kofinis: “It’s hard to understand why she’s resigning.” Lewis: “What she’s essentially done is guarantee that no pundit could make any intellectual defense of her.”

Later, Joe Scarborough pronounced in the same vein: “It’s hard to find a compelling reason.” The former majority leader of her own party, Ralph Samuels, chimed in, “I’ve had a million calls today from friends, all political junkies, and everyone is asking the same questions. Is it national ambition, or does she want time to write the book, or is she just tired of it. Don’t have a clue.”

Maybe he should look at the video and pay attention this time to the reasons she gives. It is true that her statement was not constructed in a straightforward, logical manner, but the main theme was sounded often and plainly: This is not what I signed up for. I’m spending all my time and the state’s money responding to attack after attack and they aren’t going to let up because, “It doesn’t cost the people who make these silly accusations a dime.”

This misreading is breathtaking, coming from a professor of literature. He gives all value to the text and none to the context, let alone subtext. Palin signed up for nothing. She was elected governor by the people of Alaska who expected her to know what she was getting herself into. Instead, Palin had other ambitions she didn't make clear to the electorate.

My favorite response to Fish's drivel is from Stacey of Colorado. She is right on the money:

I am wondering if you actually listened to Palin’s entire statement. She did not say only that she was resigning to spare herself and the state from inexpensive, supposedly frivolous legal proceedings. She also said that she did not want to be a lame duck governor. In fact, she stated that lame duck governors take expensive trips abroad, have fun, and milk the opportunity for their personal enjoyment (my paraphrase).

The statements about not wanting to be a lame duck revealed Palin’s fantastic absurdity. If she wanted to be an effective governor even while a lame duck, she could have abstained from the selfish practices she disdained. Instead, she showed a primitive way of thinking: all or nothing. Either she is a bad governor or no governor at all. In the end, she affirmed how much she personalizes the political, to the detriment of women’s image everywhere. Bill Clinton endured frivolous impeachment proceedings, and he didn’t quit. (His family was insulted, as well.)

Part of a democracy is the people’s right to file complaints. To denigrate this process is to diminish the value of democracy. Ultimately, if Palin had not made so many professional blunders along the way, there would not have been so many opportunities to file complaints that were, according to your view, her downfall (along with her desire not to be a lame-duck governor, which cannot be polished by any semantics at all, not even yours).

[PVnRT]

1. Stanley Fish routinely gets just about everything wrong

He's like a slightly less annoying George Will.

[Gman]

2. It can drive you nuts trying to make Palin apologists see how messed up they are

but the fact is, they are all just like Palin and are not capable of understanding any kind of intellectual thinking process.