Dreaming of the queen

I dreamed last night that I was brought into a room containing two upholstered chairs on raised platforms. “These are for Bristol and Levi,” someone told me, and I realized the chairs were thrones.

The alarm felt by many people by the advent on the national stage of Sarah Palin is not easy to explain. Objectively considered, she hardly seems threatening. She is uninformed and inexperienced, and her political past is riddled with costly errors, which it will be easy to expose. She has been compared to Dan Quayle, because of the speed with which humorists have pigeonholed her, and to Clarence Thomas, because of the heavy-handed tokenism behind McCain’s choice of her.

But I’m afraid that the better comparison is to George W. Bush, whom Palin did not mention in her speech last night. Bush, after all, was a governor when he was first tapped by the Republicans for nomination to the presidency. He had failed in business over and over before falling into politics, and like Palin, he had scandals in his past so embarrassing that most liberals assumed he would be easily discredited. (And in their eyes, he was.) Like Palin, Bush speaks in a thin voice, and his face is always tightly, thickly controlled when he speaks. When challenged, he has a peevish manner, suggesting that he hasn’t been appreciated, that he has been underestimated. And Palin toyed in her speech with a very similar chip on her shoulder. Eight years ago, Bush’s induction was very much a laying on of hands; there was a dynastic feel to it that transcended the mere fact that his father had been a president. And so with Palin. It is a neat trick—claiming to be an outsider when one’s presence on the national stage is owed to an anointing.

It succeeds, because underlying the intellectual contradictions is myth. In the case of George W. Bush, the myth was Prince Hal. He repudiated his Falstaffian past of drinking and unaccomplishment. But according to this myth, it was exactly his long history of having achieved little that was to make him great—he knew what it felt like to be for a long time someone dismissed as a loser but who senses within himself unrecognized power. He would remain one with the little people, among whom he had dwelt for so long. He would carry their hatred with him to the top of the world, and there he would launch war.

Sarah Palin comes with a slightly different myth. She is the princess, whom the aging king has chosen for his own and the nation’s rejuvenation. Her accomplishments, too, needn’t be scrutinized. As with Bush, her hollowness improves her political function. Accomplishments aren’t essential to the myth. More relevant are her children, whom she held to herself last night like a cornered bank robber taking a series of human shields. She was living in a small village in a remote corner of the kingdom, and the great king saw her and brought her to the palace. There he put her on the throne, and as queen she rewarded the little people who had been good to her when she was among them and she punished her cruel step-mother and her wicked ex-brother-in-law.

The appeal of Sarah Palin isn’t merely reactionary. It’s feudal. She was sour last night because feudalism, beneath the fairy-tale sugar coating, is sour. The mafia is the modern survival of it. It is about putting personal loyalties over principle and about rewarding that loyalty with spoils, seized from the weak. Palin’s Alaskan past suggests that if she were to become president, the betrayal of the public interest to private profit and personal vendetta, brought so far by George W. Bush, would go even farther.

UPDATE, 12:30pm: The Obama campaign has itemized some of the many lies in Sarah Palin’s speech accepting the vice presidential nomination. No one will be surprised to read that Obama has serious legislative achievments under his belt, or that Palin loves to raise taxes. Elements new to me: In addition to firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan without cause, Palin improperly hired one of her fundraisers, Tom Lamal, to a state job. And there are actually two bridges to nowhere, and Palin still supports one of them.

“Twilight of the Books” reprinted

Best of Technology Writing 2008

My essay “Twilight of the Books,” about how a decline in reading might be affecting the culture, has just been reprinted in The Best of Technology Writing 2008, edited by Clive Thompson, available from the University of Michigan Press and Amazon, among others. Also featuring the brilliant Emily Nussbaum, John Seabrook, Jeffrey Rosen, Cass Sunstein, and more.

My essay was originally published in the 24 December 2007 issue of The New Yorker, and at the time I put up a multi-part annotated bibliography on this blog, organized by topic:

Notebook: “Twilight of the Books”

Are Americans Reading Less?

Are Americans Spending Less on Reading?

Is Literacy Declining?

Does Television Impair Intellect?

Does Internet Use Compromise Reading Time?

Is Reading Online Worse Than Reading Print?

I also later talked about the article on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show and on KUER’s Radio West.

Tangled up in Wilkie Collins

Emerson Bennett, Wild Scenes on the Frontiers, p. 254

“In Praise of Spiders,” my essay on Wilkie Collins, on the occasion of Vintage republishing his novel The Woman in White in the U.K., appears in the 11 September 2008 issue of the London Review of Books. You have to be a subscriber to read it online. Please do subscribe! It pays my bills.

UPDATE (Sept. 3): Bonus! In the very same issue of the LRB, the novelist, friend of Steamboats, and fellow blogger Liz Brown has written “Miss Lachrymose,” a review of a new Doris Day biography by David Kaufman. Liz takes on Charles Manson, one of the Andrews sisters armed with a baseball bat, and the mystery of identity in singing. Don’t miss!

This Morning in Sarah Palin: Family Values Meltdown

In the New York Times, Monica Davey reports that Palin scotched her husband’s stepmother’s chances of succeeding her as Wasilla’s mayor:

In 2002, when Ms. Palin was completing her second and final term as mayor, her husband’s stepmother, Faye Palin, began campaigning to succeed her. Faye Palin, though, favored abortion rights, people who recalled the race said, and Ms. Palin sided instead with Dianne M. Keller, a City Council member who won the race and remains mayor there today.

“I said, ‘Faye, my God, what is Thanksgiving going to be like at your house?’ ” said Michelle Church, a member of the borough government that includes Wasilla. “She was just like, ‘Well, I just won’t say anything.’ ”

Faye Palin declined a request for an interview.

Add the crushing of her mother-in-law’s political ambition to her recruitment of her teenage son as co-eavesdropper on her sister’s dissolving marriage and to her vindictive and hypocritical campaign against her ex-brother-in-law: Palin family values meltdown.

Also in the Times, Elizabeth Bumiller gives a round-up of the weekend’s Palin revelations, and David Brooks disapproves of Palin as a vice presidential candidate. Trying to soften the blow with a compliment, Brooks writes that Palin “made mortal enemies of the two people McCain has always held up as the carriers of the pork-barrel disease: Young and Stevens.”

Nope. According to Paul Kane of the Washington Post, while Palin was mayor of Wasilla, she won $26.9 million in federal funds for the town of 6,700 people by hiring the law firm of

Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, an Anchorage-based law firm with close ties to Alaska’s most senior Republicans: Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, who was indicted in July on charges of accepting illegal gifts. The Wasilla account was handled by the former chief of staff to Stevens, Steven W. Silver, who is a partner in the firm.

So much for Palin’s claim to be a foe of earmarks. Last, Greg of Hermits Rock, who manages to be more dispassionate than I am, has a nice summary of how useless Palin will be to McCain the day after the election and how wretched her environmental policy is.