Going Rogue, a Book Review

GOING ROGUE

An American Life

by Sarah Palin

413 pp. Harper/Collins.$28.99

Amazon/Kindle.$9.99

"Going Rogue," the title of Sarah Palin's book, refers to a remark made by an anonymous McCain aide late in last year's presidential campaign. It was used to describe the vice-presidential candidate's efforts to break free of her campaign constraints and go “off-script”. In particular, it referred to her reaction to the decision to pull out of the Michigan race. But the term seemed to catch on with the race in general, and with Palin in particular. She clearly sees herself as a self-propelled agent of her own will.

This book, reasonably well-written we assume by an un-credited ghost writer, is not a political treatise; it’s an autobiography. The first half deals with her life leading up to the 2008 presidential election. Palin’s fans and followers will savor every page of this quick-reading work. Critics will rush straight to the meat---the campaign.

Through it all, Ms. Palin emerges as a new style of feminist: a politician who took on the Ole Boy network and won; a wife with a supportive husband whose career takes second place to hers; and a mother who, unlike working women of an earlier age, isn't shy about showcasing her family responsibilities. She writes with sensitivity and affection about her gay college roommate, and she confesses her anguish when she found out that she was carrying a baby with Down syndrome. That experience, she says, helped her to understand why a woman might be tempted to have an abortion. This is not the prejudiced, dim-witted ideologue of the popular liberal imagination.

This woman, who’s captured our national imagination, is a walking package of “Americana”, by her portrayal a combination of Norman Rockwell, Garrison Keillor, Shirley Temple, Davy Crockett, William Jennings Bryan (sorry but Bryan was a pacifist,) and Annie Oakley on a snowmobile. Palin appears to be a dedicated public servant, eager to improve life for all of her constituants. She is scrupulous in her public dealings, instructing her daughter not to accept even a bottle of Gatorade from a car-pooling mother who happens to be a lobbyist.

It’s clear from day one of the campaign, however, that she’s under wraps. Though extolling praise for McCain, she chafes at her confinement, secluded even from the friendly, Alaskan press. When one of her aides asked McCain headquarters for permission for her to go to the rear of the campaign plane to talk to reporters, the response was swift: "No! Absolutely not—block her if she tries to go back." She rails about being prepped for her debate with “non-answers” to questions: “Why wouldn’t I want to answer the question?”

It’s all here. Every morsel that emerged during the campaign; from the announcement of her daughter’s pregnancy to the phone call from the French President, it’s all here, eagerly explained:

“Wardrobegate” was thrust at her without her endorsement. She was not delighted by her unwed, teenage daughter’s pregnancy, but would make the most of it. “Book-banning” was a misunderstanding, and over-blown by the (liberal) media. “Hunting wolves from choppers was photoshopped.” Troopergate was spawned from a false report made by a local blogger. (Public Safety Commissioner, Walt) Monegan was fired because of insubordination, not because he wouldn’t fire Mike Wooten, Palin’s ex-brother-in-law. Fortunately we learn that in her admittedly weak interview with Katie Couric, she said Russia could be seen from Alaska, not from her front porch. The poor performance resulted from getting a bit flustered and a poor briefing by the campaign staff. “Hi, do you mind if I call you ‘Joe’?” was not a gesture of flippant informality, but from fear that she’d call him “Senator O’Biden”, and she didn’t know the mic was hot.(?) Randy Scheunemann, a well-known Washington lobbyist was assigned to Palin’s staff by the campaign, not Sarah herself. Engagement in a lengthy phone call from a comic in Montreal, claiming to be French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, was the natural result of having received so many previous calls from foreign leaders. Of course. Wardrobegate II, the family returned 30 boxes of clothing. Allegations of corruption in her administration? Well…

And here we get to the beef. A great deal of speculation swirls around the decision to resign the governorship. Going Rogue presents a full capitulation of the circumstances. Returning to “normal” life, leaving the bubble of protection of the campaign, the Palins were pummeled by the full thrust of celebrity: paparazzi, intrusion and wackos galore. It’s easy to see how this could make governing troublesome. Even in back-woods Alaska they were inundated by prying people stalking the family. The prying included “inquiry” into public records, which in Alaska is free. FOI inquiries require attention and resolution from the government, and from Palin’s personal resources.

Yet her airy resignation speech of July 3^rd seemed evasive at best…interesting that this issue was skimmed over in a very short paragraph. The usual culprits, of course stand behind all of this: liberals. Paparazzi, liberals? Tabloid readers, liberals? Intrusive wackos, liberals? Sarah is a bonafide celebrity. Our society produces a host of people obsessed by celebrities. Digging into a personal life, scratching for any morsel of life or character to make an impact on their lives is a consuming pursuit for these people. Republican reality, and Palin’s reality, however, is that liberals and Democrats are responsible for all things bad. No “liberal” that I know would have the slightest notion of engaging in this kind of stuff. Watching Fox News, Rush, Beck and the others, however, we see and hear anger-baiting pundits inflame their audience with validation of victimhood. Does anyone suspect that Scott Roeder or Joe Stack were Democrats? (These were good American, right-wing terrorists, now applauded by many right-wingers.) Do we contend that Sarah’s own constituency was responsible for this disruption? Not necessarily. But it seems likely that intrusions into the Palin family came from the spectrum of people obsessed by Sarah, rather than liberals.

Rogue is part travelogue, with many references to the majesty of the Alaskan landscape---“We stopped amidst the fjords of Kodiak where emerald green mountains plunge straight down into brilliant blue waters surrounded by picturesque---” always with a smattering of scorn to all who would suggest that pristine wilderness be preserved. It should be exploited for the benefit of all U. S. citizens, and particularly for Alaskans. BTW, Alaska is not owned by Alaskans, per se, (unless we speak of the Inuits.) Alaska was bought by the government and people of the United States.

Aside from covering all bases, the book is a well-spring of Republican sloganeering. Every trite sop that has been sounded for the last forty years, one would think, came from Sarah. Here we find half a dozen lectures on the propriety of “fiscal responsibility” (from one side of her mouth). From the other side she makes thirty-four references to Ronald Reagan, extolling the benefaction of his great presidency. Does Palin not know that Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president we’ve ever had? Doesn’t matter; her legions don’t know or care.

Palin seems to see the world through the prism of politics: “I had more administrative and executive experience than either Obama or Biden.” Fascinating that she did not include McCain on the list.

Indignation over the “book burning” allegation: “Suddenly I was the book-burning evangelical extremist sweeping down from the North on her broomstick. Reporters didn’t bother to find out the facts and print the truth.” What about “Death Panels", Sarah?

“I reminded Americans that it hadn’t been so long ago that the pundits had written John off…..determination, resolve and sheer guts of Senator McCain…” No mention here that his opponents had imploded, leaving him the only man standing; or that he was considered so marginal that no one bothered attacking him.

Rationalization and “spin” flow like a fire hose. We find long-winded descriptions of her voracious reading as a child (in a home with no television)…vindication for silly remarks to Katie Couric? When offered three opportunities to name “one” periodical or news source that she used for information, she couldn’t do it. “Oh, I read them all” is ingenuous beyond the belief of any but the most ardent Palin supporter. Contending that she naively thought that she and Couric were just going for “girl-talk”, even if that’s true, who, engaged in our politics, can’t spontaneously come up with “Time” or “Newsweek?”

When this is backed up with: Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." (Sarah Palin, August 7th, 2009) , we have a long way to go to find credibility. This catchy canard has been ranked the biggest lie of the year 2009 in a poll of fact-checking pundits. It’s clear that Ms. Palin plays fast and loose with facts, if not reality.

(“Death panels” are a far-fetched image based upon proposed insurance coverage for private conferences with personal doctors. This was not 'fashioned' by President Obama. The disgusting reality, ignored by Palin and Republicans, is that “death panels” exist…now. They exist in the executive chambers of insurance companies, making the decision to rescind coverage for sick policy-holders.) But politically, this works beautifully. When Andrew Breitbart, the founder of BigGovernment.com, introduced Ms. Palin by describing her as “the first person to tell us about the death panel,” the partisan crowd cheered wildly. Can we believe, then, any of the rationalizations presented here?

Page after page of plaints---liberals!

“In those days, ACLU activists had not yet convinced young people that they were supposed to feel offended by other people’s free exercise of religion.”(?)

“90% of the newspeople covering the debates were liberal.” Really?

“The time has come to acknowledge that it is counterfeit objectivity the liberal media try to sell consumers.” and “…beware the left’s attempts to silence these…('informative' talk-show hosts.)”

“…[Horowitz’s] book explained the stark difference between the left’s expert use of the weapons of political warfare”….used (as an example) to bring down Newt Gingrich, “…and the right’s high-minded but ineffective approach.” (Gingrich was brought down by a vote of 395 to 28 in a Republican-controlled house.)

We are offered (only) one specific: ….hateful and “distorted images over Trig’s pretty face…" by "...the official Alaskan blogger for the Democratic National Committee…”

Note that there is no reference here. In fact there are no footnotes, not a single reference in the entire book. The reader is to accept all claims as fact. It’s odd that a book covering a political period or life would appear without footnotes. Even Robbinsense provides references for all “facts” and sources regarding material or claims that the publisher thinks readers might find suspect. Palin supporters require no validation of her “facts”---they are not skeptical of anything that supports what they want to believe.

As a political work, at best this book serves as a manifesto of the political “right”. Going Rogue is an entertaining and worthy book, as Sarah Palin is an interesting and entertaining personality. Literature? Well…. But for a committed Republican or the 25 million or so Sarah Palin fans, this is cotton candy.

In The Way Forward, we hope to find clues as to what might be on the horizon. But at a mere 13 pages, The Way is another tour through the GOP slogan book. [“We (America) don’t go looking for fights, but we’re ready to face them if necessary.” Like Iraq?] In a rare moment of candor, Palin admits that we cannot expect to get more than slogans even from Republicans. The reader is left lurching for some leader who can bring this country out of the wilderness…...Sarah?