The Unreligious Right had an interesting post up a few days ago about why some conservatives are chary of criticizing Sarah Palin publicly, even if they have critical things they want to say:

First and foremost, even those of us on the right who are not Palin fans do not want to associate ourselves with the deranged leftist hatred focused upon her. With the lunatic ravings of people like Andrew Sullivan directed against Palin on an almost daily basis, many people probably feel that Palin receives more than enough attacks, and doesn’t need Republicans to pile on. I know that’s how I look at it. I’ll criticize Palin on specific points, and other Republicans do the same.

…

A significant reason that many on the right are not leaping to attack Palin is that we agree with her on certain points, and don’t view her through a lens of hysterical fear and loathing.

I think that’s understandable to an extent. The problem is that when reasonable people with substantive criticisms hang back and keep their mouths shut out of sympathy, the public debate about someone such as Palin ends up careering wildly between fulsome praise and invective. There’s little exploration of the real estate in between where sensible observations can be made. And that makes it easy for Palin and her advisors to assume that all her critics are arguing from emotion rather than reason and can therefore be safely ignored. (That’s not unique to Palin, of course. She just happens to be the figure in question here.) Yes, Palin’s detractors have often been uncommonly nasty. But the way to compensate isn’t by biting back serious doubts about her; it’s by voicing them in a fashion that pulls the public discourse back toward even-temperedness and rationality.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 11th, 2010 at 04:24 and is filed under society. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.