Deconstruction Of The Fable
The Awl points out this from The Washington Independent, in which Sarah Palin seems be forecasting—or urging—the Apocalypse:
“I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”
Tortured syntax, folksiness real or feigned, disregard of facts; liberals have been mocking and (some) conservatives have been defending Palin’s uniquely tongue-tied elocutions since her interview last fall with ABC’s Charles (“What part, Charlie”) Gibson.
But what happens when we put her words into Standard English? (new type in bold):
“I believe that further expansion of
theJewish settlements should be allowedto be expanded upon, because there will be continued population pressure in Israelthatpopulationof Israelis, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months aheaddue to immigration. AndI don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expandthis is really an Israeli issue.”
Leaving aside that immigration to Israel is down, do you notice anything (besides how difficult the quote is to read with all those strike-throughs)?
It now sounds like boilerplate—a standard policy statement. It could come from a talking snooze-head on The News Hour. Or a press release. Straight Outta AEI.
There is nothing notable about it. No new or distinctive substance. Even the nod at setting the conditions to spark the apocalypse hints at a widely held belief (just as she cribbed “death panels” from Betsy McCaughey).
We shake our heads, laugh, get infuriated or scared, wonder how anyone can be a fan or find her statements anything but nails on a chalkboard. But she’s not popular despite her malapropisms. She’s popular because of them. Ultimately, they’re all that distinguishes her. They give the illusion of shock to ideas, such as they are, that are nothing new on the national stage. (Might Palin, indeed, cite that as an attribute? That she’s just sayin’ what real folks everywhere are sayin’?) What’s new about her has been, from the start, her inability to articulate what she believes.
Urban Dictionary defines palinize as (among other things):
- To attack a person for his or her conservative values by focusing an inordinate amount of attention on a single example of that person falling short (or being perceived as falling short) of the values they espouse.
- To bluster, to speak without saying anything of substance.
- To flub a television interview.
- To randomly repeat talking points regardless of the questions given to you.
- To avoid giving any substantial answer to a factual question
Here’s another:
- (verb, transitive/intransitive): to impart the illusion of something new, unique or important through a startling use or misuse of language: She really palinized that interview
- (passive) to be deceived through palinizing: the crowd bought everything she said; they were totally palinized.
There’s no there there. Nothing new under the sun. But she sure is clever about the media and fame game, gosh dern it. Maybe that’s another definition:
- palinize, or palinate: to become what one criticizes; she really palinized herself, but no one seemed to notice.
