John Hayward: How Can Sarah Palin be Simultaneously Criticized For Wallowing in Victimhood and Fighting Back Too Vigorously

In a post yesterday, we linked to several responses to the latest Palin hit-piece from the left-wing tabloid, Politico. Late yesterday, John Hayward (formerly Doctor Zero), provided his own response in a piece at Human Events. In his piece, Hayward focuses on the idiocy of Matt LaBash (who?) and the glaring contradiction in his ludicrous Al Sharpton/victimhood comparison:

The Politico published an article filled with establishment conservatives attacking Sarah Palin, using a juicy pull quote from Matt Labash of the Weekly Standard for their title: “She’s Becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska Edition.”  Supposedly her transformation into the maestro of the Tawana Brawley hoax has been prompted by her “frequent appeals to victimhood and group grievance.”

The central piece of evidence for this claim is Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” to describe the sickening attempt to pin the Tucson massacre on her.  Speaking as one who used that term several days before Palin did, I can testify that I received no group grievance discount.  It was the first time that came to mind when I saw what the media was trying to do to her, and I wasn’t the only one who thought so.

If the standards applied to Palin in this Politico roundup were to be accepted, no female or minority conservative would be able to defend themselves against any attack, because all such defenses would become “appeals to victimhood.”  Try Googling any black or female conservative, and take a look at the vicious racist and sexist assaults they have to put up with on a regular basis.  It would be very convenient for the Left if we agreed to make them suffer these assaults in silence, because responding only makes things worse.


It’s hard to understand how Sarah Palin could be simultaneously criticized for wallowing in victimhood and fighting back too vigorously.  It sounds more like another doomed attempt to win peace from the Left, and media approval, by letting them rule the person they hate most out of bounds – as if politics were a trial of ideas by jury, and they get to strike down a few jurors of their choice before the contest begins.  Of course, they will never grant the same courtesy to conservatives, or arrive at any given moment without a fresh “person they hate most” on tap.

Calling Sarah Palin the “Al Sharpton of Alaska” would be a bit less meaningless if the Al Sharpton of New York wasn’t still a welcome guest at major Democrat events and television shows, over twenty years after the Tawana Brawley hoax.  If responding to scurrilous attacks is a wallow through the bubble bath of victimhood for conservatives, but an act of outspoken courage and determination from liberals, then conservatives are fighting a battle we can never win.  The future of America calls us to do more than negotiate terms of surrender with the people who are destroying it.

Read Hayward’s entire piece here. As usual, he nails it.  This LaBash is clearly an idiot but, beyond him, I continue to be amazed by the propensity of some self-described conservatives to be used by liberals to attack actual conservatives.  While real conservatives, like Governor Palin, are giving their all fighting Obama’s ruinous “Transformation of America” in the trenches, these weenies provide aid and comfort to the enemy.  Indeed, despite their elite credentials, or perhaps because of them, I’m not sure they’re even bright enough to know who the enemy is (hint: it’s not Governor Palin). Does anyone out there, even on the left, seriously believe the Politico is anything other than an unofficial extension of the Obama campaign and the DNC?  Seriously?  Why would any conservative have anything to do with them?  They’re not qualitatively different than the Daily Kos or HuffPo.

(h/t TT)

(18853 Posts)

Leave a Reply