Judging by these comments it looks like I was right.
drblack8
· 5 months ago
As an Orthogonian, I will let you know that you have the reason for starting the Orthogonian Society correct, but you have failed at outlining its major tenants. There is no room for self pity, excuses, self loathing, blaming others, or not giving 100% in our society. We believe in self-improvement and improvement of our fellow man/woman. You are wrong about our society and it cannot be applied to every politician as you have attempted to do. This is a secret society and its tenants are kept secret, so I will not reveal them all here, but Sarah Palin could never and will never be an Orthogonian. Sir, I would expect that you should do your research a bit better before mis-charachterizing a group in the future.
vwcat
· 5 months ago
Palin is very much in the same mold as the standard conservative: Self Obsessed, immature, indulgent and spends most of their time feeling sorry for themselves. I have seen alot of the justifying doing something, even if it is bad or dangerous, by claiming that so and so does it. Well China and India are not going green and are polluting so, why do we have to stop polluting? Or the famous: It's everyone elses fault but, mine (however, we are all about personal responsibility). All of this can be traced back to the Nixon era. I think his legacy is the lasting impact in the thinking of his party and behavior. Palin is hopefully the last in this line. Maybe with all the problems of the republicans, they will finally purge themselves of their Nixonian tendencies that they mistake as conservative.
joegandelman
· 5 months ago
A reminder again that just insulting someone who writes a post is not really commentary. Perhaps you can explain how you view Palin and why you think this is off the mark. It really gets old when everytime someone on the right or left doesn't like a post they go after the author no matter who he or she is. And if you check our comments policy, that isn't what about comments is all about...it's about discussion of issues and TMV readers' takes on them. The insults on this post impressed me so much that I decided to make this a featured post for a while and put it at the top of TMV. Also, if you have read Nixonland this is an interesting take on this issue. Do you disagree? Fine. Then tell give your analysis here on the issues raised in the post. PS: Elrod used to do just that and his comments impressed so many people on TMV that we invited him to be a coblogger. He never insulted people who did posts...he just gave his own analysis.
keelaay
· 5 months ago
Elrod -- While I think you have Palin nailed, I also think you underestimate your described Orthogonians and more broadly the GOP. Many of the Moderate Voice contributors state the Palin is a darling of the GOP base. This is yet to proven as she has never been tested in even a state Republican primary outside Alaska much less nominated for or elected to any national office. While Palin is indeed a right wing populist, I do not agree that "no politician has better embodied the Orthogonian spirit better than Sarah Palin." Palin is no Nixon -- she does not have the intellect, the world knowledge, nor the shear political brutality of Nixon. She also is no Reagan, as she has none of the communicative skill nor the grand vision of both party and nation as only Reagan possessed. I put her more in the league of W, and the Republican base is in no mood for another W.
Rudi
· 5 months ago
Don't cry for the Queen from Wassilla, she'll make a small fortune with Fox News or on the lecture circuit.
elrod
· 5 months ago
Here are my responses to these criticisms:
Criticism 1: Palin is not actually that well-liked or that representative of the GOP base.
I conclude that she IS representative of the GOP base because of several recent polls that show her to be the most popular figure AMONG Republican voters. My analysis was WHY she was so popular because I thought - and think - that her popularity among part of the GOP base is well-established.
Criticism 2: Orthogonianism is not the only reason the GOP wins elections.
That's true, and I never suggested that Orthogonianism was the ONLY reason Republicans win. Any Republican would have won in 1980; Reagan's task was to prove that he wasn't too crazy and he did that easily. Democrats have offered up all kinds of personal zeroes as candidates. But the Orthogonian "he's not one of us regular types" line has been a staple of GOP politics in one form or another since 1968.
Criticism 3: Since Palin did not have the intellectual heft of Nixon she cannot be described as an Orthogonian.
I agree, certainly, that Nixon was very intellectual personally (despite his and his advisors' constant hemming about "pointed-headed intellectuals") and that Palin is not. But I argue that Palin exploited her anti-intellectualism as a political tool more bluntly than any other Republican since Nixon.
Criticism 4: I'm just giving the Franklin point of view.
No, I'm not giving the Franklin point of view, though I concede that others are. I've never derided Palin for her Downs Syndrome kid or her dropping of g's. Although I've certainly heard others refer to her family as "white trash," I don't do that; of course, the same charges were leveled at Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (remember Billy Carter?).
What I'm doing is recognizing that much of her appeal is to those who hate intellectuals and "do-gooders." Her image of the simple "everyday mom" who doesn't have time to think about all the hoity-toity intellectual issues of the day is appealing to many people. This isn't a matter of class, per se. There are plenty of working class people who appreciate complexity in the world; and, for that matter, there are plenty of upper-middle class people who take a stark black-and-white view of the world. It's more a matter of anti-intellectual and anti-education resentment. I see that often here in Southern Appalachia (East TN) where I live and I think it's self-destructive (just as it is in the ghetto).
Criticism 5: Orthogonianism is really about anti-establishment, not anti-intellectual
This is partly true, though the two are easily conflated, depending upon the politician. Obviously the real Orthogonians were intellectuals themselves. But many GOP politicians have exploited the cultural resentment at the heart of Orthogonianism to political success.
Criticism 6: The key to Palin-Nixon is gender, not anti-establishment or anti-intellectualism
This is a persuasive criticism (thanks ThurmanHart). My only rejoinder would be that Orthogonianism as mediated through gender manifests itself the way it did with Nixon and Palin. That is, Nixon thought "woman's work" would sissify him and therefore make him out to be an effete intellectual. Palin's "hockey mom" schtick was a criticism of Second Wave feminism as much as it was a way to stand up for "regular women."
Criticism 7: Orthogonianism, as lived by Nixon, was purely calculated. Palin is too spontaneous to be an Orthogonian.
I think this is true, actually. Perhaps I should add a question mark to Palin as Orthogonian because she may not have calculated the way her Orthogonian appeal could succeed or not. But I think the better way to describe Palin is as a failed Orthogonian who just didn't have brains to code-switch between the "hockey mom" and a national political leader. Successful politicians - from Obama to Reagan to the Bushes to Clinton - are experts at code-switching; i.e. turning their aw shucks routine on and off as required.
Father_Time
· 5 months ago
-That explains her appeal to the “GOP base--
I'm certain that appeal is not as great as you apparently assume. Problem is, within the right wing lay the core of the bigot base. That good old "women are incapable" team permeates the republican party. They'll go for a strong spoken independent over palin.
Palin a legend in her own mind.
ARLDKSJSDFASDFASDFAS
· 5 months ago
Your banal punditry schtick has me rooting for Palin.
markmaps
· 5 months ago
Because you thought Palin was being self-pitying and narcissistic, I'll give you an F for anaylsis. You should consider another line of contribution to the internet community than political commentary.
StockBoySF
· 5 months ago
Palin being a woman also helps with the Orthogonian appeal.
Lit3Bolt
· 5 months ago
Palin will be polysci fodder for quite some time, and future generations will be trying to understand what her appeal exactly was to the conservative base. I for one am very interested in the psychosexual angle...was SP a breakthrough in American politics, or was she the "attractive woman as a stage prop" taken to a whole new level? Were her fans men or women? Young or old? By peering into the demographics of her base, we can understand why people feel compelled to defend her, even when the more mainstream GOP abandoned her.
Also, Elrod, Nixonland makes the assumption that EVERYTHING Nixon did was calculated, like you're doing now with doing with Palin. Then why was this such a curveball for everyone across the political spectrum?
daveski
· 5 months ago
The problem I have with Elrod's words is that he seems to be saying that virtually every single national GOP victory is a result of Orthogonian spirit, completely ignoring other possibilities:
(1) Could it be possible that the Democrats simply fielded flawed candidates that didn't appeal to the moderate majority in 1988 and 2000?
(2) Didn't 10% unemployment and 18% inflation have at least something to do with Reagan winning in 1980?
(3) Didn't LBJ's expansion of the Viet Nam war result in helping Nixon getting elected in 1968?
While I'm certainly going to check out Nixonland, I find Elrod's argument to be too (a) simplistic, (b) one-sided in slant, and (c) historically weak for me.
DISCLOSURE: I was too young to vote in 1968. Voted for Barry Commoner in 1980. Voted for nobody in 1988, and Bush in 2000. I voted for Obama last November. I consider myself more apolitical than anything.
DaGoat
· 5 months ago
First I'll say Palin is an exceedingly bad politician and her selection as GOP VP candidate was a crass joke. In a way it's too bad she was nominated since she does have a degree of likability, energy and confidence that with more maturity might have been huge assets. All in all though I'm glad she's gone since she became something that could never succeed.
Critical to the Orthogonian theory is the existence of the Franklins, the haughty elitist fraternity that scorns the Orthogonians. That role was played very well by the Democratic party, the media and many in this forum. Criticism of Palin and especially of her family went well beyond propriety and was laced with a large dose of class-based derision. Look at the hick who drops her "g"s, has a pregnant teenage daughter and has a Down Syndrome kid!
So while the Orthogonian reference to Palin may be accurate, Elrod is presenting it from the Franklins point of view. I am glad Palin has gone away, and will be gladder when the Franklins do the same.
casualobserver
· 5 months ago
As for this being step 1 to some forward-calculated conclusion......as Prof Elrod himself loves to say.........."We'll see".
To her liberal naysayers, check out her favorable/unfavorables at pollingreport........quite a sweeping dismissal of the opinion of 50,000,000+ implied voters. Can your beloved Nancy Pelosi resonate even in the same ballpark?
But, then again, your beloved Obama also corners a hefty personal appeal without really having proved his mettle or his ability to actually accomplish yet.
Since this blog loves to traffic in unsupported conclusions, I'll actually accept a wager with you that Sarh Palin will not be on the ticket in 2012. keelaay has the correct insight. What she commands in a personal appeal.......to actually a pretty large chunk of electorate......obviously well beyond the much-touted "less than 20%" that true conservatives compriseof the electorate.........she does lack the William F Buckley style that the next Republican candidate will require for this time and place.
ThurmanHart
· 5 months ago
I'm not sure the Orthogonian model is a good comparison for Palin.
As someone else noted, Nixon was no intellectual slouch himself. In fact, he turned down a scholarship at Harvard to attend Whittier college. His schtick was not so much anti-intellectual as it was anti-establishment. His example, for instance, didn't say that no one needed to be smart, it said no one needed to go to Ivy League schools to be smart. Palin, by contrast, has a degree from the University of Idaho - which is hardly ever mentioned. But that's because her schtick actually is anti-intellectual. She never claimed to be just as smart as that guy from Harvard - she just claimed that no one needed to be that smart.
Further, Nixon actually helped organize the Orthogonians, and was elected as their first President. Even the name hints at intellectualism (orthogonian is a mathematical term describe perpendicular vectors). While Nixon may have seen the Orthogonians as being able to further his ambition, it's hard to see that as the primary reason for the organization. Palin, on the other hand, has rarely been involved in anything that didn't involve either her family or her political career.
I think the most direct comparison between Palin and Nixon is the need to prove one's self as an icon of their gender. Nixon, according to biographers, was deeply humiliated that he had to do "women's work" in the family home and would only wash dishes after he had closed all of the curtains in the house. As a means of distancing himself from the non-manly Quaker pacifistic views of his family, he volunteered for the Navy during World War II (serving in non-combat roles). Even the creation of the Orthogonians is colored by this - their "core values" are "brawn, brains, brotherhood, and beans." The emphasis on brawn and brotherhood can be seen as a young man trying to show the world how manly he is.
Palin, on the other hand, endured the pageant queen scene. It would be difficult to come up with anything that accentuates female sexual characteristics more than that. Even today, a good part of her appeal is tied to her sex appeal - honestly, if she put on fifty pounds, would she still be relevant? It's hard to see how. She gets headlines and attention because she's pretty. There's no wit, no wonkery - and she even flubs her talking points. Even her legendary devotion to her family - the whole "hockey mom" schtick - can be seen as an attempt to portray herself as the embodiment of all things womanly.
In short, Nixon won the admiration of men by being "a man's man." It didn't matter what lay underneath - it was the facade that harkened back to the days of Ozzie and Harriet that drew people in. With Palin, she's "a woman's woman." She's taken a career in politics but managed to be super-mom as well. Again, it is the facade that draws people in. It doesn't matter what truth lies beneath that facade.
It's the apparent psychological need to appear the perfect representation of manhood/womanhood that draws my comparison. Of course, most politicians want to appear perfect - our psychotic electoral system assures that. But sometimes that drives politicians to become policy experts. Nixon knew about international affairs, for instance. But Palin is not going in that direction. Instead, she appears to be burnishing her "dead from the neck up" stance.
DaGoat
· 5 months ago
Although I've certainly heard others refer to her family as "white trash," I don't do that; of course, the same charges were leveled at Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (remember Billy Carter?).
What is the point of including that line? Do you think it justifies similar behavior?
To expand on it a little, Democrats used to be the party speaking against this sort of behavior, not defending it.
CONAN64
· 5 months ago
Orthogonian to us means "Man on the square". We attempt to improve ourselves, our brothers, families, and society by being on the square with everyone. This is our ideal, none of us are perfect of course and life is a never ending batle to become a man on the square. It's obvious that the author of this article read Nixon's history and hasn't been to Whittier College, or actually investigated the Orthogonian Society. If he had, he would know that beside many Orthogonians who have become lawyers, doctors, judges etc, many of us are high school teacher/coaches, especially in southern Califonia. Many of us have gone beyond teaching to become principals and school district leaders. This reason for this is that many of us have that innate desire to teach and coach young men and women and help them to become productive, honest, hardworking members of American society. What better accomplishment can any American citizen aspire to?
Nixon did not exploit the Orthogonian Society motif, he was the first president of our society, but the core ideals and philosophy were created by other educators. Nixon was a great man in many ways, but of course he had his flaws. His flaws were not created by the Orthogonian society, nor did he exploit our society to further his own gains. The author of the article is way off target.
GinoG
· 5 months ago
If you want to know what being an Orthogonian is you should ask a member of the society or an alumus. It is obvious from your description of the society that you have don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Actually, your level of ignorance is embarassing. If you think striving for self-betterment through honest, candid self-criticism and being honest, "on the square" with the people you come in contact with in life is denigrating to Richard Nixon or Sarah Palin I shudder to think of what must constitute your moral base. I personally would love to have "Sister Sarah" as an Orthgonian.
OTIMO
· 5 months ago
As a writer, I can understand the appeal of taking a rarely used word like Orthogonian and trying to apply it to a particular point of view or article. There seems a usefulness to the novelty. However, as an Orthogonian for nearly twenty years, the use of the term in the above piece is stretched to the point that my brothers (who have also posted here) and I can barely recognize it. Orthogonianism is much more about the way one conducts their daily life than it is about a far-reaching political strategy. In the long run, being an Orthogonian is foremost about BROTHERHOOD and not about "beans" or "brawn" or whatever else Wikipedia told you it was.
Sarah Palin is not an Orthogonian; she's a Lancer.
All Comments
I have seen alot of the justifying doing something, even if it is bad or dangerous, by claiming that so and so does it. Well China and India are not going green and are polluting so, why do we have to stop polluting?
Or the famous:
It's everyone elses fault but, mine (however, we are all about personal responsibility).
All of this can be traced back to the Nixon era. I think his legacy is the lasting impact in the thinking of his party and behavior.
Palin is hopefully the last in this line.
Maybe with all the problems of the republicans, they will finally purge themselves of their Nixonian tendencies that they mistake as conservative.
Criticism 1: Palin is not actually that well-liked or that representative of the GOP base.
I conclude that she IS representative of the GOP base because of several recent polls that show her to be the most popular figure AMONG Republican voters. My analysis was WHY she was so popular because I thought - and think - that her popularity among part of the GOP base is well-established.
Criticism 2: Orthogonianism is not the only reason the GOP wins elections.
That's true, and I never suggested that Orthogonianism was the ONLY reason Republicans win. Any Republican would have won in 1980; Reagan's task was to prove that he wasn't too crazy and he did that easily. Democrats have offered up all kinds of personal zeroes as candidates. But the Orthogonian "he's not one of us regular types" line has been a staple of GOP politics in one form or another since 1968.
Criticism 3: Since Palin did not have the intellectual heft of Nixon she cannot be described as an Orthogonian.
I agree, certainly, that Nixon was very intellectual personally (despite his and his advisors' constant hemming about "pointed-headed intellectuals") and that Palin is not. But I argue that Palin exploited her anti-intellectualism as a political tool more bluntly than any other Republican since Nixon.
Criticism 4: I'm just giving the Franklin point of view.
No, I'm not giving the Franklin point of view, though I concede that others are. I've never derided Palin for her Downs Syndrome kid or her dropping of g's. Although I've certainly heard others refer to her family as "white trash," I don't do that; of course, the same charges were leveled at Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (remember Billy Carter?).
What I'm doing is recognizing that much of her appeal is to those who hate intellectuals and "do-gooders." Her image of the simple "everyday mom" who doesn't have time to think about all the hoity-toity intellectual issues of the day is appealing to many people. This isn't a matter of class, per se. There are plenty of working class people who appreciate complexity in the world; and, for that matter, there are plenty of upper-middle class people who take a stark black-and-white view of the world. It's more a matter of anti-intellectual and anti-education resentment. I see that often here in Southern Appalachia (East TN) where I live and I think it's self-destructive (just as it is in the ghetto).
Criticism 5: Orthogonianism is really about anti-establishment, not anti-intellectual
This is partly true, though the two are easily conflated, depending upon the politician. Obviously the real Orthogonians were intellectuals themselves. But many GOP politicians have exploited the cultural resentment at the heart of Orthogonianism to political success.
Criticism 6: The key to Palin-Nixon is gender, not anti-establishment or anti-intellectualism
This is a persuasive criticism (thanks ThurmanHart). My only rejoinder would be that Orthogonianism as mediated through gender manifests itself the way it did with Nixon and Palin. That is, Nixon thought "woman's work" would sissify him and therefore make him out to be an effete intellectual. Palin's "hockey mom" schtick was a criticism of Second Wave feminism as much as it was a way to stand up for "regular women."
Criticism 7: Orthogonianism, as lived by Nixon, was purely calculated. Palin is too spontaneous to be an Orthogonian.
I think this is true, actually. Perhaps I should add a question mark to Palin as Orthogonian because she may not have calculated the way her Orthogonian appeal could succeed or not. But I think the better way to describe Palin is as a failed Orthogonian who just didn't have brains to code-switch between the "hockey mom" and a national political leader. Successful politicians - from Obama to Reagan to the Bushes to Clinton - are experts at code-switching; i.e. turning their aw shucks routine on and off as required.
I'm certain that appeal is not as great as you apparently assume. Problem is, within the right wing lay the core of the bigot base. That good old "women are incapable" team permeates the republican party. They'll go for a strong spoken independent over palin.
Palin a legend in her own mind.
Also, Elrod, Nixonland makes the assumption that EVERYTHING Nixon did was calculated, like you're doing now with doing with Palin. Then why was this such a curveball for everyone across the political spectrum?
(1) Could it be possible that the Democrats simply fielded flawed candidates that didn't appeal to the moderate majority in 1988 and 2000?
(2) Didn't 10% unemployment and 18% inflation have at least something to do with Reagan winning in 1980?
(3) Didn't LBJ's expansion of the Viet Nam war result in helping Nixon getting elected in 1968?
While I'm certainly going to check out Nixonland, I find Elrod's argument to be too (a) simplistic, (b) one-sided in slant, and (c) historically weak for me.
DISCLOSURE: I was too young to vote in 1968. Voted for Barry Commoner in 1980. Voted for nobody in 1988, and Bush in 2000. I voted for Obama last November. I consider myself more apolitical than anything.
Critical to the Orthogonian theory is the existence of the Franklins, the haughty elitist fraternity that scorns the Orthogonians. That role was played very well by the Democratic party, the media and many in this forum. Criticism of Palin and especially of her family went well beyond propriety and was laced with a large dose of class-based derision. Look at the hick who drops her "g"s, has a pregnant teenage daughter and has a Down Syndrome kid!
So while the Orthogonian reference to Palin may be accurate, Elrod is presenting it from the Franklins point of view. I am glad Palin has gone away, and will be gladder when the Franklins do the same.
To her liberal naysayers, check out her favorable/unfavorables at pollingreport........quite a sweeping dismissal of the opinion of 50,000,000+ implied voters. Can your beloved Nancy Pelosi resonate even in the same ballpark?
But, then again, your beloved Obama also corners a hefty personal appeal without really having proved his mettle or his ability to actually accomplish yet.
Since this blog loves to traffic in unsupported conclusions, I'll actually accept a wager with you that Sarh Palin will not be on the ticket in 2012. keelaay has the correct insight. What she commands in a personal appeal.......to actually a pretty large chunk of electorate......obviously well beyond the much-touted "less than 20%" that true conservatives compriseof the electorate.........she does lack the William F Buckley style that the next Republican candidate will require for this time and place.
As someone else noted, Nixon was no intellectual slouch himself. In fact, he turned down a scholarship at Harvard to attend Whittier college. His schtick was not so much anti-intellectual as it was anti-establishment. His example, for instance, didn't say that no one needed to be smart, it said no one needed to go to Ivy League schools to be smart. Palin, by contrast, has a degree from the University of Idaho - which is hardly ever mentioned. But that's because her schtick actually is anti-intellectual. She never claimed to be just as smart as that guy from Harvard - she just claimed that no one needed to be that smart.
Further, Nixon actually helped organize the Orthogonians, and was elected as their first President. Even the name hints at intellectualism (orthogonian is a mathematical term describe perpendicular vectors). While Nixon may have seen the Orthogonians as being able to further his ambition, it's hard to see that as the primary reason for the organization. Palin, on the other hand, has rarely been involved in anything that didn't involve either her family or her political career.
I think the most direct comparison between Palin and Nixon is the need to prove one's self as an icon of their gender. Nixon, according to biographers, was deeply humiliated that he had to do "women's work" in the family home and would only wash dishes after he had closed all of the curtains in the house. As a means of distancing himself from the non-manly Quaker pacifistic views of his family, he volunteered for the Navy during World War II (serving in non-combat roles). Even the creation of the Orthogonians is colored by this - their "core values" are "brawn, brains, brotherhood, and beans." The emphasis on brawn and brotherhood can be seen as a young man trying to show the world how manly he is.
Palin, on the other hand, endured the pageant queen scene. It would be difficult to come up with anything that accentuates female sexual characteristics more than that. Even today, a good part of her appeal is tied to her sex appeal - honestly, if she put on fifty pounds, would she still be relevant? It's hard to see how. She gets headlines and attention because she's pretty. There's no wit, no wonkery - and she even flubs her talking points. Even her legendary devotion to her family - the whole "hockey mom" schtick - can be seen as an attempt to portray herself as the embodiment of all things womanly.
In short, Nixon won the admiration of men by being "a man's man." It didn't matter what lay underneath - it was the facade that harkened back to the days of Ozzie and Harriet that drew people in. With Palin, she's "a woman's woman." She's taken a career in politics but managed to be super-mom as well. Again, it is the facade that draws people in. It doesn't matter what truth lies beneath that facade.
It's the apparent psychological need to appear the perfect representation of manhood/womanhood that draws my comparison. Of course, most politicians want to appear perfect - our psychotic electoral system assures that. But sometimes that drives politicians to become policy experts. Nixon knew about international affairs, for instance. But Palin is not going in that direction. Instead, she appears to be burnishing her "dead from the neck up" stance.
What is the point of including that line? Do you think it justifies similar behavior?
To expand on it a little, Democrats used to be the party speaking against this sort of behavior, not defending it.
Nixon did not exploit the Orthogonian Society motif, he was the first president of our society, but the core ideals and philosophy were created by other educators. Nixon was a great man in many ways, but of course he had his flaws. His flaws were not created by the Orthogonian society, nor did he exploit our society to further his own gains. The author of the article is way off target.
Sarah Palin is not an Orthogonian; she's a Lancer.