Philosophical Divide: Sarah Palin vs. Pop Culture’s Moral Relativists

by Michael S. Rulle Jr.

The Main Point

The world view, or philosophical perspective, of Sarah Palin versus say, David Letterman’s or Katie Couric’s, is profound at its core. Not only are the philosophical differences profound, but the political implications of those differences are as equally profound.

Palin is the philosophical descendant of those who created this country’s constitution; Couric and Letterman,  on the other hand, like much of the Bi-Coastal Media/Entertainment Left, are more consistent with the self annihilating philosophy of moral relativism. While Palin is intelligent and constant in her views, I make no similar claims specifically about Letterman and Couric, relative to their views. They strike me as shallow and weak. Palin implicitly understands the limitations of Reason. Moral relativists do not. Our founding fathers also understood man’s limitations and established a constitution whose core principle was Liberty, supported strongly by laws to protect this Liberty. The Left, on the other hand, believe that “truth” can be imposed on individuals and society as a whole. Many have commented on the futility of the latter. Frederich Hayek’sThe Road To Serfdom is the clearest explanation of how that view ultimately and logically has lead to totalitarianism; the ultimate expression of political nihilism and its philosophical antecedent, moral relativism.

This philosophical divide is one reason for the Left’s hysteria over Palin’s very existence. It is as if, somewhere down in the lizard portion of their brain (You Have Three Brains), they understand her way of thinking could lay bare the implicit nihilism in theirs. The more ignorant element of the Left pretends that Palin is so obviously stupid, vapid and reactionary that she is fair game for dehumanization. Not all in the Left leaning Media-Entertainment complex can be categorized as such. Lorne Michaels, for example, understands Palin’s strengths, even as he disagrees with her (Lorne Michaels Praises Sarah Palin). But he is a rare exception among this group. Couric and Letterman have other problems. Their respective ratings have been consistently lower than their competition. ABC and NBC Nightly News ratings are higher than Couric’s by an average of 50%; and Leno consistently had ratings approximately 30% higher than Letterman. We will see how O’Brien fares. But lets get right to the immediate controversies.

The Couric Pomposity

Even as Couric continues to fail, she gathers awards and honors at a rapid pace. Most recently, she gave the commencement address to this year’s graduating class at Princeton, in my home state of New Jersey.  She chuckled in her speech how “she can see New Jersey from her house”. This was a supposed ironic reference to Palin’s comment in Charlie Gibson’s interview about being able to see Russia from certain parts of Alaska. Palin’s comment was one of many “proofs” of her stupidity. Yet, any person with an IQ above 65 obviously understood her comment as a simple existential observation. Proximity makes things less abstract. Is this hard to understand?

If one has any doubt about the logical implications of moral relativism run amok, one need look no further than Princeton’s “Bioethicist”, Professor Peter Singer. Singer believes in a concept called “speciesism“. The simplest way to understand this philosophy is to watch a Geico Caveman commercial.  Speciesism believes no one species (for example, humans) have superior rights over any other species (for example, rodents).  Singer also believes families can kill their own disabled babies. Singer is a true idiot, even as his views are, in fact, logically consistent with much of what is believed by the Left. He simply is drawing out some of its philosophical implications. But people like Palin already know that at “the end of that path” is nothingness. People like Couric do not. Couric reached the pinnacle of her self regard after her interview with Palin prior to the ‘08 election. This interview, so the mythology goes, indisputably laid bare the complete lack of qualifications of Sarah Palin to be Vice President. She was excoriated by the media for that interview even though she did not say; “I don’t speak Austrian” (Obama says he doesn’t speak Austrian) or say her bowling is “like the Special Olympics.” (there is a little “Peter Singer” in that quote, don’t you think?). Even the “Mr. Jones” wing of the Republican Party was highly critical.

The essence of Couric’s speech was simple, pointless, cringe inducing pandering. Katie Couric: My Speech To Princeton’s Class of 2009. People whose beliefs or principles are on flimsy grounds, or even non existent, can be very insecure. They emotionally survive by seeking the approval of others. So she played it safe. She praised Sonia Sotomayor and mocked 20 year old Carrie Prejean. She praised Michelle Obama and mocked Rush Limbaugh and Donald Rumsfeld. She quoted approvingly from Malcolm Gladwell’s awful book “Outliers”. She seemed frighteningly desperate in her initial comments. She clearly studied hard to appear “modern” and “young”. It was self conscious and artificial. She voiced opinions which she assumed were mainstream for Princeton graduates, and I am sure they were. She was a pure parody of herself.

But Sarah Palin is supposed to be the idiot.

David “Louis” Letterman

Recall the movie, Jackie Brown, Quentin Tarantino’s adaptation of Elmore Leonard’s novel, “Rum Punch”? In one of the funniest “dark humor” scenes in cinematic history, Samuel L Jackson (”Ordell”) had just shot the bungling Robert DeNiro (”Louis”) in the head for losing $500K. Staring at his dead friend in the driver’s seat of their car he said; “What the f**k happened to you man? S**t, your ass used ta’ be so beautiful”. His point was Louis used to be smart and energetic. Now he had degenerated into a lethargic empty husk of his old self. So much so, that despite every benefit of the doubt he had extended to Louis, he was just too far gone. In their world, that meant he simply had to be killed. Louis is David Letterman. He should just walk off the set. He used to be really funny. He now seems to be aware, unlike Louis who was blissfully unaware, that he too has lost it. Apparently, this makes him very angry.

As with Couric, he goes for the pandering stuff. Palin is supposed to be easy pickings. His frustrated self awareness has begun to cloud his judgment. If you watched his monologue, you can literally see him try to restrain his anger, even hatred, as he leads the audience up to the Alex Rodriguez-Willow Palin “joke”. The audience seemed to love it. He now is apologizing for supposedly not knowing the difference between Willow (age 14) and Bristol (age 18), implying that the same joke about Bristol would have been fine. I guess in Louis’ world, all white trash tramps and their slutty looking mothers look alike. Misogyny is perfectly good when applied to people like Sarah Palin. Do you see what I mean by moral relativism? Ultimately, it leads to nihilism. Lost in the shuffle was the racial stereotyping of Alex Rodriguez. That is itself interesting.

The fact that she was in NYC for a charity supporting research for Autism was ignored. I am surprised Letterman did not have Peter Singer on to discuss his views on childhood Autism. Perhaps he can get Obama on to discuss the Special Olympics with Singer while he is at it.

Sarah Palin Speaks English

Read the following response carefully from Palin about Letterman; “Laughter incited by sexually perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/N.Y. entertainers have a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands – that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be any one’s daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.” What is different about this statement then statements made by many, if not most, politicians? It is judgmental. She uses the words “perversion” and “disgusting”. Her language is morally charged. Peter Singer does not believe in “sexual perversion”. Palin did not refer to the sexual perversion merely as a function of Letterman’s comment being directed at a 14 year old. Letterman’s comments themselves were sexually perverted “aimed” at a 14 year old. How many politicians use the term “sexual perversion” or the word “disgusting” regarding sex? Every one shrinks from such judgments. Yet there was no hidden agenda in her comments. What you saw, was what you got.

Obama’s speech in Cairo was a quintessential representation of pandering “moral relativism”. This is the nature of the “Great Palin Divide”.  Palin’s language is always the same. She speaks about everything in a straight forward manner without straining for audience approval. She is direct. She does not use tortured logic, cheap philosophical tricks, or desperate techniques. She speaks English.

For some reason, this drives the Left nuts.


Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | | Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted Jun 15th 2009 at 5:03 am in Entertainment, Politics | 139 Comments