The Great Palin Divide
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}By Michael Rulle, Jr.MSR Investments LLC/Blogger
The world view, or philosophical perspective, of Sarah Palin vs. 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.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}-----------
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, believes that "truth" can be imposed on individuals and society as a whole. Many have commented on the futility of the latter. Frederich Hayek's "The 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.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}To read Mr. Rulle's complete essay, click here.