Ah, the sensibilities of the New Age. How lovely. How kind and gentle. NOT! New Age thinking (in the voice of Chopra) ascribes to Sarah Palin all manner of evil. Honestly, when I read this, I felt like I, too, was
coming face to face with evil, but not in Sarah. In Chopra's words I see a revelation of the New Age's hatred
for beauty, purity, simplicity and transparency. There is something serpentlike in Chopra's sensibilities, a revelation of the strains of deep hatred in New Age thought.
There exists, also, a deep naivete masquerading as wisdom. In Chopra's view, Obama represents a progressive force, Sarah Palin a regressive force, the "shadow" (in psychological terms) of Obama.
He writes:
She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses.
Worst impulses? Really? Are you serious, Deepak? You mean such things as allowing a Down syndrome baby to be born? Such as having five children? Such as loving and accepting her out-of-wedlock pregnant daughter? Yea, I guess Sarah Palin is a real danger alright.
Chopra goes on:
He [Obama] is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind.
Uh.. Did I get that right? Sarah Palin embodies reactions of an "unsavory"kind? Wow. I hadn't realized that. I guess all the excitement over her does indeed reveal our "anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of' 'the other'" as you put it. Thanks for pointing that out, Deepak.
You write:
In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.
Hmm... "Resistance to change and a higher vision," is it? Hadn't realized that.
You scornfully list the "things she stands for":
--Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
--Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.
--Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for
social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to
be heeded.
--Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
--Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war.
--"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out
corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who
doesn't fit your ideology.
Deepak, you leave me breathless! I wonder if you realize that your catalog of disreputable qualities, and the peculiar way you describe them, tells us an awful lot about yourself, and to be honest, the sight "ain't purty" as they say. (Your sentiments couldn't by any change illustrate an emotional "shadow" response of your own, could they? Nah... couldn't be that.)
You make interesting charges against the "reactionary right." (Parenthetically, it's interesting to me that you, as a representative of the "Wise,"or should I say "The Anointed" [to borrow Thomas Sowell's phrase] aren't above using emotive labels crafted by ideological group-think.) But be that as it may, you go on to say:
Well, that really is interesting, Deepak. You wouldn't by any chance be projecting a bit too much into Sarah Palin's thoughts, now would you, Deepak? I mean, I know you try to be fair-minded and objective like all true progressives (cough), but have you really had time to research her views so thoroughly as to make such a pronouncement in good faith? You really are remarkable! It's so nice to know someone with such restraint, so free of ideological blinders and so committed to fair-mindedness.
One thing that strikes me about you, Deepak, is your deep humility. You seem to know the feminine mind better than women themselves do. You write of Sarah Palin that she is
"blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress"
and that
"there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good.
Now, if only you could get their attention (!) and then tell them "what their own good" truly was. Wouldn't that be wonderful??
You conclude quite remarkably, saying:
It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
Gosh, Deepak. You are so insightful! To us, who have to grope along without your deep intuitive powers, Sarah Palin seems pretty much an open-book, and kinda straight-forward, if you know what I mean. But you see in her a disguise? Hmmm... And I see you intensely disliked Ronald Reagan. He was full of disguises too? You saw him as a stalking horse for reactionary forces? Gosh, and here I thought he was pretty upfront about his ideological commitments. But, to be clear, are you saying he was somehow out of bounds in bringing about the fall of communism? Is that what you mean by "reactionary'? Honestly, Deepak, sometimes, your thought is so deep, that if I didn't know better, I swear it seems inspired by a ground-hugging creature back in the Garden.