Sarah Palin is not an Orthogonian; she's a Lancer.

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.

What is the point of including that line? Do you think it justifies similar behavior?

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.