Narcissism.
This is the most important word to consider if you want to understand why Sarah Palin is getting conservatives so excited. To say it in a sentence: The McCain campaign is using Palin to manipulate narcissists who celebrate Palin as a way to celebrate themselves.
The following excerpt from Bill O’Reilly’s radio show on Friday afternoon (Sept 12, 2008) helps show what I mean by “narcissism.” O’Reilly is taking a call from a woman who is calling to discuss Sarah Palin’s recent interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson.
O’REILLY: Chantelle. St. Louis. What’s going on, Chantelle?
CHANTELLE: Hi, Bill. I’ve been wanting to talk to you for a long time to tell you we named our son after you.
O’REILLY: Oh, how nice –
CHANTELLE: His name is Reilly.
O’REILLY: How nice.
CHANTELLE: So it’s an honor to talk to you.
O’REILLY: Thank you.
CHANTELLE: Um, last night I listened to the interview, and I thought he looked bored. He, um
O’REILLY: Gibson?
CHANTELLE: At one point where, he said something, and she was talking about her son being deployed, and he’s looking at his watch, and he’s kinda, you know, I thought he, his body language insinuated that he wasn’t real impressed with her.
O’REILLY: All right. Well, we’re gonna do a body language on it on Monday. You may be right. Look, he had a long trip to get up there and I think it may be more fatigue than bored.
This is Chantelle’s complaint: Gibson looked bored. “His body language insinuated that he wasn’t real impressed with her.” He looked at his watch when she told him her son was being deployed in Iraq.
So here is what this woman apparently demands of Gibson and of all those who interview vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin: They must appear interested in what Palin has to say. They must give the impression that they find Palin impressive, especially when she mentions that her son is headed off to Iraq.
Here’s my question: Why?
Who the heck does Palin think she is? Why do Charlie Gibson and other journalists have to pretend they think she’s the bestest thing ever?
Don’t get me wrong: Palin deserves an opportunity to answer the questions put to her, and to be treated with the respect owed to anybody being interviewed on television. But Gibson obviously met that basic threshhold, and no one could argue with a straight face that Gibson was rude or inappropriate in the tone or content of his interview. What offends Chantelle — and many other narcissistic Americans who identify with Palin — is that Gibson’s “body language” wasn’t sufficiently full of praise and celebration.
For an even clearer (and more bizzare) portrait of how narcissists relate to Palin, here’s a comment from Matt Miller, moderator of KCRW’s radio show, “Left, Right and Center,” about the same interview.
MILLER: … When I watched this stuff, I was absolutely, I was sort of appalled at Charlie Gibson’s whole demeanor and carriage and behavior. The whole way he tried to make it, when he tried to confront Sarah Palin on “The Bush Doctrine.” “What do you think of the Bush doctrine?” And then, you know, sort of sneering down his nose, literally, with the glasses poised on the perch of his thing, waiting like a, you know, with the, everything about him oozing this sense of “why must I be bothered to deal with a person such as you?” I just found wildly offensive, and I understand why so many people — My big concern, as somebody who wants Obama to win, is that, is to, this just fuels the meme, to use that word, that the media are sort of in cahoots to condescend against, sort of, ordinary Americans in ways that, I think, Sarah Palin kind of represents and appeals to. And I find it off-putting.
If you watched this interview in question, then you can be the judge: Do you agree that Charlie Gibson was literally “sneering” at Sarah Palin? Do you agree that ”everything” about Gibson was ”oozing this sense of ‘why must I be bothered to deal with a person such as you’”? Was the interview “wildly offensive?” If you agree, then you must have been expecting to see an interview that was entirely different from the one that actually occured.
It’s reasonable to ask Matt Miller, Chantelle, and anybody else who found the interview “wildly offensive” to explain how Gibson could have improved his performance. I’m guessing the only facial expression Gibson could have worn to avoid the “sneer” accusation would have been a smile. And he would have had to wear contact lenses to avoid the sense that his glasses were perched condescendingly on the tip of his “thing.” Mostly, though, he would have had to give the impression that he was honored and humbled to interview Palin — only to avoid giving the impression that he wasn’t actually that honored or that humbled.
But why must Gibson accomodate the weird expectations of these McCain supporters? Is this how Palin and her ilk go through life: constantly expecting to be praised and loved and validated. (Here’s a real mind-twister: Would anybody be saying this stuff about Gibson’s performance if Palin were 80 pounds heavier? What if she were a man? I’m not sure.)
Narcissist is a label I use to describe people who expect to be worshipped and feel slighted and resentful when they don’t receive that worship. Narcissists believe they are entitled to praise and celebration, and when they’re treated like “ordinary Americans,” they feel insulted.
Not only do Palin’s supporters believe she is entitled to praise and celebration — they believe she is entitled to your vote. The message is clear: If you vote against Sarah Palin, it’s because you are a sneering elitist who hates Palin because she represents traditional American values.
This narrative is useful to the liars on the right not only because they can exploit Palin to rally their base in this election – but also because over time, this crazy story will intimidate the media into treating Republican candidates like Santa Claus and treating Democratic politicians like repo men.
It’s time to talk back to the narcissistic Americans who feel insulted that they aren’t celebrated and praised more in our culture. It’s time to tell them: If you want to be celebrated, celebrate yourself. If you want to be praised, praise yourself. We are not obligated to validate you, your choices, or your lifestyle. And we resent being referred to as “elitist snobs” for not constantly telling you how awesome you are.
The 2008 election isn’t a reality television show, and if voters treat it like one and elect a candidate to satisfy their pathetic craving for cultural validation, this country will suffer.
Okay, I need to be honest. This focalization on ‘narcissism’ doesn’t make sense to me.
Personally, I thought that Gibson’s interview came off like a school principal grilling a student with a long history of misdeeds and bad behavior (“And just how do you account for this episode, young lady?”) To be sure, Palin came off about as well as a know-it-all, twelve year old goody-goody (except that know-it-all twelve-year-olds know what the Bush Doctrine is).
It makes sense to me that her supporters found it condescending and that it did, in fact, feed the ’sneering, coastal, liberal media-elites’ narrative.
I interpreted Chantelle’s comment as that she thought Gibson was biased and unfair. She cited body language as evidence of Gibson’s prejudice and bias against her.
I don’t believe that “Palin and her ilk go through life constantly expecting to be praised and loved and validated.” I think they’re just inclined to see and point out people’s bias and to call them on it.
Also, I think we have to keep in mind that there are people who actually believe that she’s qualified for VP (there are even some people who think she’s more qualified than Obama(!) but, I digress).
But now, what if Gibson had interviewed Obama that way? With all due respect, I have to imagine that you would have seen him as ’sneering’ and probably biased (I know I would have!) We assume that Obama is qualified and to treat him as though he isn’t would suggest to us a bias on the part of the interviewer. I believe this is what Palin supporters saw in the Gibson interview.
Finally, regarding the message, “If you vote against Sarah Palin, it’s because you are a sneering elitist who hates Palin because she represents traditional American values.” I would say that a vote against Palin is seen as some fashion of a rejection of the virtues that her supporters project onto her.
What are those virtues which they project onto her? I’m not entirely sure as my moral compass differs significantly from them but, I know that they likely value ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity more than I. This easily translates to things like ‘family’ (ingroup/loyalty), ‘the US winning the Iraq war’ (authority/respect and ingroup/loyalty), abstinence-only sex ed, and anti-gay policies (both purity/sanctity). To the extent that her supporters value these things more than I, I understand how a rejection of Palin is seen as a rejection of these values. After all, don’t we see a vote for Palin as a vote for war mongering (harm/care) and free rides for the rich (fairness/reciprocity)? I’m pretty sure that I do.
And just as I, personally, do subscribe to the stereotype of rural voters ‘clinging to guns and religion’, so they cling to the stereotype of ’sneering elitists’ who look down their noses at others. Both have grains of truth to them.
To say that Palin supporters are narcissistic, I think, doesn’t account for as much context as it needs to and, also misses the point.
Comment by aaron — September 16, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
To Aaron: You write: “It makes sense to me that her supporters found it condescending and that it did, in fact, feed the ’sneering, coastal, liberal media-elites’ narrative.”
So here’s my question: Is there anything Gibson could have done to avoid feeding that narrative? Did he not smile enough? Did he lean back too far in his chair? Were his glasses perched in an insulting manner?
Can you be specific in explaining to me what Gibson did that fed the “media elites” narrative? Since you seem to be accusing Gibson of bad behavior, I think Gibson is entitled to know what he did wrong, in your opinion. To say he “came off like a school principal” could be interpreted as a criticism of his physical characteristics. But I’m sure you don’t mean to say that it’s biased for a man like Gibson to be interviewing Palin in the first place.
Also, what’s wrong with a journalist sounding like a school principal grilling a student? That’s what our reporters SHOULD sound like in a democracy. Why are we (under pressure from narcissists, in my view) pressuring the media to display respect and admiration for weak politicians? Aren’t the American people cynical about their politicians? Don’t they hunger for a news media that forces politicians to earn our respect?
The fact is that if Gibson interviewed Obama in precisely the same way he interviewed Palin, we wouldn’t be talking about whether Gibson was “sneering,” and we certainly wouldn’t be calling the interview “wildly offensive.” Instead, we’d be talking about whether Obama came across well to the voters all across America who are focusing on evaluation HIM, and NOT Charlie Gibson. Obama has appeared on Fox News, he went on Bill O’Reilly — and we didn’t have a fit afterwards attacking the interviewer because we realized that what matters — what should matter, anyway — is how Obama handles the interview, no matter how the question is phrased or how the glasses are perched.
Furthermore, your apparent belief that Gibson was “biased” in his interview suggests Gibson treats other interview subjects differently. Can you find an example of a comparable Charlie Gibson interview where his tone was different? After all, narcissism isn’t calling out bias — narcissism is trying to call out bias when actually there isn’t any bias. What makes you think Gibson wasn’t just being Gibson?
Here’s a question: If candidate Sarah Palin can’t make it through a softball session with Charlie Gibson, how is president Palin going to get through a session with Vladimir Putin?
If we keep working to satisfy the narcissistic needs of voters who demand that their “hockey mom” candidates be treated like royalty, it won’t be long before being an “ordinary American,” (read Christian, white, conservative) will be sheilded against any and all criticism or even questioning from the media.
The point of the “narcissism” idea is that I’m sick and tired of being bullied by cultural demagogues who accuse me of being a sneering elitist snob because of my political opinions. There isn’t a “grain of truth” to these accusations: they’re just lies intended to marginalize my views, just as this whole “elitist media” narrative is intended to marginalize the media.
Comment by Ian — September 16, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Also, you write: “We assume that Obama is qualified and to treat him as though he isn’t would suggest to us a bias on the part of the interviewer.”
For the record, I don’t expect interviewers to assume that Barack Obama is qualified to be president. I expect them to ask questions that are intended to determine whether or not Obama is qualified. It’s up to Obama to answer the questions in a way that demonstrates he is qualified.
Comment by Ian — September 17, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
I’m not accusing Gibson of anything – I don’t think he did anything wrong. I’m simply trying to point out the obvious fact that some people use a different set of assumptions through which that interview could have been construed as condescending, hostile, etc. Personally, I don’t think it was – I think it was a fair and rightfully skeptical interview. And you’re right, Gibson sounded like what a reporter should sound like in a democracy – heck I just wish there had been more of that in the run up to the Iraq war!
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that it’s confounding to the both of us how anyone could have watched that cream-puff interview and come away with the sense that she has even the slightest clue about our most important issues. But as an explanation for the people who saw it differently – those who actually think she came off well – how do we account for them?
Now, you offer Narcissism as an explanation – narcissism, not as it’s defined in the DSM-IV (or is it DSM-V, now?) but, as:
“Narcissist is a label I use to describe people who expect to be worshipped and feel slighted and resentful when they don’t receive that worship. Narcissists believe they are entitled to praise and celebration, and when they’re treated like ‘ordinary Americans,’ they feel insulted.”
Which no doubt covers a certain amount of her supporters but, I’m just not clear that it covers all Palin supporters. Surely there are those who don’t expect to be worshipped, who don’t think they’re entitled to praise and celebration but, who just found her convincing? In fact, I’ll bet we each know a few!
This is why I’m more inclined to examine the moral lense through which her supporters watched the interview – it seems, to me, to be more encompassing.
Now, you also make a good point, if Gibson interviewed Obama that way – which he might well have done a year ago, when Obama was still relatively new to the scene – we would probably just be talking about whether he came across well. And he would have come across very well. Your even better example of the O’Reilly interview is well taken – O’Reilly is an obviously biased interviewer and our focus ought to be on how Obama handled the kook (brilliantly, in my opinion!), not the kook himself. But, I believe that it’s impossible to separate the kook from the interview.
It’s true that occaisionally we do offer criticism of the media and our bent happens to be Left. Similarly, there are plenty of people inclined to offer criticism of the media but, from the Right. I don’t think that such people are necessarily narcissistic.
Next, while I share your outrage about being seen as a ’sneering elitist’, my personal predilection is to expose the absurdity of it with Humor. Which is why I love the Daily Show! Somehow, outrage just doesn’t seem to me to work very well. Second, when you write that, “There isn’t a ‘grain of truth’ to these accusations: they’re just lies intended to marginalize my views, just as this whole ‘elitist media’ narrative is intended to marginalize the media.” it sounds like a conspiracy against us. I don’t think there is a conspiracy to marginalize us, or the media, anymore than we conspire to marginalize them. But, I know that they believe we are conspiring to marginalize them. When I say that there are ‘grains of truth’ to these narratives, I mean that it’s impossible to achieve an absolute context to determine which is true. That each side feels, believes, and can persuasively argue, their point, suggests to me that there are ‘grains of truth’ to each.
Okay, done with my little moral relativist obfuscations.
Comment by aaron — September 19, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
As I’ve shared this “narcissism” idea with people over the past several days, I’ve received a lot of the same kind of feedback: people just don’t buy it that all Republicans or all Palin supporters are narcissists, or that narcissism explains the Palin phenomenon.
Aaron’s “moral lens” idea seems to make a lot more sense to people.
So here’s my question: What’s the most useful way to describe what’s going on when people accuse the media of bias when an interviewer like Charlie Gibson dares to treat Palin with skepticism? What language should we use to fight back against people who are pressuring the media to act as though Palin is entitled to be president because she’s a “hockey mom”?
Comment by Ian — September 19, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
That, my friend, is the $64,000 question!
That’s an awesome question! Let’s go forward with that in mind on future posts.
I think the best we can do is be voices of reason against those accusations. I think it’s worth coming to a deeper understanding of the moral compass they’re using as well as the assumptions which underlie it. Otherwise, it’s a work in progress, for me!
Comment by aaron — September 19, 2008 @ 3:02 pm