Reactions to Sarah Palin Show that Polarization is the New Bipartisanship

It was the summer of 1988, and George Bush was down 17 points to Michael Dukakis. I remember Bush campaign manager Lee Atwater stopping by the campaign press office one morning and talking to us staffers about "command focus." Dukakis lived in the ivory-tower world of Harvard, he said, and we should keep our ears out for what people are thinking in mainstream America. In fact, we should read the tabloid National Enquirer as often as possible, to keep our fingers on the pulse of the "real people out there."

I've followed the Atwater Rule ever since and pick up supermarket tabloids from time to time. Last week's National Examiner had two Michael Jackson articles—one with disturbing photos of the "private sanctuary" in his Neverland bedroom, another in which he's outed by a guy who says he was Liberace's old boyfriend. It was more "Wacko Jacko" weirdness than a sappy send-off for the King of Pop. I guess they know their market.

Back in the day, the tabloids loved two people: the Rev. Billy Graham and first lady Barbara Bush. Everyone else was fair game. These days, Billy Graham is still revered, but it seems Sarah Palin has replaced Barbara Bush. That same edition of the Examiner had as its lead story the "shocking" reasons she quit the governorship: previously reported allegations of a decade-old unconsummated affair and questions about the finances of a home construction project. Old news, but what interested me was the tone of the piece: clearly pro-Palin and much more politicized than anything I remember about Barbara Bush. The piece talks about Palin's "political enemies," calls her a "devoted mom," and, best of all, says she's a "family-values beauty."

At the other end of the spectrum on the newsstand is Vanity Fair, the high-brow, glossy magazine that lionizes the celebrity class. The August issue has a detailed piece that documents the collapse of the Harvard University endowment fund, an article likely to interest only upper East Side, Ivy League money managers. I guess they know their market, too.

But there's also a long, very unflattering profile of Palin, written without any cooperation from her. She continues to decline all interviews, the author explains, because of her book deal and her "deep ignorance about most aspects of foreign and domestic policy." He points out that even Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney occasionally granted interviews. The piece then states she was "totally unfit" for the vice presidency, quotes unnamed John McCain aides calling her a "whack job," and speculates on her possible personality disorders.

Each of these publications is aimed at its own small corner of the universe, reinforcing its readers' views. There's nothing middle-of-the-road about either one of them. Lately, it seems as if our whole society is getting that way. Whether it's on the blogosphere, in E-mail threads, on cable talk shows, or even on the soccer sidelines, people seem to talk only to others who agree with them. Walter Cronkite's death reminded us of the days of the Big Three networks, before media fragmentation gave us 500 channels. Now we tune in to hear news that fits our preconceptions.

No one's listening to the other side. It seems a lifetime ago that President-elect Obama said in Chicago's Grant Park on election night: "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. While the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress."

Of course, great victories have consequences. If the Democrats want to push through massive social change without a single Republican vote, that's their right. And if the president prefers narrow party-line votes to broader working coalitions that include conservative Democrats and Republicans, that's his decision.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana was told in no uncertain terms by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to stop trying to rally Republican votes for healthcare reform, Roll Call reported recently. This was after White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the Christian Science Monitor that the new definition of bipartisanship is not whether Republicans vote for a bill but rather if Republican ideas are in the final product and whether the American people "saw the president trying" to be bipartisan. So there's no need to actually garner votes from the middle anymore, or even talk to the other side, as long as you appear to try.