What America Has Learned From Sarah Palin

Thanks for the enlightenment, Sarah!

When Ethics Alarms last left Sarah Palin, she had delivered a description of Paul Revere’s famous ride on the evening of the 18th of April in 1775 that would have earned her an F in speech class and, at best, an Incomplete in American History.  Incredibly, however, Palin and her indomitable supporters have tried to turn the tables on her critics, aided by several history pedants, by claiming that her collage of words and thoughts was really a sophisticated account of Paul’s evening that her historically ignorant critics failed to appreciate.

Uh huh. Let’s revisit her statement, shall we? She said:

“[Revere] warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure as he was riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”

This was, by any standard, an eccentric representation of Paul Revere’s ride, and a spectacularly inarticulate one. In assessing whether Palin’s statement can, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to indicate that she either said what she meant to say or has the vaguest idea of what Revere’s ride was all about, we answer these questions:

  • Was warning the British part of Revere’s mission as a currier that night? No. He was dispatched, as he himself wrote, to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams that the British army was coming to arrest them, and to alert the towns to have their militia ready for combat.
  • Was “taking away our arms” the objective of the British that Revere’s ride was supposed to foil? No. As it happens, once he alerted the country side our arms were secured in anticipation of the British advance.
  • Did Revere ring any bells? No.
  • Did the British ring any bells? No.
  • Did Revere warn, or say anything to, the British while he was “riding his horse”? No.
  • Was Revere’s message to anyone directed at sending warning shots or ringing bells? No.
  • After he was captured (though Palin gives no indication that she knew that this was the context of the supposed “warning”), did Paul Revere warn the British that they weren’t going to “be taking away our arms”? No.

Can Palin’s account, then, fairly be called accurate, or anything but garbled half-facts and confused events?


Historians are among the worse attention-hounds of all academics, and sure enough, several used the opportunity of Palin’s typical shoot-from-the-hip slop-speak to grab some ink by claiming that she wasn’t really wrong. Boston University history professor Brendan McConville, for example, said “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

But that’s not what Sarah said. Calling her mangling of history “accurate” is academic malpractice, but the silliness of McConville and others was enough to provoke Palin into choosing to bluff her way out of the embarrassment, just like Paul Revere bluffed his way out of the hands of the British on that fateful evening in 1775.

“Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms,” she told Fox News Sunday. No, that wasn’t “part of his ride.” He was dispatched to warn the British “that were already there”? What sense does that make? Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that Sarah’s minions were dispatched to try to edit the Wikipedia entry on Paul Revere to match Palin’s fractured history.

It is ironic that a watershed example of Sarah Palin’s epic irresponsibility, holding forth on an important historical event without possessing adequate knowledge to do so, has had beneficial results, but indeed it has. The incident has taught America much, provided they are inclined to learn:

Lesson One: Thanks to the frenzied effort to prove Palin less ignorant than she seemed, many Americans were introduced to Paul Revere’s own account of his April 18th, as well as to the little-known episode of his capture by the British.

Lesson Two: We saw a wonderful dual example of confirmation bias and subsequent bias correction, all leading, as bias often does, to an absurd result. The people who are certain Palin is a moron interpreted her gaffe as proof positive that she is mentally deficient. Those who believe that Sarah Palin is being persecuted by the press immediately perceived the attacks on her eminently attackable puree of the Revere story as unfair, and set out to defend her. When some historical trivia surfaced that could be spun into a defense of  Palin’s nonsense, her fans immediately accepted uncritically the unlikely theory that Palin was basing her bizarre representation of Paul Revere’s ride as an act of gun-control opposition because she was familiar with the minutiae of Revere’s 1798 account. Panicked that Palin might be able to claim that they were the ignorant ones and that journalists  had perhaps acted rashly out of reflex Palin-hatred, many in the news media rushed to accept the absurd claim that Palin knew what she was saying all along. This is what happens with extreme bias: a clear mind is literally unattainable.

Lesson Three: Because the biased media gleefully attacks Palin whether she actually has done anything wrong or stupid or not, the public is more easily convinced that fair criticism of her is otherwise. (The same can be said, from the other ideological pole, of Andrew Breitbart, whose past indiscretions were neatly exploited by Rep. Weiner in his fib-fest. Surprise! Breitbart was accurate this time!)

Lesson Four: When Palin makes a blunder purely on the basis of her own intellectual laziness, she will refuse accountability, and blame anyone else, usually the press. In her “offense is the best defense” strategy, she referred to the “lamestream media” and their “gotcha questions” about Paul Revere. Here is  the question  that launched Palin into creative American history:

 “What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?”

Watch out Sarah! It’s a TRAP!!!

Lesson Five: When caught in a mistake, Sarah Palin will engineer a cover-up, and will refuse to confess, apologize or come clean.This is essential information, should she seek higher office.

Thank you, Sarah Palin. All of this is good to know.



16 thoughts on “What America Has Learned From Sarah Palin

  1. Sarah Palin is the political end-result of Reality-show culture. She is not stupid, but rather cunningly exploits the stupidity of the public and the nature of the 24/7 news cycle to get as much exposure and money as possible. Or at least her aides are this cunning.

    • I saw it. I really think they are among those bending over backwards to appear “fair” because they were surprised that there were any historical facts that collided with hers at all, and embarrassed that they didn’t know about them, even though they really aren’t relevant to what she said (gibberish) and why she said it ( lazy, ignorant, carelessness).

        • I like the article a lot..

          I also think the reason biases are so tricky is that avoiding the bias often produces just as wrong a result—and since I think the biases againts Palin have been more often unfair than not, I’m not as sympathetic to the consequences of suddenly trying to backtrack.

  2. When I first read what Palin said, I thought she meant that the British were being “warned” by the readiness of the militias (i.e. that the minutemen were ready and willing to fight). I have no idea what she meant by the bells though. Maybe she was thinking of the little known Edgar Allan Poe version of “Paul Revere’s Ride”.

  3. We haven’t learned she’s an idiot, because we already knew that.

    If she runs against Obama in the next election, we’ll learn that the GOP has given up on winning and just wants to say “we had the first woman candidate.” Let the one-upman… Let the one-up-personship continue.

  4. It’s best to think of Sarah Palin as the new Anita Bryant; she is no more relevant than that last aging beauty queen that used her looks (and ability to whip people into a lather with her small-minded agenda) as a platform for self-promotion. Think of her as just another Anita Bryant, with a much greater access to media, and that this too shall pass.

    • Nope, that’s just not fair. She was a successful and skilled governor while she stayed on the job in Alaska, and is a lot more than a gay-bashing singer, which was Anita. Palin has skills, more than most politicians. She just lacks discipline, common sense and integrity…which is plenty.

  5. No point in reiterating what everyone else has already said.

    But the fact that REALLY angered me was: “Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that Sarah’s minions were dispatched to try to edit the Wikipedia entry on Paul Revere to match Palin’s fractured history.”

    If that’s true, then we have another Richard Nixon on our hands, albeit with an IQ half the size his was.

  6. Having grown up in Alaska, I can assure you that being successful in local & state politics is rooted more in the reality of living in a low-population state with an (excellent, by the way) “Last Frontier” spirit, than being skillful. Add to that an odd combination of libertarian ethos + a socialist share the oil-wealthism, and just about anybody who comes back after college can make it there.

    I agree–she lacks discipline, common sense, and integrity in the worst way possible: her hubris causes her to think she has been given a pass on all of the above requirements of private and public citizenship.

    • Being a successful leader anywhere is a major achievement. Palin was especially successful in her energy policy efforts, all while fending off an avalanche of bogus ethics complaints and unfair rumors and distortions (the supposed book banning; the wolf hunt.). If one thing would help political discourse in this country, it would be a willingness to give credit where its due. Democrats should admit the Reagan had a major role in ending the Cold War, and Republicans should admit that Clinton got the deficit under control. But they just can’t do it. Palin was an effective governor once…and she has shown more raw leadership talent than Barack Obama. That doesn’t make her less annoying now, but her idiotic present doesn’t erase her past accomplishments, either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.