I've run out of resistance to the temptation. V. you are misusing the concept of cultural relativism in these arguments. It's one thing to argue that Galileo lived in a different historical period with different truth "norms." That's not exactly an open and shut argument since it was clearly a transitional time but the argument is worth making.
However, Palin, for better or worse, lives in the same historical period as the rest of us and is subject to the same norms. At least truth "norms." Her propensity for lying well beyond the current practice in politics is about as well documented as anything could be. We would run out of space in posts if anyone linked to all the various articles documenting such.
As for her "group" having different value sets, no doubt that is true. But that's a reasonably complicated issue as to whether there are consensual value sets that, while culturally relative, transcend groups, at least in the US. If you simply take the value issues surrounding gay marriage as one illustration, it's easy to argue that the transcending value of inclusiveness is accepted by the Palin crowd and then subverted by their opposition to gay marriage. Or the value of individual freedom, which is a transcendent one within the current historical period, and not only agreed to by Palin's crowd but trumpeted by them, is subverted by their opposition to choice for women.
One could go on. All I'm arguing here is that the post modernist notions of cultural and historical relativism are stretched beyond recognition by applying them, uncritically, to group differences within US politics. |
