It has been interesting to see reactions from some conservative male leaders. Rich Lowry, previously charmed by a wink from Palin, is angry about her resignation. Lowry calls her reasoning disingenuous and thinks the resignation is purely the result of self-interest. On the local level Lars Larson thinks she’s a quitter. Even normally good sense Mark Steyn thinks she’s “cutting bait”. (Though I note that he doesn’t have the “cutting bait” posting linked at his steynonline site anymore.)
Could this be a “guy” thing? Men are used to plunging straight forward come what may. That’s part of masculine heroics–at least for those who have a foot in the power structure. But women, down through the centuries, know that many times the best way through is going around because if you aren’t as physically strong or don’t have the good old boys network and legal system on your side, a frontal assault is a losing assault. You end up worse off than you started.
Actually, most people out of power know that. So do people who are out gunned. Consider the American revolution. The British fought straight up in lines–-like real men. They had the men, equipment and supplies to win. The Americans fought by using cover, striking when it looked like they could do damage and retreating when necessary–which was more often than not. Were they quitters? Cowards? The British thought so. Still, they did risk their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in fighting for political freedom against the odds.
Unconventional tactics are sometimes the result of true courage as well as being the best way to achieve victory.