Thanks to all the readers who wrote in about my Palin post. Let me share one letter that I found especially interesting. The reader was responding specifically to my contention that Palin may be for 2012 what Obama was for 2008: the candidate whom many “elite gatekeepers” consider dangerously unqualified, but whom adoring crowds will nonetheless sweep to victory in the general election. Here’s the e-mail:
Palin has rabid fans, but someone who was neutral like me has now gone to completely negative. What an egotist. I can’t stand the sight of her. I think the analogy is more with other inevitables like Kemp or Dean, not Obama.
Daniels/Jindal, my dream ticket for 2012. The right words, with no flash. The public is sick of flash right now.
The writer is a conservative Catholic English professor who describes himself as “unapologetically pro-life” and declares that his personal hero is political philosopher Mary Ann Glendon; I will not release his name because I want him to be safe from reprisals. Now there are a number of things that struck me about this, things that are suggestive about Palin’s prospects.
First, note that the reader does not actually criticize Palin’s issue positions, or even her objective qualifications (or lack of same), in general, for the presidency. No, he cuts straight to the chase: She is an egotist and I can’t stand her. I think that underpinning much of the criticism of Palin as unqualified is a similar fundamental, personal dislike. After all, many people who object strenuously to Palin’s lack of preparation voted enthusiastically for Obama, who was equally lacking in that regard. So we are left with a dispute that boils down to Palin’s personality. In the GOP primaries, those who love her passionately will outnumber those who detest her passionately—unless those who detest her all decide to coalesce behind a single candidate. Which is not likely: In 2008, McCain was detested by far more Republicans than detest Palin today (remember those charming, classy T-shirts that said, “I’d rather be waterboarded than vote for McCain”?). Conservatives waited in vain for a candidate who could unite the anti-McCain vote.
Second, the reader raises the analogies of Jack Kemp and Howard Dean, which on examination I think actually bolster the odds of a Palin victory. I liked Kemp very much, but he was never seen as a front-runner—especially after his poor performance in the 1988 primaries. He was always more of a boutique taste; despite his much greater closeness to Reagan’s views, Bush and Dole had an edge over him even going in to 1988. The Howard Dean example is even more instructive. He had huge, passionate, Palinesque crowds, and seemed headed toward the nomination—until the famous “Dean scream” moment. The media’s depiction of that event was deeply unfair to Dean, but it wrecked his candidacy. In Palin we have a candidate who has already had countless “Dean scream” moments—some, like the Dean scream itself, unfairly abused by the media to be portrayed as damaging; many others, quite legitimate evidence of a serious problem. Yet none of them has made a difference to her backers.
All of which, as far as I’m concerned, answers definitively the question of Can she win? The next question, to be examined over the next two years, is Should she be president? I think that in a country that’s as evenly split ideologically as today’s America, we will be condemned for the foreseeable future to having a president who is not just passionately disagreed with, but hated and viewed as illegitimate by a very large minority of citizens. The post-Cold War Clintonite bipartisan utopia some of us hoped for (I plead guilty) is not in the cards. The prospect of a Palin presidency may be seriously depressing to many who hope for a better politics, but such people should not delude themselves that defeating Palin would solve the problem.
A Mitch Daniels or a Bobby Jindal does, to me as to the reader I quoted above, look more like the sort of person we should entrust with executive power at a time of massive instability (both geopolitical and economic). I think Claire Berlinski’s recent comments in this regard are apt. But I can’t help thinking, also, of the idea Rumsfeld expressed a few years ago, that you go to war with the army you have. I am not sure that — to use my reader’s words — “the public is sick of flash”: The desire to elevate people like Obama and Palin remains very much a part of the political landscape. So we are left hoping that the Obama 2008/Palin 2012 sort of talent — which, in each case, most people will choose to label either “passionately reflective of deeply felt public values” or “sickeningly demagogic pandering,” depending entirely on their own political views — may actually end up being used in service of the public good.
In the case of Palin 2012, forgive me for bringing up Nixon and China; I am as bored with the analogy as you are. But it remains true that a McCarthyite Red-baiter was the one who concluded a rapprochement with the world’s largest Communist tyranny. Palin is succeeding in convincing resentful masses of Americans that she is on their side against a big-spending elite. So far, so banal: She’s telling people what they want to hear, and therefore they applaud her. But if the bond she creates with her audiences is real, doesn’t that create an opening for some real leadership? Wouldn’t she, as president, have greater standing than the typical politician to ask Americans to join in shared sacrifices, to pull the country away from complete bankruptcy?
I admit that the Obama precedent is a discouraging one. The fact that a candidate’s feel-good rhetoric is cheered frenziedly by millions in a campaign does not prove that the candidate, once elected, has the will or the capability to be a true leader. It is, as Claire Berlinski suggested, unfortunate that we find ourselves asking these questions. But you go to war with the army you have, and pray.
[After all, many people who object strenuously to Palin’s lack of preparation voted enthusiastically for Obama, who was equally lacking in that regard. ]
Equally lacking? Obama had never held an executive position in his life, and Palin had been Mayor and Governor. How are you computing equality here?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEvery politician on the planet is an egotist, but somehow in Palin this characteristic is intolerable. I cannot for the life of me understand these people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf, by "shared sacrifice", you mean that the fraction of our population that seeks to subsist by sucking at the public teat might be persuaded to eschew that destructive luxury, I am not optimistic, regardless of who becomes President. We can expect no help from the political class, for we get a George Washington only once every couple of centuries, and we arguably have none available now.
Human nature being what it is, a goodly fraction of our citizenry will need to endure the experience of urinating on the electric fence to get the point. Unfortunately, the rest of us are in for a bumpy ride as we are involuntary passengers on this ship of fools.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just wrote about this on the old thread, but since no one will read that now, I will say again: No one has mentioned Palin's family; her children are proving to be huge liabilities. I think the press has been grotesquely unfair to Palin. I agree with Palin on the issues, and of course the issues are more important than how Bristol is coping or whether Willow should curb her temper. Yet even I am sufficiently appalled at the prospect of monthly or weekly Enquirer-worthy escapades by the Palin family members -- escapades that the parents seem to applaud -- that (for these and other reasons) I have recently but probably permanently defected.
Fortunately, I'm not persuaded that Palin would be the best candidate even if her children were Wally and the Beav. The Catholic English professor's dream ticket is close to my own; I fear, however, that Daniels may be a bit too precious. His stance on the VAT, his "truce" on social issues, and especially his support for so-called merit selection of judges (meaning judges effectively appointed by liberal ABA committees) all seem the mark of someone hellbent on being a maverick. He also has an odd personal story involving the unpalatable breakup of his marriage followed by reconciliation years later -- for which he can hardly be blamed, but it will come up.
My dream ticket: Pence/Jindal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe number of false/phony premises laid out in this article is beyond making it worth responding to.
All I can say, is those who believe that there is anything, anything at all in common between Palin and Obama, or in their supporters, is at most blindingly condescending, and at worst, just another Mitt Romney paid Palin-basher. Where to begin.
Naw, I wont even try.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLee Harris brought us the notion of a fantasy ideology when explaining Al Qaeda. The idea was that some movements take steps that are antithetical to any reasonable goal of the movement, because the steps are really a way of fulfilling a fantasy ideology, not furthering the goals of a political movement.
The election of Barack Obama was fantasy ideology. The majority of the electorate wanted to feel good about itself, electing a post-racial, post-partisan young attractive man. They paid little mind to the real political movements Obama supported, and paid less to whether their own political goals would be achieved with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid in power.
If the electorate stays in a fantasy ideology mindset, then we are in bad shape.
The question remains: is the Tea Party more than fantasy ideology?
And the related question: is the support for Palin another example of fantasy ideology? Will support of Palin actually further political aims of the Tea Party, or any other fiscal conservative branch of the polity?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(And I suppose, the same question holds re: Palin derangement.)
I believe the reader who submitted the letter expressing contempt of Palin is simply showing arrogance, and distaste of anyone who might dare to govern a country inhabited by proud English Professors.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's relatively simple. Palin makes George W. Bush seem like an intellectual when she is not speaking from prepared remarks. It is not elitist to reach the conclusion that when someone comes across as unintelligent during the course of a friendly Fox News interview (Election Night 2010), that someone is not qualified to be President. Daniels/Christie 2012 (if one can overlook that they both seem to support amnesty).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Sarah Palin is so unqualified, so shallow, so much sizzle and so little steak, so dumb and stupid, can someone please explain to this simple Canadian why the Left, in all it’s iterations are so afraid of this happily married mother of five.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI really think all the analysis is being overdone. It's pretty simple, really.
The hostility to Palin from the Left is because like Reagan, she identifies fundamental political principles and speaks clearly about them. The Left can't tolerate this.
The hostility from part of the Right seems to be mostly because she comes from the wrong side of the Ivy League tracks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, you do Mike. And, do you know what you pray about? You pray that that army doesn’t quit in the middle of the campaign.
After the 2008 election, Palin's choices were stark. She could put her nose to the proverbial grindstone and help to guide her state through a fierce recession and as opportunities presented themselves, speak out where it made sense - as a sitting governor. OR, she could quit under the guise of protecting herself from "personal bankruptcy" and cash in on her new found success. She chose the later, rather than the former. This speaks VOLUMES about where her priorities lay.
I think 2008 exit polls clearly establish that Palin's general perception in the country was "unqualified", and that's probably a generous description. She has DONE nothing to assuage the fears of those who found great reservation in her professional competency as well as in her command of elementary domestic and foreign policy issues. If anything, she exacerbated those fears in the months after the election.
Simply put, to much of the country Palin is much more an opportunist, than she is an earnest leader. She seems wholly incapable of doing the hard work, and instead prefers on picking the low-hanging political fruit (and personally enriching herself in the process). Unlike Reagan who spent the better part of a decade honing his political philosophy through writing and lecturing, Palin seems either disinterested or incapable of contributing to the narrative of conservative intellectual excellence. From Palin, original ideas longer than a “tweet” or Facebook posting, are few and far between which signals to a large part of the country that she has no more than a passing interest in governance.
Can she beat Obama? Sure. If the economy gets measurably worse, virtually anyone with a pulse and green-card could beat Obama. But, no matter how bad the economy is in the fall of 2012, she gives Obama the best opportunity at reelection.
Thankfully in American politics, you don't have to "go to war with the Army you have". We have an opportunity over the next 12-months to build a ticket that is perhaps not ideal, but also not suicidal. We should take that opportunity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is so hard to have a reasonable discussion of the merits of a Sarah Palin run for president because emotions about her run so high and I cannot figure out exactly why she attracts the ridicule she does not just from the Left, but also from the wannabe elites in erudite conservatives circles who seem embarrassed by Palin because they view her as an illiterate country bumpkin. I have to part company with some NRO contributors and readers who cringe when Palin says "you betcha" as they used to do whenever George W. Bush said the word "nuclear" or "vehicle." Face it folks, elitist cultural snobbery knows no ideological limits and that in part accounts for some of the disdain for Palin from both Left and Right. I recall vividly how some pundits in 2008 were sandalized that the GOP candidate for Vice President never even visited Manhattan or read the New York Times. Did they realize how that fact alone made Palin's stock rocket skyward in the opinion of many midwestern folks? No. I am impressed by the business credentials of a Carly Fiona, Meg Whitman, or a Mitt Romney who want to sell themsevles as "comptent" leaders. Whatever hubris Palin might be guilty of is amazingly tame compared to most politicians. It is clear that she loves the Constitution, freedom, and the rule of law and I think that particular core commitment counts for a great deal more with far more conservatvie voters than alleged expertise in economics or foreign policy that some candidates pretend to have. It is not the result of demagogic populism that most Americans have had it with the pretentious claims of elite scholars, pundits, and political or business leaders that routinely jettison common sense for an excessive reliance on "experts" in fashioning public policy. This is not an argument against good scholarship, only against the pretentions of experts who claim to to know far more than they do and far more than their meager wisdom can manage. I love the authentic humility of Sarah Palin and utterly reject a claim of hubris on her part. I will get this quote all wrong but I recall the spirit in which Bill Buckley once said he would rather be governed by the first one hundred names in a phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. Spoken like a good Yale alumnus and yet that is the way I feel about the good American instincts of former Gov. Palin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis would be better if the author explained the Obama-Palin connection more adequately. Then, the larger point he is making would have more weight.
And although I understand that both Obama and Palin are more "rock-star" like and less experienced than our last several presidents, I'm not seeing why that merits a connection between them. We've had many presidents that are polarizing and many that are inexperienced, politically. If these two are the ones that most unite the two characteristics, then maybe there is something there.
But even then, if Obama and Palin are totally different persons with totally different views, the two shared similarities seem like mere coincidence more than anything.
In all actuality, it would seem that the author is implying something deeper... something perhaps along the lines of the idea that both politicians lack substance but get away with it by virtue of an appeal to style that gives them both great popularity. And if this is what our author thinks, then yes, the two do have a distinct connection: They both employ a similar appeal, they just fall on different sides of the aisle.
However, to make this point, the author has to express why Palin isn't substantive enough. Does she need to address some deeper philosophical points behind the principles she advocates for? Or deeper engagement on practical effects of her policies, like economic effects? Or policy detail, generally? And in what ways has she not done these things to the author's satisfaction? More to the point (and easier to answer), what specifically does the author want to see out of Palin?
And further, this author doesn't know that Palin won't yet express more substance (assuming he's right in saying she hasn't already, for sake of argument). To expect her to have been belting out the same detailed policy positions for four years wouldn't make her more credible on policy than doing so for two years. Nor would it make up for a lack of experience, if present. And further, such repetition would probably cause people to tire of hearing her policies.
So, our author needs to then explain two things for his argument (and the larger point he's trying to build off of that argument) to have any weight. He needs to explain what he hasn't seen out of Palin that makes him think that she isn't substantive enough, and then, he has to explain why he doesn't believe she won't yet show the substance that he thinks she's missing.
Without these two points explained, those who don't already share his view (and either oppose it or are waiting to judge) will have troubles understanding his phrase, "But you go to war with the army you have, and pray."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think your mystery writer is all wet.
How does he presume to know what "the public" wants or desires? And, on what yet unspecified basis does he judge Palin to be an egotist? He is but one person yet he claims to speak for the multitude?
Its hard to determine why this mysterious writer was selected for a continuation of the Palin discussion, but he was.
Look, Daniels and Jindal are fine fellows. They are certainly far better improvements over President Obama. But are they really what "the public" wants? I'm not so sure.
There is a train of thought advanced by Krauthammer and others that "the public" will be tired of high charisma "flash" presidential candidates. But when you envision debating Obama, it's also likely that he will dance around and through the wonkish Republican opponent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@RNCCritic: Its funny you say that. I don't see Mitch Daniels as an egoist. Nor did I ever see Reagan as one.
@mnmike: On what basis is she judged an egoist? Are you kidding? Her celebrity-seeking resignation? Her reality show? Her incessant media-attention seeking? Should we go on?
I'm not neccessarily sure "Daniels/Jindal" will be our hopes and dreams, but one certainly can't say the above of them. They are both first and foremost focused on their state and their jobs. I'd toss Christie's name in there too. He's focused on his job.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Scott Wilson -
Love how you put "personal bankruptcy" in quotes. The fact is that it was a very real situation for Palin. She made $125k/year as Governor (she turned down a pay raise to $150k/year) and her husband made less as a blue-collar oilworker/seasonal fisherman. And they have kids to support, including one with special needs.
But frivolous ethics complaints and lawsuits put her $500k in debt. She got no support from the corrupt AK Murkowski GOP machine or from the equally corrupt national GOP. She attempted to set up a legal defense fund and the corruptocrats shot that down too.
What was she supposed to do?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe question still remains unanswered by most self-professed anti-Palin Republicans: if not Palin, then who? And only count among the whos people who are actually running, or who have given strong signals they may run. Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal and others are out. Right now, the field of probable candidates includes Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty and Gingrich. So, if not Palin, then:
Romney - about as elite establishment as they come, and what did he do when trusted with executive power? He pushed a universal health care plan similar to Obamacare - which he still defends to this day even while saying he is against Obamacare.
Huckabee - he is for amnesty and big government. He never met a tax he didn't like. He is soft on crime. And at a time when social issues take a back seat to fiscal issues, he is the potential candidate most likely to spend all his political capital on gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, and other social issues.
Pawlenty - is a non-entity snorefest who is only considered because McCain (MCCAIN!) likes him. Pawlenty never could win a majority victory in his own state and will never inspire majorities anywhere else. He is the sort of thrilling politician you appoint to be something like Secretary of the Interior and then shut up in a quiet office away from the press for four years, not put on a national ticket.
Gingrich - here at least is someone who has some conservative credentials and some gravitas. But he has some big baggage, too. He is hated by the left as much as Palin and would be every bit as divisive. He cheated on his wife while she had cancer. Can you name another Presidential hopeful who did that? Can you tell me how that other person is viewed by the public? And many conservatives are wary of him these days because he got way too cozy with Al Sharpton and the Church of AGW. He could be a ticket killer.
So please, hate on Palin all y'all want. But tell me who you are going to support, spell out why that person is a better candidate.
And if your candidate is not the nominee, if Palin is, will you really choose not to vote for Palin against Obama? Will you really help Obama get re-elected rather than vote for Palin? If so, explain why, in rational terms, other than "I just hate her."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am not on the Palin bandwagon, like the writer, but Daniels? Sorry, he thought VAT was a reasonable idea. Anyone...and I mean ANYONE who thinks that is absolutely DOA in my book. I will not support, or vote for, ANYONE who wants, or is open to, a VAT tax. We don't need more taxes, or new ways to tax, we need less.
For me, I like Gingrich, IF he's electable. I don't know that he is. I like how the guy is a wealth of ideas. Usually, I agree with his ideas too.
At the end of the day, I'll vote for the conservative who can win (as long as he/she won't support a VAT). My heart has always been with Gingrich though. I just love his ideas. I think he'd CRUSH Obama in debates too. I'm just not sure it's enough to beat Obama in the general.
I still think Palin is DOA as well. My wife, who is very conservative, doesn't like. I know, that's anecdotal, but she SHOULD like her. By all accounts, she agrees with her on everything. Yet, Palin quit as governor, and that is a deal breaker for my wife, and for a lot of conservatives. We don't like quitters. Her reason for quitting is the most damning thing too. She quit because she had become too big of a target, and a distraction. Well, what the heck is she going to be as president if not a distraction, and a big target.
Again, I like Palin. If she got the not from the GOP, I'd vote for her. I just don't think she'd win, and I think there are far better choices out there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis quote from scripture approximates why I trust the basic honesty and love of freedom of Sarah Palin as distinct from those leaders who might heve more traditional "credentials" for high office.
From First Corinthians, Chapeter One, Verse 19:
For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"She quit because she had become too big of a target, and a distraction. Well, what the heck is she going to be as president if not a distraction, and a big target."
That is a good point. Though I do not hold her leaving office against her - as she had 8(more?) ethics violations brought against her, all without merit, and it is hard to see how someone can run a state with that going on - things will inevitably be worse if she is president. Since she didn't come up with a solution for this problem then, it is hard to see how she has gained one since.
The comparison Mr. Potemra makes is also not quite accurate. While Palin does excite a large base, she also has a huge group that hates her, which Obama really did not have since no one knew anything about him and the MSM suppressed the few who did. It is actually quite amazing how many journalists and pundits did not know Obama's stance on things, such as David Brooks who legitimately thought Obama was a moderate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse