Now that Sarah Palin has left the governorship of Alaska, Republicans should learn what they can from her political career. And for all Palin’s ups and downs, the lesson her career offers is how to win elections.

You wouldn’t know that from what’s happened lately. A Wall Street Journal poll taken just after Palin announced her resignation found that 43 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of self-identified conservatives don’t want her to run for president. A Battleground poll shows her favorable/unfavorable rating at –5. Even for many Republicans, “Palinism” has taken on a negative connotation.

Yet it wasn’t that way last August 29, when John McCain introduced Palin to the nation. McCain’s surprise selection of the Alaska governor as his running mate electrified leaders across the GOP political spectrum, from social conservatives to budget hawks to libertarians. At home in Alaska, Palin also enjoyed overwhelming approval from independents and even Democrats (at the time of her selection, various polls showed her approval rating in Alaska in the upper 70s and 80s). The Sarah Palin who won her state’s admiration was quite different from the Sarah Palin whom most Americans saw, or saw caricatured, in last year’s presidential race. It is the Sarah Palin who ran for governor in 2006, not the Sarah Palin who ran for vice president in 2008, who can teach Republicans how to win elections again.

In a brief announcement, described by local reporters as “upbeat,” declaring her candidacy for governor in October 2005, Palin stated her reasons for running: “I want an efficient, accountable government to provide basic services. It’s really a pretty simple philosophy and it’s one I believe is shared by the majority of Alaskans — most of whom are instilled with a sweet streak of independence. Alaskans deserve transparency at the highest level of government.”

Since she started with low statewide name recognition, Palin’s first ad in the 2006 campaign was called “Meet the Sarah Palin family.” It was built around shots of a casually attired Palin speaking outside her lakefront home, interspersed with shots of her attractive family. The text is worth quoting in full:

I’m Sarah Palin, and I believe the best is yet to come for Alaska. I’m running for governor because I want to deliver the best to Alaskans now, not later. I’ll put new energy into a gas line contract that puts Alaska first, and puts Alaskans to work with fiscal responsibility. We’ll forward-fund education and build an infrastructure for progress and opportunity. Alaska has a lot riding on this election, including the trust of future generations. We won’t let them down.

The ad is low on specifics, but as an introduction to the candidate, it works. Palin looks great, and quintessentially Alaskan. The themes are put into place — energy, fiscal responsibility, education, roads. These things have particular appeal to Alaska’s suburban middle class, centered in the fast-growing Mat-Su valley, where Palin was mayor of Wasilla. They are centrist, dinner-table issues — not the culture-war issues with which some voters would come to associate her national presence.

Palin’s later ads expanded on these themes, emphasizing “lower . . . tax rates and increased services.” Typical footage included shots of Palin meeting informally with constituents and working in her office, but also of road construction, to emphasize the infrastructure theme. Palin’s ads ended with the candidate giving a little twist to the usual “disclaimer,” saying, “I’m Sarah Palin and this ad is frugally paid for by Palin for Governor.”

In addition to these bread-and-butter issues, Palin seized on two related matters of distinct and immediate importance to Alaska — construction of a long-delayed gas pipeline from the North Slope, and corruption in government. Thus one ad, “Take a Stand,” featured Palin discussing ethics, transparency, and open government — reinforcing the image she had achieved by resigning from the state’s Oil and Gas Commission in protest of government corruption.

Similarly, “Pipeline,” the campaign’s most issue-oriented television ad, showed Palin in front of a gas fire in her home, taking a break from reading to her daughter Piper to address the camera. Palin notes that “it’s time to bring gas from the Slope to heat our homes and fuel our economy. It’s good business to open gas-line negotiations to all viable parties. We need to put new energy into these negotiations — [looking down at Piper] to secure our future. We need to put Alaskans first.”

It is a masterly ad, criticizing by implication the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski, who had negotiated a poor pipeline deal without an open bid process, as well as the state’s entire old-boy network. (Palin would defeat Murkowski, along with a businessman named John Binkley, in the Republican primary.) And its opening image emphasizes another campaign theme — education. The ad is upbeat and focuses not on resentments but on a positive future.

Palin’s ads — like most 30-second spots — were short on specifics, but the issues, direction, and theme were clear. What Alaska voters saw was a message of frugal, competent, honest government, with an emphasis on dealing with the gas-line and energy issues. There is no culture war, no negativity, no class resentment. Says Michael Carey, a columnist for the Anchorage Daily News who covered the campaign extensively: “The message was, ‘You’ll get the basics, and it will be better. I’m not in the game to raise your taxes.’”

Palin’s approach to campaign debates was much the same. In more than a dozen debates spanning the primary and general-election campaigns, Palin stayed resolutely focused on the kitchen-table issues while parrying the attempts of liberal journalist/moderators to paint her into a corner on social issues in libertarian Alaska. The most important televised debate came one week before the election, with the race too close to call. Reviewing a tape of that debate reveals a candidate who is knowledgeable and relaxed, and stays true to her beliefs while maintaining a moderate tone throughout.

Just minutes into the debate with Democrat Tony Knowles (Murkowski’s predecessor as governor, who served from 1994 to 2002) and independent Andrew Halcro, she is asked how she would respond to a recent court order that Alaska’s government must provide health benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. (Murkowski had responded to the order by calling a special legislative session to amend the state constitution.) Palin replies, “You would have to just do it” (i.e., provide the benefits). Then she notes that in 1998 Alaska voters approved a constitutional amendment that defined marriage to include only opposite-sex couples, and expresses her belief that the voters meant that amendment to cover benefits as well. Thus she says that, while following the court ruling, she would give voters an opportunity to “clarify” the 1998 amendment. This answer is intelligent and respectful of voters and gay couples, and — not bad politics — it pushes the issue back to the voters.

The debate then turns to abortion. Palin had avoided raising the subject during both the primary and the general-election campaigns: A Nexis search of all stories including the words “abortion” and “Palin” in 2006 finds not a single reference to Palin’s discussing abortion, except in response to direct inquiries — and then, as in the debates, she is brief and sympathetic. Following one attempt by Knowles to force the issue, the Anchorage Daily News summarized Palin’s response as: “It’s divisive of the Knowles camp to resurrect an issue that’s really for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide, not the governor of Alaska.”

In the debate, a reporter asks Palin whether she would support a constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion. Her answer is frank but not zealous: “I would. It’s no secret that I’m pro-life, and I don’t hide that, nor am I ashamed of that, so a proposal like that, I would stand by it.” Following up, another reporter asks: If a woman became pregnant as a result of a rape, “would that be an instance where you would allow her to have an abortion?” Palin responds, “I don’t think it would be up to me as an individual to allow.”

This is a perfectly reasonable answer that sends a message that the campaign is not about divisive issues over which the governor has no control, but of course the reporter pushes: “Would you make it against the law?” Palin briefly states that abortion is acceptable only when the life of the mother is in danger. The reporter insists on a specific answer to the rape question. Palin gives a modulated reply: “With my respect for the sanctity of life, and my belief in the potential of life — I know that this aspect of the abortion issue is very sensitive, and is a very private matter also — but, personally, I would choose life.”

But the reporter is not done: “If your daughter were pregnant, or your son were involved in a pregnancy before marriage, what would be your reaction and advice to him or her?” And Palin gently slams him: “Again, I would choose life, and [with a small smile] I’m quite confident that you’re going to be asking my opponents about those same scenarios.” “Again, if your daughter had been raped . . . ?” Palin responds simply, “Again, I would choose life.”

Today, many Republican critics of Palin argue that the party’s tone, as much as the substance of its policy commitments, has harmed its reputation among independents, moderates, and college-educated voters. Palin’s 2006 debate performance on abortion is a classic blending of tone and substance. She does not retreat from her position; she handles a series of ultimately insulting questions with dignity; she recognizes the complexity of the issue, and the fact that the governor’s role is limited in any case; and she is respectful of those with other views and those facing a difficult choice. Her framing of her position — “I would choose life” — is positive rather than critical. You know where she stands, even as she makes clear that her campaign is not about culture wars. It is nothing less than a model for pro-life Republicans answering similar questions.

Later in the debate, Palin answered a question about assisted suicide by saying, “This is a very personal and private issue, and I do respect others’ opinions on this, but I do not think the government should sanction ending life.” Asked about stem-cell research at Alaska universities, she again briefly reaffirms her strong (some would say “extreme”) pro-life position while pointing out that the question is hypothetical, as state universities were not doing stem-cell research. The message to those who may disagree is that that disagreement is not a reason to vote for her opponent if they like other elements of her platform.

Having parried the various “social” questions, Palin radiates energy when the subject turns to education. She urges more vocational education to help deal with Alaska’s serious dropout problem. She speaks intelligently and in detail on indigenous hunting and fishing rights, and is the only candidate to express reservations about whether the state can be an impartial regulator if it takes an ownership position in the pipeline. She comes across in that exchange as much more realistic than her opponents. While low taxes and spending are a clear theme as the debate moves on, she is not dogmatic — she calls for pay raises to retain officers in the state’s Village Public Safety Officer program, which polices Alaska’s many small, remote villages, and for more spending on roads and on rural water and sewer infrastructure.

These themes of competence, transparency, low taxes, and frugal government dominated the campaign. Several longtime Alaska political observers I spoke to used the word “pragmatic” to describe the Sarah Palin who won election in 2006 and governed over the next year and a half. The Anchorage Daily News reported in early August of 2006 that “social issues” had so far played almost no role in the campaign. It also noted that Palin opposed legalization of marijuana but believed the state should focus its enforcement efforts on other drugs.

With polls showing that most Alaskans are pro-choice, Palin’s opponents did their best to make it a “culture war” election. Knowles mailed thousands of cards to pro-choice voters, quoting Palin’s statement to a pro-life group in 2002 that she was “as pro-life as a candidate can be.” But her nuanced answers and gentle tone foiled her opponents, locking up the pro-life vote while gaining respect and votes from both moderate and pro-choice voters. On other social issues, she told the Anchorage Daily News that she saw no need for increased funding for faith-based initiatives, and that she supported and would sign a bill establishing the death penalty for adults who murder children.

Palin took a similarly moderate course on the environment. Asked by the Anchorage Daily News about the role of state government in addressing climate change, she did not deny that climate change is occurring, but made the sensible observation that “we need to analyze the potential economic costs, needs and opportunities associated with climate change. Let’s be cautious in how we react — to make sure we don’t overreact.” She added that “the Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission is supposed to assess the situation and issue a report on March 1, 2007. This is a good start.” Call it a dodge if you want; to others, it was a smart, skeptical answer.

The Sarah Palin who won Alaska’s governorship in 2006 came perhaps as close as any Republican in recent memory to recapturing the Reagan formula. She never wavered in or ran from her conservative positions on social issues, but she addressed them with understanding, compassion, and respect for opposing views. Like Reagan, she emphasized competence, economic issues, taxes, and frugality, and, again like Reagan, her instincts on taxes and spending were libertarian and deregulatory, though not dogmatically so.

She added to this social conservatism and political libertarianism a Reaganesque dose of populism, spotting symbolic issues (such as pledging to sell the state government’s jet) and exploiting an attractive, folksy public persona. Her approach was inclusive, seeking the support of moderates, independents, and Democrats, and it worked. Though substantially outspent in both the primary and the general election, she took out two former governors to become the first woman and the youngest governor in state history.

The point here is not that GOP candidates should always avoid discussing social issues, or that the GOP needs to embrace same-sex marriage or drop support for gun rights, or that it should not oppose tax increases or spending programs. Rather, it is that bread-and-butter issues — taxes, spending, competence, economic growth — are likely to dominate most elections for the next few years at least, and while Republicans can address these issues (and retain strong, even “extreme” positions), they should modulate their tone, as Sarah Palin did, to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters. Pro-life and values voters are a crucial part of the GOP coalition, but to win national majorities, the Republican party must capture the votes of upper-middle-class suburbanites, as Palin did. And while Palin’s signature pipeline issue and anti-corruption theme may have been specific to Alaska, they point to the need for Republicans to identify and focus on local issues.

After winning, Palin governed much as she had campaigned. She was not a culture warrior, and even vetoed a bill to prohibit same-sex partner benefits for state employees on the grounds that it violated the state constitution. She angered pro-life advocates by refusing to include pro-life legislation in the agenda for a 2008 special session of the legislature, saying that the bills would have been a distraction from completing work on the gas-pipeline deal. In what the Anchorage Daily News said “may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history,” Palin killed a host of pork-barrel spending projects. She supported school choice and home schooling. She argued for market solutions to health-care issues, but signed a law relaxing eligibility standards for the state’s S-CHIP program. She lowered property taxes.

There is a reason Palin had such high approval ratings 20 months into her governorship: She combined a conservative/libertarian core ideology with a pragmatism that made her a flexible, non-divisive governor. If Republicans want to return to majority-party status, they can learn some valuable lessons from that Sarah Palin.