A Simple Question
Posted on August 31st, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
There is a great deal of admiration for Sarah Palin among my colleagues, with the notable exception of Clark, which makes me want to ask the simple question: what has really changed since Thursday that makes the GOP ticket any more acceptable than it was last week when it was, I assume, somewhere between loathsome and horrible? As I said in the comments of another post, the choice of Palin will likely mean that, in the event that he wins, McCain believes that he has already bought off conservatives and need do nothing else for them. Palin will become merely a figurehead, dispatched to quell restless conservatives whenever McCain tries to get some foolish immigration legislation passed or when he calls for a deployment to guard the Mongolian frontier against the Russians. Having appeased social conservatives with a symbolic VP nod, he can ignore them even more than he already does. Should the ticket lose, social conservatives are then left holding the bag and legions of East Coast Republican pundits will stream forth to explain that the ticket failed because Palin’s pro-life views were “too extreme” and why the GOP needs to get over talking about abortion. How can we not get behind Palin? Because she has agreed to work for John McCain, that’s how.
Let’s also understand something very important: should McCain-Palin win in ‘08, Palin is not going to be the future of the Republican Party at a national level. Barring some accident or a one-term pledge, should they somehow prevail this time, Palin will likely remain second fiddle to McCain in 2012 as well and will probably then be reduced to the status of Thomas Marshall and, yes, Dan Quayle. Should McCain not seek renomination, Romney, Huckabee and Pawlenty are all going to be waiting to take advantage of discontent with a President McCain, of which there will be plenty.
Filed under: politics
I’ve been seeing an awful lot of chatter about various skeletons in her closet and about how lightly she was vetted. I’m wondering if the appropriate analogy will end up not being Dan Quayle, but Thomas Eagleton.
Eagleton’s name did occur to me as I was driving cross-country, but I assumed that was a result of fatigue and sleep deprivation. No, what comes to mind is a combination of the blunders of ‘84 and ‘96, a MonDole campaign.
Well, Obama has continued his streak as possibly the luckiest politician alive.
Mr. Larison, you are brilliant. This is, if you will forgive me for saying so, not a good career move on your part. You are pointing out unpleasant truths to the Republican party, and you will be rewarded accordingly. I cannot think of any other journalists (on either side of the aisle) who would point out the vapidity, sterility and knee jerk militarism that lies at the heart of McCain’s alleged foreign policy.
If you could just dumb it down a little bit and play ball then you could probably get a good gig at Weekly Standard.
As to using the VP to placate the conservative base, I think it was Nixon who said you utilize the VP candidate to ” give them that old-time religion” while the candidate courts the center.
I think it’s true that the “future of the Republican party at the national level” angle is very important, but do you think practical thoughts on 2012 are going to have much effect on those appreciative of the Palin pick? In a way, the noise (and I don’t mean that derisively) is enough to justify McCain, even for pro-lifers. It seems that they tend to be optimists who underestimate “East Coast Republicans” enough to allow them the White House.
Thanks for the kind words. I think I wrecked any chance at a career in the GOP and/or conservative movement a long, long time ago, and I can’t say that I feel bad about that. You are kind to credit me with making unique observations, but I think there are many others, Mr. Buchanan being among the first, who have covered this ground concerning McCain before I did. Also, I have never thought of myself as a journalist, but I appreciate the compliment all the same.
Yeah, Buchanan did say it, and occasionally Robert Novak made similar sounds. But National Review reliably informs me that PB has been drummed out of the Movement (having left himself wide open for the purge with his -how to say? – Improvident remarks respecting Israel).