Palin And Her Critics
Posted on October 3rd, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Conor Friedersdorf notes the irony that Palin’s fans are thrilling over a single appearance on television (just as they thrilled to her earlier convention speech when it was broadcast on television), even though their main charge against him was that he put too much store by her appearances on television when making his claim that she was unqualified. Of course, this charge, which has also been directed against Rod and Ross for their criticisms, is ridiculous on its face. Now we are supposed to believe that after one debate outing Palin has changed her image, but what this means is that it is only a superficial change of this kind that was possible and confirms that no substantive improvement has occurred. The view that her critics are judging her hastily and superficially is quite pervasive, though, so it needs to be put to rest once and for all. Most of Palin’s conservative critics, including Conor, Rod and Ross, are fundamentally sympathetic to what she was supposed to represent on the ticket. They very much wished she could have risen to the occasion and I think to some degree they were all rooting for her to succeed. Then she failed, and they could not simply pretend that this had not happened. The word that was used to describe Palin early on was promising, and so she was, and then the appropriate word to describe her later was disappointing, because it was inescapable that she was also that.
The counterargument against them is essentially this: 1) her sympathetic critics have put too much store by superficial television appearances (as opposed to deeply serious convention speeches!) and 2) they have ignored her “record of accomplishment.” What is amazing is that the debate last night, which supposedly vindicates Palin fans, confirmed that the best she can muster are heavily scripted, cliche-ridden, talking point-rich performances with the occasional zinger thrown in. The debate format was deliberately crafted by the campaign to ensure that her weaknesses in handling challenging questions and follow-up questions, which I noted earlier, were concealed. Even so, she evaded many questions (Politico counted ten) and turned to her rehearsed attacks at random moments. She cannot be blamed for not knowing that civilian casualties from NATO airstrikes have been a major political problem in the Afghan war or that this reliance on air power stems directly from our lack of ground forces in the country, because I’m sure her handlers were never going to brief her on the existence of civilian casualties in a war zone. For the Scheunemanns and Bieguns of the world, these casualties either don’t exist or are irrelevant. Regardless, her clear lack of knowledge about a critical detail concerning one of the two combat theaters where American soldiers are fighting today would, were she not a Republican, be considered among conservatives automatically disqualifying and a cause for ridicule from now until eternity. Obviously, had Biden made an error of this magnitude he would be attacked as unfit–and rightly so. It can be no less disqualifying with Palin.
Now let’s go back and revisit her record that makes her fans so proud. She left Wasilla under a staggering debt of $20 million and badly mishandled the construction of the athletic facility that the city took on this debt to build. Her main accomplishments in her short tenure as governor have been to raise taxes on oil companies, which was more likely to discourage development and thus directly contradicted her fantastical claim of facilitating chimerical energy independence, and to negotiate a pipeline that cannot be built without the cooperation of the same oil companies that she has deliberately antagonized. Under her administration Alaska now takes fewer federal dollars for earmark projects than under Murkowski, but it is still the highest per capita recipient of earmarked funds in the country. She “killed” the so-called Bridge to Nowhere after she had supported it during her campaign and only when it had become an unworkable project after federal money was no longer earmarked for it. On her watch, she has increased spending considerably, as I suppose you might expect from a petro-state flush with revenues, and she had bought the love of the people with rebates from the revenues raised by that new tax, but she is not really much of the reformer that she has been made out to be. Of course, it is hard to know whether she could have accomplished more had she not been taken from her job after just a year and a half, but her actual record as of now is both thin and unremarkable.
I rehash all of this not to dwell on Palin’s problems, which are increasingly irrelevant as McCain heads towards defeat, but to implore conservatives to stop ignoring reality just because they happen to like a candidate’s personality and biography. Besides being bad for the quality of conservative thought, it embraces the caricature that conservatives are indifferent to knowledge and have no use for expertise, which has become an all too legitimate critique of how conservatives have responded to the misrule of the Bush administration. That was not always the case, but if conservatives insist on making elaborate arguments that understanding and knowledge are not significant criteria when choosing our top elected officials they will lose whatever credibility they may still have. More than that, they will be crippled by their embrace of cheerful ignorance when it comes time to oppose the policies of the Democratic administration that is surely about to be elected.
Filed under: politics
Daniel, the Palin candidacy is the latest, but probably not the ultimate, step in “the end justifies the means” as an approach to winning elections and governing.
People across the spectrum can have passionate disagreements about how to govern well, provided that they agree that governing well matters. Democrats have run as technocrats in the last 6 presidential elections, including this one. Republicans have run as people who connect, on an emotional and values level, to the ordinary voter. Both are legitimate strategies for winning elections (the only successful Democrat at the Presidential level in the last 30 years was Bill Clinton, who combined both approaches, and even he was assisted by Perot’s candidacy).
But in office in the last eight years, competence at governing - administering the state, directing its energies skillfully - has been completely missing in action. Foreign policy, the administration of justice, responses to disasters like Katrina, and (the last shoe to drop) administering the economy and financial system - they’re all smoking car wrecks.
There are conservatives who understand this. If I walked into the voting booth with Jim Comey, or Chuck Hagel, or Greg Mankiw, I might not punch the same ticket as they did, but I know they understand how the powers of government can be successfully applied.
But the heart of conservatism at the moment is still Rovian - not in a bogeyman sense, but in what John Diullio lamented to Ron Suskind in the first year of the Bush presidency - that it was all politics and no policy, the reign of the mayberry Machiavellis. Policy exists only to serve political ends. Government exists to get our people elected, and to put them into positions of power.
With Steve Schmidt and other Rove disciples running the McCain campaign, politics continues to be about the news cycle, not the demonstration of knowledge and application of expertise you call for. In fact, knowledge and expertise can be derided - Sarah Palin isn’t there to answer a moderator’s questions on issues, she’s there to deliver straight talk to the American people, doggone it.
I salute your lonely struggle to appeal to fellow conservatives that “understanding and knowledge are [...] significant criteria when choosing our top elected officials.” (You may have Andrew Sullivan as an ally). It will take more than one election cycle, I think, to cleanse the party of the Rove virus.
[...] Larison, after once again going through Palin’s gaffes from last night and her atrocious record as Mayor and Governor that for whatever reason has right-wingers all giddy, tells it like it is: [...]
You Wrote: “She cannot be blamed for not knowing that civilian casualties from NATO airstrikes have been a major political problem in the Afghan war or that this reliance on air power stems directly from our lack of ground forces in the country, because I’m sure her handlers were never going to brief her on the existence of civilian casualties in a war zone.”
In this Palin is, sadly, probably no more ignorant that the majority of Americans - or at least a loud and aggressive minority of armchair generals.
I seriously believe that our nations collective ignorance & inexperience with some of the most basic facts of military reality, and over-reliance on movies/tv to compensate, is a serious danger to our republic. It would be one thing if they had the appropriate sense of self-doubt, but I can’t tell you the number of poseurs I have met who say ridiculous things in perfect seriousness and confidence because they don’t even know that they don’t know what they are talking about. A perfect example of this kind of ignorance include the man who didn’t know any of the Predator’s technical capabilities, but claimed with confidence that we could totally control the US-Mexico border because “all we need is a couple dozen Predators” patrolling the skies to spot almost all the people trying to cross. Im sure his assessment is similarly flawed when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Its total hogwash but it’s not harmless because they do support policy positions based on these horribly erroneous assessments of our capabilities.
I almost guarantee that Palin doesn’t understand the limitations of air power, even with “precision” munitions, and assumes that pointing out that America pilots are killing civilians is to accuse them of deliberately murdering these civilians rather than a fair statement about the inevitability of civilians casualties when you over-rely on airpower to make up for a lack of other, more appropriate, forms of firepower.
“She cannot be blamed for not knowing that civilian casualties from NATO airstrikes have been a major political problem in the Afghan war ….”
She can’t? Even I knew that — and I’m no vice-presidential candidate, nor have I spent hours reading “all the newspapers” to keep up with what’s going on in the world. But every time I hear or read that there’s been another “mis-aimed” airstrike causing (or allegedly causing) civilian deaths–I know EXACTLY what that’s doing to our mission in Afghanistan (or Iraq). I actually think you have to be incredibly DULL not to recognize this result if you have any basic understanding of human nature, let alone the politics of the region.
She gets no pass from me on this, blaming her “handlers” for her glaringly obvious lack of insight into or forethought about almost anything a leader of the free world SHOULD be expected to demonstrate. I find her terrifying.
I’d have serious trouble answering most of the questions asked at last night’s debate, but if I ever got into a debate with BHO about the topic I concentrate on he’d probably run off the stage crying after five minutes. Likewise, I’m sure there are important topics where Palin would beat Biden handily. Bear in mind that she’s only been involved in national politics for a month.
And, it doesn’t seem to have sunk in that unless McCain wins, BHO is going to be prez for four years (or until he’s impeached or declared ineligible) and he’s going to have a Dem Congress. I strongly opposed Bush in 2004, now I even more strongly oppose BHO. I don’t think some of his supporters - or those who get linked to by his supporters due to saying things they like - realize just how much damage he could do to the U.S.
In case anyone wants to do some that would be very effective, here’s how to defeat Barack Obama.
“Likewise, I’m sure there are important topics where Palin would beat Biden handily.”
I would be interested to know what those are. I don’t mean issues where Palin and I agree–I can think of plenty of those–but those that she could articulate her position in a more persuasive or effective way and demonstrate her superior understanding.
“Bear in mind that she’s only been involved in national politics for a month.”
More than that, she has only been engaged with national issues for about a month, and I’m sorry to say that it shows.
“And, it doesn’t seem to have sunk in that unless McCain wins, BHO is going to be prez for four years (or until he’s impeached or declared ineligible) and he’s going to have a Dem Congress.”
I have been keenly aware of that, and I have considered that it might be better to have divided government rather than a unified Dem government, but all things considered I am less bothered by this thanks to the knowledge that a lunatic jingoist will not be President. A relatively more calm, but nonetheless misguided interventionist will be President, which is slightly more manageable.
“I don’t think some of his supporters - or those who get linked to by his supporters due to saying things they like - realize just how much damage he could do to the U.S.”
I happen to agree, but I also think at this point that McCain would probably do more damage. I have railed against Obama for most of the year, sometimes to what must have seemed to be the point of obsession, but I have never once seen a positive case for McCain that anyone opposed to Bush would take seriously because I don’t think that anyone can make it. Honestly, his response to the war in Georgia was the key moment that showed me we could not really afford a McCain Presidency; his idiotic handling of the financial crisis shows that he cannot be trusted with such power.
I can’t make a positive case for McCain, but I’ll note that he will have a Dem Congress and that will restrain him to a good extent. Both will probably work together on amnesty, something that I’m very strongly against. However, since that was defeated once I believe it can be defeated again.
Also, there are very few McCain fans, and nothing like the Bush worship seen in 2004 (24ahead.com/blog/archives/002197.html, 24ahead.com/blog/archives/002132.html, etc.) If you ever find a McCain counterpart to this, let me know: archive.redstate.com/story/2004/7/25/155049/493
I believe there will be even more opposition to McCain from a segment of the GOP than there was to Bush. That segment + the Dems will tend to keep him in check. McCain will simply not have the cheering section that Bush had.
OTOH, BHO has his own Sc|ent0logy-style personality cult (just one of the many examples: 24ahead.com/blog/archives/008066.html ). Him winning would make those borderline nuts ecstactic. Him winning would also be a win for Hollywood and the MSM and would validate all their efforts on his behalf. His supporters would include the sources from which the vast majority of Americans get their information. And, his anti-free speech actions would not stop (24ahead.com/blog/archives/008047.html). The completely dishonest actions of the MSM would not stop but would flourish under a BHO administration. They’re lying for him now, they’d continue lying for him after he’s elected (until they didn’t think he was useful for them).
BHO winning would also be a win for the ChicagoMachine and its mob links.
And, every time he did something wrong, one of his surrogates would play the race card. Perhaps that would get old and it would have a good impact, but I think it would do a great deal of damage before that happened.
24ahead.com: Like wise, I’m sure there are important topics where Palin would beat Biden handily.
Daniel Larison: I would be interested to know what those are.
The swimsuit competition?