Let’s Try This Again
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Conor Friedersdorf soldiers on in his thankless (futile?) effort to persuade Palinites that they are missing something important. He is responding to the criticisms of one Mike Hall, who made this claim among others:
Palin is a patriot who understands the threats we face, is self-confident, and has a “firm reliance on the hand of divine providence.”
No one will say that Palin is not a patriot; she is. To say that she understands the threats we face is, to put it generously, a gross exaggeration. She is opposed to Al Qaeda, as are we all, but beyond knowing that there are terrorists what exactly does she understand about the threats they or any other group pose to American security? She imagines that Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime as a whole represent a grave threat, which is not so much evidence of understanding as it is of ideological programming. Understanding is a product of reflection. Who among her defenders truly believes that she has reflected on any of the problems on which she now holds forth so confidently? More to the point, what proof do we have that she is reflective and thoughtful and not, like her running mate, prone to letting visceral and emotional reactions shape her views? Lack of reflection, lack of understanding and self-confidence do not make for a good combination.
Relying on Providence is good and proper. Where Palin’s fans seem to go off the rails is in assuming that having this faith, which I think most of her conservative critics share, substitutes for wisdom and prudence in secular affairs. Faith and trust in God can strengthen and deepen those virtues in a leader, but they cannot make up for them if they are lacking. Mr. Bush claims to have the same faith, and I would not say otherwise, but this can confirm a politician in holding unwise and dangerous views when it is combined with the boundless self-confidence that both he and Gov. Palin seem to possess. When a lack of understanding of the world as it is is added to the mix, as it was with Mr. Bush, the consequences for all of us are dire. We have seen how a faithful, self-confident, even reasonably intelligent but largely uninformed man in a position of great power has succumbed to hubris for years with calamitous results for this country and several other parts of the world, and we have seen his self-confidence descend into pride and a stubborn refusal to face reality.
There are simply too many similarities between the traits that her admirers praise in Gov. Palin and the traits that they once praised (still praise?) in Mr. Bush, and I don’t see how anyone who looks back on the practical consequences of Mr. Bush’s time in office can look at Gov. Palin and her thin record and not see that by cheering her on so enthusiastically they are repeating the same blunder they made before. The claim that Gov. Palin’s character shows that she will be a good leader and would, if the occasion demanded, be capable of serving successfully as President seems to depend heavily on an assumption that Mr. Bush has also been a successful President, which at this point must appear even to his previous supporters to be an indefensible proposition.
All of the clues that Mr. Bush was the incurious, uninformed governor with few accomplishments to his name are presented before us yet again, and once more we are treated to strained apologetics on behalf of anti-intellectualism, down-home folksiness and the candidate’s way of life as superior or at least sufficient qualifications. We are seeing a repeat of Mr. Bush’s mangled syntax, trite talking point-laden statements and numerous blunders in interviews and public remarks, and we have been seeing the same aversion to talking to the press to avoid making more blunders, so how is it unreasonable or unfair to conclude from what little we have heard from Palin that she will prove to be an equally underwhelming leader once in office?
Filed under: politics
You say that Palin is a patriot…how do we know that is true, and why does it matter? I ask because if patriotism in this context means more than “she claimed that she loves America”, then it would be good to see some proof. On the other hand, if it means nothing more than claiming to love the country, then what is it worth? Surely no candidate for high office will fail to make such claims, regardless of their veracity.
Daniel, I think we need to understand (and I think you do) that for Palin’s biggest fans, character IS competence. Because she has “character,” she is necessarily competent – because “competence,’ in their world, is entirely a product of character. It is indeed the populist thing – because she’s of the people and her heart is in the right place, she’ll do the right thing, and have the ability to recognize that “right thing” when she sees it.
But it is curious also because this is the “personal responsibility” crowd – and they absolutely refuse, even now, to take any responsibility for Bush, resenting the mere suggestion that they should. They cannot and will not see beyond this populist paradigm; hoping that their eyes will someday be opened, as Conor seems to be holding out for, is a waste of time.
I agree with gsmart that for many Palin supporters “character” is competence, but I would refine this thesis by stating that for these people “character” is defined as adherence to a specific set of fundamentalist beliefs as opposed to the real thing. Palin is no more a person of real moral character than Bush is–both are shallow hypocrites. It is their embrace of evangelical Christian beliefs that appeals to their supporters and gives them faith that Palin/Bush will “do the right thing.”
I think that the so-called patriotism requirement is a ruse for racism, sexism, or any other ism that people use to create false differences between us based on identity rather than ideology or policy.
That said, gsmart is on the money.
Poor Daniel Larison is breaking his head trying make people see the obvious, but “intellectuals” and ordinary folks are in a different universe when it comes to Palin:
Neocon Rich Lowry:
“Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.”
Paleocon Steve Sailer in the American Conservative Magazine:
“Consider, for example, Palin’s husband Todd. What kind of man could be married to a woman so hormonally exuberant, with her dual archetypes straight out of a Camille Paglia reverie: half Alaskan Amazon, half Venus of Willendorf? Exactly the kind you’d expect: he works as both a North Slope oilfield roughneck and a salmon fisherman. He’s also won the state’s snowmobile championship, the 2,000-mile Tesoro Iron Dog race, four times. He only finished fourth this year because he had to ride the last 400 miles with a broken arm after being thrown 70 feet. Did I mention he’s part Eskimo?
Of course some people see her as a manifestation of God’s truth in the form of Deborah, so there is no way anyone can reason with them.
As a newcomer to this blog (and to TAC), it’s great to see a consistent engagement and support for true American values and liberties, along with a willingness for debate and dissent. Even though there is plenty of noise in the media and the blogosphere, true and thoughtful dissent is sorely absent from the current political discourse.
Regarding Ms. Palin, your points are well made, but unfortunately, pointless. The believers will not be converted, as their views are completely unaffected by any objective facts.
More interesting to observe will be the influence of the true believers on the post-election GOP. They can (and I believe they will) follow the path of all true believers. John McCain’s choice to pursue election by cultural division will go down as a disastrous choice for the GOP, and will leave future historians baffled. Ms. Palin, with her (apparently?) appealing demeanor and world view, will be the focal point and hero of the wing nuts and neocons for a while. I do not see any viable future for the GOP until they can disconnect themselves from America’s churches and re-engage with everyday Americans. They should look to the UK Labour party of the late 70s and early 80s for a preview of their fate.
forgive me for asking but what on earth would it mean to “have a firm reliance in the divine hand of providence” as an important qualification for being Vice President, or President, of this country? Any religious nutcase, in any religion, might say the same. I daresay that any Muslim terrorist, messianic jew, or far right wing fundamentalist has a “firm reliance” on his or her god’s intentions to always do exactly as the believer wishes. We might still choose to argue as to whether that person would or would not have a good grasp on the secular affairs that mostly occupy our presidents.
I’ve been watching g-d for my entire 48 years, and studying his behavior over the last five thousand or so years of human supplications, and I don’t think I’ve seen any clear signs that his providence can be relied upon as an exact guide to everyday behavior. Or rather, as the talmudic scholars observe, the bible is not a “self help” book filled with useful information on everything from self esteem to child-rearing. If it were, Maimonides observed, we could definitely write a better one.
So what does it mean that Sarah Palin “has a firm belief”? Not much except that in defiance of all of human history she thinks that god is on her side in all her petty little political squabbles and struggles. She might better ask herself, as Abraham Lincoln did, whether she and her party are on god’s side. Or, better still, she might show us all how she is prepared to answer for herself, her party, and her country when god doesn’t, in fact, answer the phone call at 3:00 am and tell her what to do.
aimai
Daniel:
All of the clues that Mr. Bush was the incurious, uninformed governor with few accomplishments to his name are presented before us yet again, and once more we are treated to strained apologetics on behalf of anti-intellectualism, down-home folksiness and the candidate’s way of life as superior or at least sufficient qualifications. We are seeing a repeat of Mr. Bush’s mangled syntax, trite talking point-laden statements and numerous blunders in interviews and public remarks, and we have been seeing the same aversion to talking to the press to avoid making more blunders, so how is it unreasonable or unfair to conclude from what little we have heard from Palin that she will prove to be an equally underwhelming leader once in office?
It is neither unreasonable nor unfair. I for one have reconsidered. I am withdrawing my tentative support from Mrs. Palin; for, it seems, you were right and I was wrong. So much for first impressions.
Now let me turn your battalion’s flank, as it were. Would you not agree that Mitt Romney is the anti-Palin, more or less, according to your own criteria? That is, if you revised your article to substitute “Mitt” for “Sarah” and “Romney” for “Palin,” if you corrected grammatical gender where appropriate, and if you inserted “not” before the relevant verbs, then would your article not again be more or less true?
A conservative ought not to stand against nearly every flawed national Republican politician. Ron Paul or bust! and the like do not make a prudent political principle. I realize that it would not be easy for the author of “Romney, The Dancing Fraud” to back away from the position such an intemperate rubric implies. I also realize that you have never cried “Ron Paul or bust!” Nevertheless, you might reconsider your long-standing opposition to Mr. Romney on the anti-Palin ground. Or, at least, you might consider reconsidering it.
Of course, you might say to yourself, “If Harrison was wrong about Palin, then why should I think that he might be right about Romney?” and if you did say that, then I am afraid that that is a question that you would have to answer for yourself. I do however feel that you have hardened a perspective from a jaundiced angle on Mr. Romney that the man does not deserve. In a backhanded way, your own blog article above shows why.
Anyway, give the matter some thought if you like.
Howard
“forgive me for asking but what on earth would it mean to “have a firm reliance in the divine hand of providence†as an important qualification for being Vice President, or President, of this country? Any religious nutcase, in any religion, might say the same. I daresay that any Muslim terrorist, messianic jew, or far right wing fundamentalist has a “firm reliance†on his or her god’s intentions to always do exactly as the believer wishes.”
I should probably stay out of this, since my understanding of theology is very limited. But I think a belief in Providence is the recognition that God has a plan that supersedes human will. If I’m in the ballpark with that description then what you’re describing (a belief that God “always [does] exactly as the believer wishes”) is nearly the precise opposite of a belief in Providence.
I’d also distinguish a reliance on Providence from, say, the behavior of George W. Bush, which seems more like evidence of hubris and/or a messiah complex. Generally speaking I’d be wary of anyone who goes to God with questions and miraculously always gets the answer he or she wanted to hear. That’s just human will justified with insincere religiosity.
Thanks for your honesty, Mr. Larison, when I’m sure it can’t do you any good among those on the right who’d rather win than be correct.
By the way, I don’t think anyone is supposed to be “relying” on Providence.
“Relying” makes it sound like something you can lean on. Trust in Providence, I think, is the better phrase, i.e. Providence is in charge, no matter what you will. I’m an atheist, though.
I’m a little bit proud of the Democrats (my party for my whole life, so far) because we’ve picked someone whose magna cum laude graduation and Harvard Law Review editor status suggests he is pretty durn smart. I’m a smarty and I respect smarties. Of course, smarties are better able to do evil things, too, if that is what they aim to do.
I’m also a bit proud of the Democratic base, but Obama didn’t really mention his degree or law teaching experiences, so we can’t give them too much credit.
Eisenhower ended Korea nine months after taking office. I don’t think he ever went before he was elected, but he pledged to go as soon as he was elected, in order to oversee the end of the war.
When Palin was nominated I quickly read her (then 1-2 page) online wikipedia biography and instantly thought the election was over. Her acceptance speech, mentioning Hilary Clinton by name, made it clear it the decision was made by the religious right who were trying to court Hilary voters. Palin ran for _MAYOR_ on a pro-life ticket, for crying out loud! I was a bit surprised to find how many people liked her at first, but am gratified that a little more exposure has changed the views of many.
By the way, back in, say, 2006, I distinctly remember Lowry on C-SPAN saying he would do everything in his (and National Review’s) power to make sure John McCain wasn’t the nominee.
I suppose if I had to choose between a complete fraud whom no one could trust but who demonstrated some administrative competence and someone not fit for the job, I would have to side with the fraud, but that was never the simple binary choice on offer. I have repeatedly, vociferously objected to the idea that if one did not want McCain that he should therefore embrace an untrustworthy technocrat. The rallying around Romney was not only doomed to fail, because he was disliked by so many, but it also conveyed the party and movement leadership’s contempt for the people whom Palin claims to represent when there was a slight chance that they might be represented by a competent candidate. When someone who represents Palin’s people is anything other than a mascot, the hostility from within the GOP is overwhelming.
There were other alternatives, or at least one other alternative, and whatever Huckabee lacked in policy knowledge he made up for in assembling something of a successful record as an executive. Huckabee had his problems, and obviously I did not and would not have supported him because of my disagreements with him, but those who insisted, more or less, that it was a choice between Romney and McCain were the ones who set up McCain for victory.
For that matter, can you imagine the electoral debacle that would have occurred if Romney had been the nominee? Can you think of someone whose public persona is more poorly suited to winning over a public deeply angry with wealthy corporate figures and dishonest politicians? Romney could claim that he knows how to fix the mess, but who would trust him to do what he said he would do? If there is anything that the last few weeks have shown, it is that trust in government is non-existent–and for good reason–so how would such a phony be able to rebuild the public’s confidence in government?
I’m a little curious why your disagreements with Huckabee were serious enough to stop you from endorsing him, if only as the least of several evils. As I said elsewhere, I’m not a fan overall, to say the least, but I at least got a sense (beyond the boilerplate statements that were required of any GOP primary candidate) that his foreign policy instincts would have been better than any of the other serious presidential contenders. I don’t know, maybe I was seeing something that just wasn’t there.
Googling around a bit, it is at least true that Huckabee was criticized by NR, Powerline, et. al, as not being sufficiently willing to murder innocents abroad (okay, that’s not exactly how they put it, but you catch my drift). So at least he has some of the right enemies on that front.
Daniel:
I would answer your questions briefly as follows.
For that matter, can you imagine the electoral debacle that would have occurred if Romney had been the nominee?
There is clear and convincing evidence that Romney’s public persona irritates a large fraction of the voting citizenry. I have no ground to dispute the proposition that John McCain is electorally the stronger candidate in 2008.
Can you think of someone whose public persona is more poorly suited to winning over a public deeply angry with wealthy corporate figures and dishonest politicians?
Well, the public is no monolith. It depends on what they want. Voters who want leaders that lack understanding of and experience in practical, big-business economics should be delighted that Romney is not a candidate this year.
Actually, though I do not share such a position I also ought not to ridicule it. In my own turn, I tend to want schoolteachers that lack understanding of and experience in clinical psychology, because I feel strongly that clinical psychology, as practiced, does far more public harm than good. I do not feel that way however with respect most recognized fields of expertise, including the field of big-business economics.
Romney could claim that he knows how to fix the mess, but who would trust him to do what he said he would do?
What is most interesting, and heartening, to me is that Romney seems not to be saying much at all right now. It is rightly written, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
If there is anything that the last few weeks have shown, it is that trust in government is non-existent–and for good reason–so how would such a phony be able to rebuild the public’s confidence in government?
Let me decline the proffered bait! We can defer dispute over your premise that Romney were a phony for a later, more appropriate moment—for, if Romney ever runs for office again then Eunomia will undoubtedly host several threads on the topic in due time. Specifically regarding rebuilding the public’s confidence in government, however: it was never Romney’s stated or implied goal to do that, except in the indirected sense that he hoped to make the government smaller and more competent, whereby a rational public (to the extent that it is rational) could gradually trend toward distrusting the government less.
Romney, like any Reaganite, basically wanted to limit the harm government does in carrying out its necessary functions, while promoting appropriate government vigor in the functions that are necessary. Romney of course is even more a man of praxis, less a man of ideology, than Reagan was; but I do not suppose that public trust in government was a primary goal for Romney, one way or the other.
Thanks for the platform.
Howard
The Romney problem is simply this: he could have credibly run as a “get things done,” center-right technocrat. That persona could have been a formidable general election candidate, though probably not this year. But that’s not how he choose to run his campaign. As a result, the public now has an image of him as a dishonest phony. (Did it have that image before the primary campaign? I would guess not.) My guess is that that image is now pretty fixed – it will follow him (may even be reinforced by) a re-branding as Mr. competent technocrat.
Of course, compounding the problem is that the kind of persona which is most suited to a general election is not well suited to a primary, which is, of course, why he attempted to run as a cultural conservative. No, for better of worse (I think for better, obviously some people disagree) I think Romney is done as a factor in national level politics.
At the time Huckabee was still running, so was Ron Paul. I was not going to ditch my preferred candidate when he was still in the race, and he stayed in the race formally all the way till the end. I made as many “Huckabee is the real anti-McCain candidate” arguments as I could to persuade our Romneyite friends, but I did not want to endorse him because his foreign policy views were, in fact, not much better than the other major candidates’ views and his sudden discovery of restrictionism late in the day was not at all credible. If super-hawks and jingoists found Huckabee to be insufficiently warlike, that does not reassure me. These are the same people who think Obama is a “neo-isolationist” of some kind–they’re either bad at analysis or they’re misrepresenting others’ views to help their own candidates.
Huckabee gave some nods to the Powell Doctrine in his FA essay, which was better than some of the alternatives, but his other positions were utterly conventional. He managed to combine support for an indefinite presence in Iraq with support for launching raids into Pakistan–the worst of both worlds in my view. However, because he refused to demagogue against Russia and talked about containing Iran he was found wanting in the eyes of hawks. In retrospect, Huckabee was probably the least-horrible of the major three Republican candidates, and if he is the frontrunner in 2012 there may be some reason to hope that he gets the nomination, but activists, people with money and the conservative media all hate him (and, by extension, look down on the people he represents). I don’t see that hatred disappearing anytime soon.
Daniel:
Upon review I see that I have inadvertently failed to answer one of your questions as you had asked it.
Romney could claim that he knows how to fix the mess, but who would trust him to do what he said he would do?
If Romney were the Republican candidate, then I would hope that he would observe that, in a serious situation, the last thing we want to do is to rush in with big solutions to sudden problems we do not yet understand. Regarding the matter of trust, I think that some people have confused Romney’s deep practicality and mental flexibility somehow with a lack of principle. When first introduced to a new problem, Romney tends to shoot his mouth off a bit more than he should, maybe, forgetting that audio recorders are running—and when this happens he does not recover as gracefully as he might—but it’s in the spirit of brainstorming, never in the spirit of convenant-breaking. Were Romney the candidate, then either we voters would grasp and appreciate this facet of the man or we would not.