United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: The Problem With Palin
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/19/the-problem-with-palin/2
Published: Apr 19, 2010
Author: Quin Hillyer
Post Date: 2010-04-19 22:35:57 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 285
Comments: 7
The Problem With Palin "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience." - Patrick Henry, 1775 "I told reporters what I still believe today: government experience doesn't necessarily count for much." -Sarah Palin, Going Rogue, p. 84 Sarah Palin, 55 percent unfavorable poll ratings notwithstanding, is a political phenomenon the likes of which American public life rarely has seen. There's something distinctive, something deeply personal, about the way her legions of strong supporters rush not just to defend her but to counter-attack any and all of her critics. Palin has a way of establishing a sense of connectedness with her backers -- such a strong, attitudinal sense that she is not just like them but one of them -- that she has created what amounts to a one-woman, conservative "identity politics" writ very, very large. Yet if conservatives are to continue a political love affair with this admirable and galvanizing woman, we need to insist on more than mere identity. And more than mere attitude. We know that Sarah Palin shares our conservative values. But is she the leader conservatives need? IN HER RECENTLY RELEASED memoir, Going Rogue, Palin tells a story about how she approached the first state budget she handled as governor. It sounds like something right out of the 1993 Kevin Kline movie, Dave, except that Palin's tale is fact instead of fiction. We worked late into the night with the warm midnight sun still pouring through my office windows....Pens in hand, we combed through the budget, line by line, page by page -- my inner nerd coming out again, just like Wasilla City Council days....I had to know what was in there, or I wasn't doing my job. We spent days trying to decipher who put in what and why. Late one night, I looked up from the table and asked our veteran staffers, "What did past governors do? How did they get through these budgets with so little detail?" "They didn't," was the response. Before, others skimmed through it and governors signed off on it. Well, it was a new day, and we sifted through funding requests for schools, roads, ports, AstroTurf and batting cages, blueberry farms, and, believe or not, a lawmaker's friend's suicide memorial.... It was amusing when Kline's character, Dave, filling in for a stricken president, called an accountant friend to pull an all-nighter to find $650 million in the federal budget. And it was no doubt admirable for Palin to take her own responsibility so seriously. But at some point a chief executive can't personally handle such details herself. A governorship or, especially, the presidency, is not the Wasilla City Council. Presidents who are too detail-oriented wind up like Jimmy Carter, literally solving disputes about schedules on the White House tennis courts. The obvious retort is that what matters are results. Maybe Alaska, being the single most sparsely populated state in the Union, lends itself to having budgets personally vetted on every line by the governor herself. Palin never actually provides numbers in her book, but she does write that she "had made the largest veto totals in the state's history." Well, context is important. An observer parachuting into a state without knowing all the local factors can think something is utterly inexplicable which in truth is easily defensible. Still, the results of Palin's efforts seem strongly to belie her claims of fiscal conservatism. The first two general-fund budgets for which she was responsible showed spending hikes of 16.4 percent (from fiscal year 2007 to '08) and a mind-boggling 21.8 percent the next year. Total government expenditures (a slightly different measure) grew 38.6 percent in those two years combined. This record is to fiscal discipline as the Grateful Dead was to sobriety. Similarly, as has been well documented, Palin's original claims about the "bridge to nowhere" were flat-out false. She campaigned in favor of the funds for the bridge; then even after killing the bridge project once it became infamous, she kept the federal money and used part of it for a "road to nowhere" that leads to where the bridge was meant to begin. (To nitpick: Other vignettes in Going Rogue also don't completely check out, ranging from details of her famous gas pipeline negotiations through aspects of how she described her appearance on Saturday Night Live -- not to mention her breezy portrayal of her peripatetic college years that mentioned a transfer from a university in Hawaii to her graduation from the University of Idaho without noting or explaining her stops at North Idaho College or Alaska's Matanuska-Susitna College.) All of which takes on added importance because her record in public office really is quite short. She won her race for mayor of Wasilla by a vote of 651 to 440 -- a vote total less than those cast in races for student council president in big-city high schools. Her fans like to say that a president of the United States ought to be able to understand small-town America, and they say the experience Palin herself described as sometimes being like "mayor of Peyton Place" is a major point in her favor. Against that argument, it could equally be said that Wasilla, Alaska, is so different from, say, East St. Louis, or even from south Mobile, Alabama, that the experience in Wasilla could give Palin a set of reference points so unrepresentative of the majority of the American population as to be a drawback. And while supply-side conservatives are rightly thrilled at Palin's mayoral record as a tax-cutter, fiscal conservatives again have reason for concern: the town's long-term debt reportedly jumped from $1 million to $25 million. Then she accepted an appointment to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Unfortunately, we don't know how well she would have done as an oil and gas regulator, because -- to her credit -- she spent most of her time fighting against ethical improprieties of others. She resigned in protest after fewer than 11 months in the job. Chalk up a point for Palin's integrity...but...but resigning again cut short her experience, and her record, in the actual substance of governing. AGAIN AND AGAIN, Palin hasn't failed upward, but quit upward: quitting her way through four colleges, quitting the oil commission, quitting as governor after barely more than two years in office. It's an odd record, and it stands in contrast to her own history of gritty refusal to give in to physical (as opposed to political) challenges. This is a lady who hobbled on a horribly injured ankle to make a key foul shot and secure a state basketball championship, who pushed herself to finish a marathon in under four hours, who remained active right up until labor in her five pregnancies, and who did not shy away from her responsibilities as a Down Syndrome mother. Yet in politics she twice has abjured appearances at the Conservative Political Action Conference -- either in pique over mildly critical comments of her by CPAC organizers who at other times had been most complimentary or, worse, because she was getting accustomed to $100,000 appearance fees but CPAC doesn't pay. Would-be voters have good reason to wonder where her legendary toughness ends and where, in contrast, her thin-skinned touchiness begins. Likewise, they can wonder where her admirable ethical stances turn instead into moral preening and/or impracticality. The subject of ethics is, of course, Palin's most significant calling card. Few could possibly deny that she repeatedly challenged unethical and entrenched interests in Alaska. Few could fault her for insisting that other officials serve the public rather than serving themselves. And few can doubt that it was her reputation for probity that helped her defeat incumbent Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski when the state GOP power brokers were ensnared in scandals. (Then again, it's not too hard to defeat an incumbent suffering from 19 percent approval ratings. Would-be reformers get elected over sleazy incumbents all the time; the real battle is to see how well the "reformers" handle the counter-attacks several years later when the bad old boys have had time to regroup and rearm. Palin never overcame such a counter-attack.) Sometimes, though, that which is done with good intentions in the name of ethics can hobble good government rather than promote it. That appears to have happened in Alaska with Palin, though she does not seem to have learned the proper lesson from her own experience. Again, Going Rogue is instructive. In it, she makes much of what she called the "rawhide-tough" ethics package that she shepherded through the state legislature. It clearly remains a point of deep pride for her. Yet Palin also writes that "disgruntled political operatives twisted the ethics reform process that I had championed into a weapon to use against me." Later, she explained why: Keep in mind that anyone anywhere in the world could file an Alaska ethics complaint free of charge....They could flood the system at will and without consequence to themselves, but we had to formally process each and every complaint -- and I had to pay personally for my own defense. Yet it doesn't seem to occur to her that this imbalance was the eminently predictable result of her own reforms. Experience in and around government teaches the lesson that getting tough on ethics is a two-edged sword. Without some sort of reasonable filter against frivolous complaints, then as night follows day it's guaranteed that frivolous complaints will flow in. Without reasonable filters, the ethics laws become a cudgel against even the most honest of politicians -- just as they did against Palin herself. Good intentions lead to hellish consequences, the public's interest is sacrificed instead of served, and Palin herself felt moved to resign to escape the hellish process that her own handiwork created. As was written by that founding intellectual leader of modern conservatism, Russell Kirk, "Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery." PALIN RESIGNATION SHOULD BE a major warning to those who, in mind-numbingly unconservative fashion, denigrate the importance of government experience -- those like Palin herself, who write that "government experience doesn't necessarily count for much." Frankly, this deification of government inexperience is nutty. An old Latin saying holds much truth: Discimus agere agendo, which means "we learn to do by doing." Nobody would argue that a 22-year-old right out of engineering school should be the lead designer on a major urban bridge. Nobody would ask a Peyton Manning right out of high school to lead an NFL team into a Super Bowl, the way the experienced Manning twice has done. Nobody would ask a junior member of the diplomatic corps to negotiate directly with Vladimir Putin. So why should anybody in his right mind believe that the mind-bogglingly multi-faceted job of president of the United States -- a job involving economics; a massive administrative state; and war, peace, and survival of the very planet in the face of weapons of frightening power -- should be handled by somebody whose primary asset is an attitudinal anti-establishmentarianism combined with a virtue uncorrupted but also completely untested by the fires of national politics? When Palin was hoisted on her own petard of Alaska's new ethics system, it should have taught all conservatives that inexperience is no virtue. As George Will wrote just days after John McCain chose Palin as his running mate, the selection flew in the face of the single philosophical document probably most revered by American modern conservatives, the Federalist Papers. Wrote Will: "The word ‘experience' appears 91 times in the Federalist Papers....[According to the Federalist,] ‘Accumulating' experience is ‘the parent of wisdom' and a ‘guide' that ‘justifies,' ‘confirms,' and can ‘admonish.' America's Founders were empiricists and students of history who trusted ‘that best oracle of wisdom, experience,' which is humanity's ‘least fallible guide.'" And so on, with James Madison particularly insistent that attitude and goodwill alone are hardly substitutes for wisdom accumulated in the cauldron of statesmanship -- a wisdom that understands human nature well enough that it casts a skeptical eye on even the noblest intentions. Being mayor of a city smaller than some high schools, serving less than a year on an oil commission, and serving less than two years as governor of the nation's most sparsely populated state before being chosen for a national ticket are not ordinarily seen as experiences adequate for the presidency. WHAT IS MORE DISTURBING about Palin walking into the trap that her own ethics laws set was that, according to a close reading of her account, she should have known better. She claims to have closely followed for a full decade the work of conservative activist David Horowitz, who she said had warned that "one of the left's favorite weapons is frivolous ethics complaints. That's what they used to bring down the architect of the 1994 ‘Republican Revolution,' Newt Gingrich." For three full pages Palin describes her own problems in the light of Gingrich's: "In the end, Newt Gingrich lost his battle on one complaint and was assessed a $300,000 fine. Three years later, the IRS exonerated him. But it was too late....Democrats had neutered their nemesis and pushed him to the back burner." What Palin doesn't explain is, if she were so familiar with Horowitz's warning and with Gingrich's case, why she herself pushed an ethics reform with so few safeguards that the new rules so easily could be abused as to chase her from office. This suggests something even worse than a lack of experience: a failure to learn from demonstrated experience. Ethics reforms are good and important. But only ethics reforms done right are worthwhile. Done wrong, they don't serve the public; they serve political hacks instead, at the expense of efficient government. Oddly enough, part of what brought down Gingrich was questionable financing for a multi-million-dollar book deal, which itself partly echoed former Speaker Jim Wright's clearly unethical use of bulk book purchases to skirt limits on speaking fees -- a violation that forced Wright's resignation due to ethics charges filed by, yes, Gingrich. Yet in February, the same Sarah Palin who wrote about having been so familiar with the Gingrich saga turned out to have used her own political action committee to spend more money buying her own books than it spent on its supposed purpose, namely donations to conservative candidates. As a non-officeholder, her use of her PAC effectively to line her own pockets through book sales is neither illegal nor a violation of any formal ethics rules -- but it does look a bit dodgy, especially in light of the Wright and Gingrich cases. This illustrates a lack of self-awareness, or at least a lack of introspection. Indeed, this deficiency might be the most troubling part of Palin's persona. She gives not even a shred of evidence, for instance, that she even wondered, when McCain chose her, if she were ready yet to be a heartbeat from the presidency. There is of course something winsome and also admirable about what the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder describes as Palin's "aspirational" conservatism. Again and again in Going Rogue, she writes of her convictions about "Alaska's potential to contribute to America's future." And she clearly revels in the quintessential belief of the American striver that one can accomplish just about anything one sets one's mind to do, and that no horizon is beyond the reach of talent married to determination. Which is all well and good, but did it never occur to her that less than two years as a big-spending governor of an unpopulous but wealthy state might not be adequate training for dealing with al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Red China? Plenty of smart people did indeed conclude that she was up to the task, but even the most avid fan would be dishonest if he denied it was at best a close call. Palin, though, merely described the idea as "comfortable...like a natural progression." Natural? Heavens, no. Her ascension was no more "natural" than it would be for an amateur city tennis champion to think she could immediately conquer Wimbledon. This is the attitude of innocence undimmed by adequate perspective. Perhaps, just perhaps, Sarah Palin might be that rare bird who can handle any new and higher league without missing a beat. Even if she were, she should still understand just how unusual -- how much of an unnatural progression -- it really would be. (Requests to interview Palin for this article, specifically about her experiences in the 2008 campaign, were turned down. Her former communications aide Meghan Stapleton explained that "with her Fox exclusivity, we are denying requests for articles and stories right now.") As it was, her move to the big leagues was anything but smooth. And some of her mistakes were rookie mistakes -- the sort that makes one think that if she couldn't handle big-league campaigning, there is good reason to doubt she is ready for governing under a national microscope. Take the infamous interview with Katie Couric. "I couldn't have known it then," she wrote, "but what transpired during the series of interviews and what CBS actually aired were two different breeds of cat....Editing footage is nothing new, of course...[b]ut responsible editing means you keep substance and context, and trim out fat." CBS, she complained, "had sought out the bad moments, and systematically sliced out material that would convey my message." To be surprised by those practices of CBS, though, is to be naïve beyond belief. Any Capitol Hill press secretary -- not to mention any congressman with half a brain-learns after no more than a year that what the major networks videotape and what they finally air is likely to be not just two breeds of cat, but two entire genuses of animal, like a wombat and a gorilla. Again, at issue is the importance of experience: if experience didn't prepare Palin for Katie Couric, how could she be prepared for the next Comrade Castro? ALL OF WHICH IS NOT TO SAY that Sarah Palin lacks the right stuff -- the right values, the right determination, the right gumption, the right toughness -- to serve our nation in high office. She certainly has abundant and admirable amounts and quality of all those virtues, no matter how viciously the left tries to smear her. Another political advantage is Palin's preternatural ability to turn a pithy phrase to convey powerful messages. Perhaps this is partly a function of her training as a TV journalist -- and a sports reporter at that. Far more than print journalists, TV scribes learn and learn and work and work to hone their reports to short, well-turned phrases. Sports especially, as an entertainment medium, provides a milieu for memorable verbiage. Hence Palin's brilliant ad-lib (she truthfully says it was not part of the written text) in her national convention speech about a hockey mom being a pit bull with lipstick. Hence her incredibly potent warning against "death panels" -- a warning based just enough on the substance of health care rationing, as detailed by the Washington Times, that it stopped just short of demagoguery. (Again, though, this skill only serves to further highlight the difference that relevant experience can make for the better -- or, by logical extension, that a lack of experience can make for the worse. Discimus agere agendo, indeed.) Similarly, while it's hard to know how much credit to give Palin versus how much to give ghost-writer Lynn Vincent, the forward-looking Chapter Six of Going Rogue is full of decent (if less pithy) turns of phrase that also carry truths conservatives hold dear. "The role of government is not to perfect us but to protect us -- to protect our inalienable rights," she writes. And: "Government cannot force financial institutions to give loans to people who can't afford to pay them back and then expect that somehow things will all magically work out. Sooner or later, reality catches up with us." And, straightforwardly: "The new debt, which will burden future generations, is immoral." The undeniable fact for conservatives is that when it comes to broad principles, Sarah Palin "gets it." And when it comes to pluck, she's overflowing. But with, at this writing, 71 percent of the country thinking she is unqualified for the presidency, she arguably should be working on her deficiencies of policy and political experience. Instead, she's further burnishing her "media personality" proclivities, staying within her comfort zone rather than expanding it, playing for headlines rather than improving her expertise. By historical standards, Sarah Palin is extremely young to be considered for president. In 2024, a full 14 years from now, she will be still be four years younger than the elder George Bush was when he became president in 1988. The problem with Palin is that she's not ready for the presidency. The promise of Palin is that she has plenty of time to prepare -- if, that is, she and her fans will both accept the prudential virtue of patience. Sometimes progress requires a pause. And the perspicacity to use it productively.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Skip Intro (#0)
The authors premise is we should only elect inside the belt way politicians. I disagree.
----------------------------------------------------------- The problem is she fights back. Thats what irks our resident metrosexuals. A strong woman that makes money, doesn't fear the media or the laughable liberal Democrats, is still on the best seller lists, draws huge crowds wherever she goes, most of them dwarfing our current President's appearances. She's so deep in their collective heads its hilarious. Especially Owe-bama's. How dare a 'typical white' female challenge him? (laughing) I doubt she will run for President sucessfully. But I do enjoy the angst she causes within the Democrat AND Republican 'establishment'.
I can see NOVEMBER from my House....
She resigned the governorship because she couldn't handle the attacks. Her "fighting" back against Obama pointing out that seeing Russian nukes from your front porch doesn't make you an expert was to lie about his record in the Senate regarding nuclear weapon issues.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
She's a fighter all right. I'm afraid of her. That's why I mock her.
Undoubtedly you've obvious refuse to read the link Bill D Berger posted regard 9/11 ... Luberator
(laughing)
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
"I could give a flying crap about the political process. We're an entertainment company". - Glen Beck
(laughing) You're as evil as Tina Fey...
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Frankly, this deification of government inexperience is nutty. An old Latin saying holds much truth: Discimus agere agendo, which means "we learn to do by doing."
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#2. To: WhiteSands (#1)
#3. To: Boofer (#2)
(Edited)
The problem is she fights back.
#4. To: war (#3)
(Edited)
#5. To: Abu el Banat (#4)
#6. To: war (#3)
She resigned the governorship because she couldn't handle the attacks.
#7. To: Skip Intro (#6)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]