-
sponsorship
Anne, Marjorie, and Hanna:
Thanks to you all for your considered responses to the question I posed earlier—about whether there's any discernible difference between Palin's ability to lead the country and Bush's. Initially, I argued that there isn't, and that's why it's perplexing that so many conservatives are denouncing McCain's veep pick when they didn't say boo about Bush.
You've all mentioned, in one way or another, the fact that Bush belongs to a political family, whereas Palin does not. The logic is that Bush must've picked up something or other at the dinner table, and then at Andover, Yale, and Harvard—that he was assigned important books, even if he never read them, and that makes all the difference. All Palin's done is run a tiny little town and then govern a state that's so oil rich it doesn't need much governing. She's never heard of the books that Bush didn't bother to read.
So here's my follow-up: Bush may have a better, more reassuring pedigree, but he panders to the same contingent as Palin. And, in my opinion, you are who you pander to. Bush, inauthentically, cast himself as a dude from the heartland unspoiled by D.C. like the tree-hugging Al Gore or the French-speaking Kerry. He sold himself to America as an anti-intellectual who governs from the gut. Palin is doing the exact same thing, only authentically.
Hanna, you say the difference in authenticity is what's freaking out the conservative press corp—that Christopher Buckley, et al., could tolerate fake anti-elitism, but not real anti-elitism. You may be right, but that doesn't make complete sense to me. Bush pandered to people who dismiss book-readers as eggheads, and so he governed like a person who dismisses book-readers as eggheads. Shiite, Sunni, what's the difference? Who cares? Let's just get in there! The military can muddle through. Stem-cell research? Fuhget about it. Torture? I'll let my veep figure that one out.
I give credit to the conservatives who are speaking out against the worrisome anti-intellectual trend in the GOP—but I think they should've said something eight years ago.
-
sponsorship
Juliet,
I think this is going to turn out to be a real crisis moment for the conservative movement. The difference between Palin and Bush is: He was just pretending to be regular folk from the heartland, whereas she actually is. Bush was perfect for the conservative movement. (As was Reagan, in a different way.) Bush could masterfully pull off the act of being a struck-by-the-light evangelical from Texas. But the Buckleys and the Frums and the Brookses of the world all knew that actually, he was safe--an Ivy Leaguer from the landed gentry who was just playing a necessary role.
Palin, on the other hand, really tests this faux populism the party leaders have been peddling for so long. Now, the elder Buckley's test--faculty of Harvard or first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book--is real. Palin comes from the latter category, and it ain't looking pretty.
Before his column today, Brooks told a luncheon crowd that Palin was a fatal cancer on the Republican Party. A week earlier, he'd praised her debate performance as fluid, confident, energetic--piled on the compliments. Either he is just hoping for the best and can't make up his mind. Or he said at a private luncheon what he really believes. Either way it seems the movement is headed for a brain freeze, as all its best thinkers desert.
-
sponsorship
Juliet,
I hate to be in the position of defending President Bush, especially when it comes to his level of intelligence, but I have to say I disagree that he and Sarah Palin are cut from the same aptitude cloth. As you noted, Bush does have more executive experience, (He actually came into office after having been governor of Texas for two consecutive four-year terms.) but beyond experience I think the two have other fundamental differences. Despite his narrow-mindedness, his inability to admit mistakes, his mangling of the English language, and his not always being able to communicate effectively to the public, Bush can on occasion string together coherent sentences. I also get the sense that he does understand complex policy issues even if he's not good at articulating or managing them. I know he was a C student (and so was John McCain, by the way), but the man did go to Harvard and Yale, even if it was by way of a legacy acceptance. And even if he spent most of his time in college boozing and cheerleading, he had to have learned something at these institutions even if it was through osmosis/diffusion by being around all those great minds.
Bush also comes from a political family and understands politics on a much more sophisticated level than Palin. Judging from news reports about Palin's administration, she is clearly a lightweight with a very small town mentality who, instead of surrounding herself with people smarter than herself (which would have been the intelligent thing to do), surrounded herself with friends who are--how shall we say it delicately?--just as dumb as her. (Think of Palin's agriculture secretary who said her love of cows qualified her for the job.) Bush's team was dangerously ideological, wrongheaded on so many issues, and not good for the country, but no one can argue that they weren't smart and well-educated. I don't get the sense that Palin can grasp complex policy issues. I think Bush understands full well what's happening with the economy; I don't think Palin does.
Though I may disagree with Bush's worldview, at least he has a worldview. He understood immigration coming into the White House, he knew a bit about Latino culture, he tried to learn a little Spanish. He knows a handful of people of color and even put some of them in his Cabinet. What gives me pause about Palin is not her limited executive experience, it's her limited education (six colleges before she finally got a degree), her almost absent worldview, the fact that she has not traveled anywhere (gassing up in Ireland notwithstanding), and has not been around a whole lot of people different from herself. For god sakes last weekend she spoke of "our neighboring country of Afghanistan." And just because she can deliver prepared zingers at debates and rallies like a pro, I don't believe for a minute that her dismal interview performances were isolated events. What's worse is that she believes the Republican hype about herself and that is the ultimate example her lack of self-awareness. I think part of being intelligent is knowing your shortcomings and limitations, and being able to admit what you don't know, and what you're not qualified to do. Palin doesn't have a clue.
We in the "liberal media" are always accused of condescending to the conservatives and smearing them for being all of one mind, I'm actually glad to see that some of them have not drank the Kool-Aid and are thinking out of the box and, dare we say it, acting on principle instead of politics.
-
sponsorship
Seems to me, Juliet, that it's not just sexism that is driving conservatives away from Sarah Palin in droves. It's déjà vu. I write here as one who heard President Bush speak a few times during his first trip to Europe in the summer of 2001 and was impressed: He didn't sound as stupid as one had been led to believe; he seemed to have a feel for history; one was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt—and what a mistake that was.
I was also inclined to give Palin the benefit of the doubt for a few days—until she opened her mouth and started babbling about Putin coming into our airspace. This time I'm not giving her an extra year to get her talking points straight. Once burned, twice shy: Personally, I've had it with politicians from "the heartland" who haven't ever thought much about foreign countries or national issues. I don't care how good their "instincts" are or how "authentic" their political experience: If that experience doesn't include a large dose of foreign travel and a long acquaintance with the history of health care and Social Security reform, then they aren't qualified for the White House.
Besides, a few years spent writing about Congress taught me to be wary of allegedly "conservative" politicians who talk very loudly about "getting the government off our backs" but scramble for subsidies on behalf of their constituents at every opportunity. There is some evidence that Palin falls into this subgroup as well, or has at times. Haven't we been there, done that, already, too?
-
sponsorship
It's official: Same-sex couples can now enter legally recognized marriages in three American states—Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut. (Countries include Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Spain ... I don't think I've missed any nations, but a Scandinavian country might have snuck in while I wasn't paying attention. All the other developed countries, except for the United States, have some kind of partner recognition for same-sex pairs, roughly equivalent to Vermont's and New Jersey's civil unions, as do a handful of Latin American countries' provinces or states.)
Connecticut's Supreme Court issued its decision about an hour ago. I haven't had a chance to read it, but I wanted to congratulate the 3.5 million residents of the state directly to my south on joining my state in treating its lesbian and gay couples as fully and honorably equal. (More info about the decision will be appearing here.)
I do hope that the voters of California—who will have a chance on Nov. 4 to either undo or uphold their state's gender-neutral marriages—will take heart from being joined by another New England state. California's anti-marriage forces have been lying in their television ads, saying that California's marriage code will force churches to marry same-sex couples even if that's against their religious beliefs. That's just false. Nobody's hurt when the state recognizes that two women or two men can and do promise to care for each other for life—and need the legal tools to fulfill the obligations they make in those vows.
Mazel tov to Connecticut! Considering the catastrophic financial headlines lately, how lovely to get some good news!
-
sponsorship
First it was David Frum; then George Will followed by David Brooks; then Frum's colleague at the National Review, Kathleen Parker; today, William F. Buckley's son, Christopher jumped on the band wagon. Conservatives everywhere are denouncing McCain's veep pick because, essentially, they think she isn't smart enough to lead the country. True, they focus on the experience or rather the inexperience question, but it's transparent enough that what's sent conservatives into a tizzy is that Palin can't speak let alone process complex ideas. As Parker put it, she's just "Clearly Out Of Her League." I couldn't agree more. But here's what I don't get—since when do conservatives care about smarts? Or, rather, why didn't they care about smarts in 2000 and 2004?
Watching Sarah Palin talk to Katie Couric, and then watching her at the debate (where, admittedly, she did better than expected) gave me déjà vu. She's really very similar to Bush, and it's not at all obvious to me that she's any worse than he is, or was in 2000 and 2004. Maybe Bush isn't stupid, exactly, just lazy. And Palin's not stupid, exactly, either—just supremely uninformed. But ultimately, what's the difference? Either of these qualities should disqualify someone from running the country.
As Leopold Bloom put it (or thought it), "a defect is 10 times worse in a woman." He meant physical defects, but I wonder if this charming bit of sexism applies to mental defects, too. Why is Sarah Palin pushing Christopher Buckley over the edge—he's voting for Obama!—when Bush didn't?