I find the Economist’s views on Sarah Palin quite validating

COLUMN: “The woman from nowhere: John McCain’s choice of running-mate raises serious questions about his judgment,” by Lexington, The Economist, 6 September 2008.

Solid stuff:

Mr McCain has based his campaign on the idea that this is a dangerous world—and that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to deal with it. He has also acknowledged that his advanced age—he celebrated his 72nd birthday on August 29th—makes his choice of vice-president unusually important. Now he has chosen as his running mate, on the basis of the most cursory vetting, a first-term governor of Alaska.

Lexington later describes Palin as “inexperienced and Bush-level incurious,” with “no record of interest in foreign policy, let alone expertise.”

Ridge and Lieberman were ruled out over abortion, meaning “the Palin appointment is yet more proof of the way that abortion still distorts American politics.”

Bottom line: “Mrs Palin’s elevation suggests that, far from breaking with Mr Bush, Mr McCain is repeating his mistakes.”

Comments

[Shawn in Tokyo]

I am not too surprised by this assessment in The Economist--the magazine is geared towards an 'internationalist' crowd--which is probably exactly opposite the majority of those who will support Governor Palin as Senator McCain's V.P., and who probably would never read The Economist in the first place.

Because she is not running for President (with all the attention one would think that Senator McCain is on his death bed this very moment), the question is how quickly she can adapt and how she approaches her decision-making as a Senator McCain apprentice. In the end, she may be deemed not ready by the electorate.

Since Senator Obama is also a relative lightweight (sorry, numerous speeches and position papers don't cut it for me yet), he deserves the same scrutiny.

I look forward to further debates and the evolving drama! :-)

[Justin]

Tom,

I've seen you blog about how the fact that Obama made it through the primaries and is leading in the polls gives him the experience to be president. If he can run a successful campaign, he can run the government. McCain's campaign was flailing, so he injected life into it with Palin. It was a strategic decision to win the presidency, which clearly got him back in the race. If running a campaign is a test of your skills as an organizer and strategizer, why doesn't McCain get points for the Palin pick?

[Christopher Thompson]

Let me get this straight: McCain should get points for picking a VP who appeals to people who have little knowledge or interest in foreign affairs?

I think the insight that “the Palin appointment is yet more proof of the way that abortion still distorts American politics” couldn't be made more clearly.

[Shawn in Tokyo]

Who said anything about points? I was just stating a fact--most people who support Governor Palin probably don't read or don't know The Economist (probably true of the electorate in general, I guess). I would also hazard a guess that the majority of Economist readers support Senator Obama for President.

Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage for Senator McCain will be reflected on election day. The choice is lack of international experience at the top of the ticket or lack of it at the bottom of the ticket.

And yes, abortion distorts American politics and the way campaigns are handled by Democrats and Republicans. But I think it is overestimated here in terms of Senator McCain picking Governor Palin. Ridge and Leiberman (are you kidding me--both equally uninspiring!, but strangely lauded by critics of Senator McCain) could have been ruled out over much more than abortion. But abortion is low-hanging fruit for critics, requires little further analysis once used, and in its seeming lack of nuance satisfies the conclusion that the target of the criticism is narrow-minded.

As long as abortion is politicized via the courts and public policy, it will always be lurking as an issue.

[Tom Barnett]

Justin,

I already gave McCain those points, about 50 posts back.

[Justin]

Chris,

That's the point. Tom marveled, rightfully so, at Obama's ability to run a campaign. I.e Winning the primaries, and leading in the Presidential race. How good of a campaign you run is going to be directly related to how many votes you get. So if McCain picked Ridge or Lieberman, I truly believe he would be 10 points down right now. He went out on a limb and picked someone who appealed to people that don't like John McCain, and it got him briefly ahead in the polls, and gave McCain the chance to win if he can outshine Obama in the debates.

I don't think Obama will be a good president, but I obviously can't say he's a bad candidate because he's winning the race.

[Lexington Green]

The Palin pick was literally the only one that did not mean certain death for McCain. The script that Obama and his supporters had written was: "boring old outdated white guy Republicans lose to groovy new beacon of hope." Picking Palin disrupted that. Picking Palin united the base due to her pro-life and small-l libertarian views, and the general ambience of her family life, comfort with guns, etc. Without a mobilized base, McCain was dead. Two bullets dodged by picking Palin. Third, McCain's plan was to run as the real reformer and anti-establishment candidate. If Palin were (1) a Democrat, and (2) pro-abortion, she would be a hero to the Democrats for attacking the unholy alliance of old-boy Republicans who were in the employ of the Big Oil companies. Her reformist credentials have been buried, but they are there for anyone who wants to look. That is reason three that McCain picked her, to add focus to his reformist message, so that it was not just a referendum on Obama. All good reasons. The idea that Governor Palin is stupid or ignorant is nothing more than the hard bigotry of people who believe that only if you have elite educational credentials are you entitled to win elections and exercise authority. That is an attitude suitable for Belgium or Britain, or maybe China, but not the USA.

[Anonymous]

not stupid, right Lex. but how about those interviews? some of them have been painfully bad.

[Lexington Green]

Sean: I have seen the exact same thing happen with witnesses who have been badly prepped by panicky lawyers. Not good, agreed, but not that hard to understand. I hope they figure out that they have turned an articulate and successful person into a badly programmed robot, and can undo the damage. And it does not invalidate the initial decision. As one intelligent lawyer once said "hindsight is for assholes". If you have good reason to give someone an opportunity, and a decent hope they will live up to it, it was not "wrong" even if it does not work out. Thursday will tell us more.

[Statman]

Sure, winning the election is the only Constitutional basis for serving as President, but I find the whole "I'll use the fact that he can run a campaign as proof he can run a country" a very poor reason for someone to earn my vote. Essentually, that's giving your vote over to the momentum of the masses. It's much more important to look at the direction a leader wants to take us in than to see if they are popular. In this instance, Obama's popularity has a lot to do with the fact that the Bush policies are extremely vulnerable to criticism right now. Any Democrat would have a big advantage and would be the favorite to win it all.

I also don't agree that liberalizing abortion rules around the world is going to win us any friends in the gap. As the world becomes unstable, Tom has pointed out that people often (and should) turn to religion to find stability. Advocating a position that all of the Muslim world would consider evil isn't going to help us gain the needed trust of the proverbial man-on-the-street. There are ways we can accomplish so much of our advancement agenda without insisting on this one, very divisive course. This is one of the very few things I disagree with Tom on, but I think he is wrong here.

[Anonymous]

Lex: you're right on hindsight. i'll give Palin the benefit of the doubt until tomorrow night. as you say, we'll see.

Statman: Tom didn't say the running of the campaign should earn your vote but that the running of the campaign was one example of executive experience. i think he'd agree with you that we should vote for direction. he has said repeatedly the best direction, in his opinion, is Obama's.