I haven’t updated the blog in a long while because I’ve been traipsing about the globe – but I’ll tell you about that in another post. I’ve spent some time thinking about McCain’s choice for VP, Sarah Palin, a woman who was mayor of a town of 6000 people before becoming governor of Alaska in 2006 – a pick completely out of left field. She established a reputation for bucking the Republican establishment in Alaska; indeed, she can plausibly be described as a reformer, something which undoubtedly appealed to McCain.
I don’t mean the title of this post to be derogatory – not ‘What the hell is he thinking?’ but, rather, ‘What really made him pick Palin?’ The more I think about it, the more I see a very risky, yet possibly extremely shrewd, nuanced choice for VP.
First, let’s examine her positions (all this is obtained from The Atlantic blogs). She’s pro-life. She supports drilling in ANWAR but understands the importance of energy independence. She is a lifelong member of the NRA. She is a fiscal conservative. She is an evangelical. She opposes gay marriage, but vetoed an anti-gay bill that crossed her desk. She is known to support creationism. Nobody knows anything about what she thinks of Iraq, Afghanistan, the crisis in Georgia, or any other foreign policy issue. We don’t know anything about her position on stem cell research, AIDS policy or immigration reform. We can glean that she has more respect for the constitution than Bush or Cheney, since she vetoed the anti-gay bill because it was unconstitutional.
Also, she is a woman. Which may appeal to disgruntled Hillary voters. Or not. The overwhelming focus on cable news this morning was on whether or not they might now consider voting for McCain, with a woman on the ticket. This is beside the point – if Hillary voters go for McCain because of the female veep, that’s a bonus but should not be expected. Why would Hillary voters, many of whom are presumably fairly liberal, vote for a woman who has established strong conservative credentials? In particular, a woman who is pro-life? I can’t see that happening.
There are two main benefits for McCain to choose Palin, insofar as his own campaign is concerned:
1. She consolidates and energises the conservative base that remains suspicious of McCain. This is especially important because of the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans this year. It also undercuts some of the reasons for voting for Bob Barr in nominally red states that may vote for Obama because of vote splitting between him and McCain.
2. She reinforces his image as a reformer and maverick. He can point to her record as governor and say ‘Obama talks about change, but Palin has actually accomplished change’.
That’s all well and good, but what does it do to the Obama campaign? Her lack of any serious experience (even more so than Obama) is a major weakness, and they can’t even point to good judgement as a substitute for experience (à la Joe Biden’s speech on Wednesday) because there’s no record there. Of course, by pointing this out, Obama’s campaign risks inviting comparisons to his records, so they need to tread carefully.
I think there’s a trap here for Obama: they can criticise her positions, her Christianism, her rather extreme views, but by doing so they also publicise them, thus energising and enthusing the conservative base that handed the election over to Bush in 2000 and 2004. That’s not to say that she’ll get McCain enough votes to win the election, but it does bridge the enthusiasm gap. Moreover, the experience issue is a problem because McCain-Palin can point to her experience as a reformer in Alaska whenever someone in the Obama camp tries to bring up her lack of experience.
So, possibly a shrewd choice. That’s if she survives the rigours of the campaign trail, which is not at all clear. From what I’ve been reading, it’s doubtful she’s even been fully vetted, having come fresh with a minor scandal about inappropriately influencing the firing of a public official. In fact, I think the risks definitely outweigh the benefits, because I fully expect her to make a major gaffe of some type that will affect the McCain campaign during the campaign. (Fallows explains why very convincingly.) She also full of electoral liabilities, which doubtless Obama will exploit to the fullest.
None of this addresses the actual merits of the pick, of which there are virtually none. To paraphrase another blogger, if McCain dies of melanoma in office, can you imagine her staring down Vladimir Putin? I give Andrew the last word:
Think about what the Palin pick really says about how McCain views this campaign and how he views his potential responsibilities in national security.
Think about what it says about the sincerity of McCain’s own central criticism of Obama these past two months in foreign affairs.
Think about how he picked a woman to be a heartbeat away from a war presidency who hadn’t even thought much, by her own admission, about the Iraq war as late as 2007.
Think about how he made this decision barely knowing the woman.
…
Think about how the key factor in this decision was not who could defend this country were something dreadful happen to McCain in office but how to tread as much on Obama’s convention bounce and use women’s equality as a wedge issue among Democrats because it might secure a few points here or there. Oh, and everyone would be surprised. And even Rove would be annoyed.
This is his sense of honor and judgment. This is his sense of responsibility and service.
Here’s the real slogan the McCain campaign should now adopt:
Putting. Country. Last.
Let me get this straight. It’s wrong for the Republicans to nominate someone with as little experience as Palin has — business manager, mayor, governor, moose hunter! — for the open-this-highway, meet-this-ambassador job of the VP, because (to quote the Obama team) she’ll be “a heartbeat away from the presidency”.. which is true enough.
It is however right to nominate Obama, who has no executive experience to my knowledge whatsoever but did find the time to write not one but two autobiographies describing his exciting adventures, for the highest office itself, because, er, Holy Is His Name.
God forbid I ever understand the Left.
I actually don’t think the politics of this are as Hillary-centred as many people seem to think.
McCain — despite what the Left suggests — isn’t actually very conservative. Consider his signature issues. Campaign finance reform? Most conservatives (such as myself) consider it a blatant violation of the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment. His views on immigration? Reward people who break the immigration laws, punish those who obey them. Yeah, that’ll work. Judges? He supported the ludicrous Gang “compromise”.
Most Ds aren’t going to vote R, whatever he did. So McCain’s real problem was the R enthusiasm gap. Law-and-order security types had preferred Giuliani; effective government types preferred Romney; foaming-at-the-mouth types like me were hoping for Thompson and were disappointed at his performance. Most Rs had merely resigned themselves to McCain, and were more or less going through the motions. There’s no equivalent to the Obama Kool-Aid. They respect McCain, but they don’t love him. Non-Hillary Ds seem to genuinely believe in the power of the Obamessiah, blessed be he.
Rs think of McCain as something of a nuisance who loved the excitement of being a maverick more than he loved advancing conservative causes. They were willing to accept him because they liked him on the war and on his antipork crusade. Palin, by comparison, they like a lot.
At the risk of asking you to trust me on this inside-ball-game fact, believe me when I say the disconnect between the institutional Republican party and its most energetic supporters is enormous. Think the disconnect between the Kossacks and the DLC. Palin helps cross that gap for McCain in a way that very few of the other candidates would. (Cantor or Pawlenty, maybe. Thompson too, but he’d decided not to be VP some time ago, if the rumours are true.)
True, for my own part I would have preferred someone with a longer history in government, like Romney; but then again I was in the crazy position I couldn’t believe I was in of hoping that Hillary won, because I thought her 3 AM argument was sound and I thought she’d answer the phone much better than Obama would.
In short, my view is that the the Obama campaign should adopt its own new slogan:
We. Love. Doublethink!
You are entirely correct – Hillary was not the main reason for this choice, as I mentioned above, it’s about energising the conservative base.
Thing is, the problem with this pick is that it looks like McCain is purely playing politics at the expense of making a pick who would actually be good as veep. That makes me wonder why he thinks Palin would make a good veep, and whether he takes this decision seriously enough to overcome a desire to ‘shake up’ the campaign with a pick whose surprise value will wear off rather quickly. On this evidence, I think not. (It doesn’t help that I hate Palin because of her support for creationism; maybe that bias makes me dislike the choice even more.)
What many on the Right don’t get about the support for Obama is that his appeal has nothing to do with experience. For me, it’s two things: 1. He has the ability to bring many ordinary people back into the political process, both with his idealist, uncynical language and policies that appeal to younger generations of voters; and 2. He has a very shrewd mind that makes excellent judgements. We saw it in the primary campaign when he exploited his ground advantage and planned out how to win the primaries, and in my view his policies also reflect sound judgement. His choice of Biden was a very good choice, strictly on the merits, which makes me trust his judgement even more. This is not true of McCain, whose maverick qualities tend to get the better of him, and who also appears to be cynical enough to choose an unqualified veep for political purposes.
Now, maybe he will get more votes with Palin than with any other veep pick, and if he really think Obama would be an awful president because of his lack of experience, then that does make Palin a reasonable choice – since he would then honestly believe that such a pick is the only way to prevent a supposedly catastrophic Obama presidency. But when he criticises Obama for his inexperience and then picks an even less experienced veep, he needs to explain that somehow.
As far as inexperience goes, experience tells us (:P) that experience is not a good indicator of competence (think Cheney). This is why I am interested in someone’s policies and judgement more than his/her experience, and we have no clue what kind of judgement Palin has on these matters (and if the rumours are to be believed, neither does she). OTOH, I think Obama has good judgement that easily outweighs his lack of experience. He also knows to surround himself with smart people who are experts in their field, which further makes me comfortable with him in office.
Tabbie:
*Laments Obama’s choice of Biden as VP running mate.
*Zips lips about Palin.
Aaaargh!
Hit control-W in firefox which closed the window instead of copy like I intended. It’s hard to stay motivated — after all, this is a candidate who was about third on my list nominating a VP candidate who was about fourth or fifth on mine. (I was quite surprised.)
(1) McCain is often wrong, IMHO, but I’d never accuse him of taking the executive office unseriously. Palin may be a poor choice, though I doubt it, but I find the accusation that he’s not serious about it, well, hard to take seriously. I find this a major motif on the Left: it’s not merely that your opponents are wrong, it’s that they’re wrong for bad motives. If your belief in the purity of your side’s hearts and the vileness of your foes’ is honest, then I guess you’ve little choice, but it does make conversation difficult.
(2) “What many on the Right don’t get about the support for Obama is that his appeal has nothing to do with experience.”
*blink*
What are you talking about? It’s been a major point of concern and/or mockery that Obama’s appeal has nothing to do with experience, but everything to do with being The One, famous for being famous, etc, etc, and that his supporters are more like fangrrls than anything else. See “The One” video, or the cracks about him being the Teen Beat president, etc. It’s not that we don’t understand that you love him not for what he’s done but for who he is, it’s that we think it’s hilarious and disturbing.
(3) I can agree that young people, unmarried people, and secular people tend to be much to the left of the older, the married, and the religious. Obama was easily among the most leftist members of the Senate, and therefore it makes sense to me that his policies would be extremely appealing to people in those groups. I can even buy the “idealist” label, though “uncynical” I don’t understand — I’m not sure I’ve ever seen something as cynical as his use of Trinity — but perhaps this is one of those things that only those with the eyes of faith can see.
(4) So if I understand you, Obama is worthy of support because (a) people who like his policies like his policies, and (b) he has a shrewd mind and good judgment, which is shown by the fact he won the nomination, that you like his policies, and that he chose coal-mining Biden, who only a little while before went even further than Hillary in making the inexperience argument against The One, as his running mate.
Well, everyone has his own ideas about what makes sense.
I am curious about the “strictly on the merits” idea, though. A cynic like me might suggest that Obama went with Biden because he was desperately worried that the “inexperienced” talking point was starting to take root — he should be more ahead in the polls than he is, although I still suspect he’ll win — and he figured that was more of a risk than upsetting HRC supporters.
That you’re so confident not just of the correctness of his choice but of the purity of his intentions is kind of touching. If Obama induces this kind of trust in his follo– er, supporters — then I’m not sure I like this fresh new breeze.
(4b) Palin is less experienced than Obama?! I’d prefer she had more, but less than him? She has executive experience in the private sector, in municipal government, and in state government. Obama has none, as far as I know. The buck has never stopped with him.
What experience of Obama’s do you believe is of greater duration or weight than Palin’s?
(5) “As far as inexperience goes, experience tells us (:P) that experience is not a good indicator of competence (think Cheney).”
Wait a minute. I know I’m always busy with my vast-right-wing-conspiracy work so I may be out of the loop, but I thought the standard line on Cheney was that he was supercompetent.. but EEEEVVVVILLLL. “Satan, Cthulhu, Skeletor.. heed my call!”, and so on. (Line ripped off from Iowahawk.) I could understand that you hate his goals, but what exactly has he failed to do that he set out to do because of his own incapacity?
I’m left to suspect that the slurs just come out of a random number generator. Cheney = bad. Bad = evil, stupid, incompetent, not-sexy, not-green, doesn’t-wear-a-Che-shirt. Ergo, Magic 8-Ball says: incompetent!
I’ve written far too much, but I’m procrastinating. Feel free to ignore any of the above. I think (4b) is probably the most productive point; you saying “Obama’s judgment is good because I agree with it” and me saying “McCain’s judgment is sometimes good and sometimes bad, as you can see by comparing it with mine” in reply is not a useful way to spend a Monday.
2. I don’t idolise or worship Obama as you seem to be implying – I support him because of the reasons I mentioned above. Now, I did say that I believe his policies are sound, but the real point is that by bringing young people into the process, he can ensure that we are more engaged, and less apathetic, about politics. This is important, because there isn’t enough interest in it – I firmly dislike the idea of the bulk of influence in Washington coming from lobbyists as opposed to constituents, and by engaging young people in the process, he can help fix that. I believe that one of the biggest threats to the future of democracy is the lack of interest that people have in policymaking, and Obama’s candidacy is a step against that. (It is, in any case, a much bigger threat than terrorism.) (It’s also a way to bypass constitution violating laws like McCain-Feingold – when people are engaged, you don’t need McCain-Feingold to try to even out the field.)
This is not to say I approve of all his policies or his outlook – I am especially suspicious of how big he is going to make the federal government. I consider myself a libertarian first and foremost, but after eight years of Bush, there’s absolutely no chance I would want the Republicans back in power (big big government, too close to the religious right, etc…) Right now, it’s impossible for any democrat to do worse than the current administration has.
3. See above for why I think his appeal to young people is particularly important.
1&4. Yes, the VP pick was as political as it was based on merit. But Biden, on the basis of his foreign policy experience, is qualified to be president, and also will complement Obama’s own foreign policy judgement – meaning that, for whatever reason Obama chose him, Biden is a good choice.
McCain could have made a similar good choice for his VP on the merits while still being political. If he wanted a woman, he could have chosen Hutchison or Whitman (Christine Todd, not Meg). If he wanted a conservative to shore up the base, he had Huckabee at his disposal. Palin is the only one who accomplishes both as far as I can tell, but her apparent lack of interest in foreign policy and positions on creationism (%&#$!) (not to mention the emerging stories about supporting the bridge to nowhere that make her credentials as a reformer seem suspect, at the very least) should disqualify her from the VP slot.
Unfortunately, McCain has noone who is all three (unless Hutchison is a closet evangelical). That he went with Palin instead of, say, Huckabee (who I think would have been the best choice to energise evangelicals) suggests he was purely playing politics, rather looking for someone who would also make a decent VP.
4b. Obama has 14 years of legislative experience. Much of that is as a state senator, but it is still legislative experience, which Palin cannot claim (being mayor of a town of 9000 doesn’t count.) I’m also not sure how executive experience in the private sector qualifies her to be VP of the US, though perhaps a successful entrepreneur brings some valuable skills to the Oval Office that a legislator does not have.
5. Perhaps I’m being naive, but what matters are results – and Cheney’s results are indistinguishable from incompetence. If Iraq is screwed up, it doesn’t matter that Cheney set out to do it, or tried to do something else and failed and ended up screwing up Iraq anyway. End result: Iraq is screwed up. (I’m operating on the assumption that Cheney is pulling most of the strings in this administration.) If you screw up, you’ve screwed up. Maybe he is evil, maybe not, but whatever he is, he hasn’t gotten good results in Iraq. (His attempts to undermine the constitution make him evil, yes. In that, I will concede, he has succeeded magnificently.)