August 20, 2011
Lessons learned from the Palin debacle
I know Frum is not exactly a fan favorite here on clusterflock, but he’s right in this case (via Sullivan):
It’s very important that politicians understand the everyday lives of Americans. It’s important that politicians champion the ordinary person and not pay undue heed to the wishes of the rich and powerful. It’s important that politicians be people of integrity, not hirelings of industry lobbies. These are issues of character, and character counts.
But the choice of cowboy boots over loafers, enjoyment of hunting rather than bicycling, a preference for ketchup over mustard — these tell us precisely nothing about a candidate’s character.
Yet it was precisely these kinds of irrelevant lifestyle choices that persuaded so many conservatives that Sarah Palin would be a fitting leader. She drops her “g”s! Her husband owns a fishing boat! She shoots moose! (Not really on that last point, but that’s the story we were told at the time.)
comments
Leave a Reply
“But it remains true even now that Republicans do not take intelligence or expertise very seriously as qualifications for the presidency.” Yep.
It’s interesting to watch people who were once firmly established as the center of the Republican political establishment, and who I found despicable, find themselves at the edge of their political party, outside it now, really, and begin to sound the alarm the way their liberal/progressive/Democratic counterparts have for the last thirty years. Warning then against those who now look over their shoulders and say holy fuck.
Another example.
Another way to put it is the conservative establishment who find themselves in the position of having to sound the alarm created the thing they are warning against. I’m glad they got around to it, but it doesn’t make them less culpable.
Frum has had me double-taking for a few weeks now. I think he must be in love.
Daryl’s quote brings to mind Jon Huntsman’s recent newsworthy antics, mainly that he’s distancing himself from his opponents by saying that he trusts scientists’ expertise from everything ranging from global warming to evolution. Strange to see how this has become controversial, but again, I think the bottom line is that A) conservatives also tend to be very religious and science often makes claims that contradict religion and B) conservatives don’t like to be told what to do. Palin et al. often frame the debate around environmental regulations by saying “they want to restrict how you do a, b, and c” – it’s a rhetorical fallacy that never accounts for the actual science or reasoning behind regulations, but it’s been pretty successful so far.
I recently saw that a reporter was questioning Rick Perry on how, if he selectively believed what the scientific community claims, how he could be trusted to responsibly support the scientific community in keeping America on the forefront of technological advancement. Not surprisingly, he didn’t really have an answer.
Splendid observations, Josh. I tend to see the people you speak of here as those who aren’t able to combine more than two thoughts at the same time. This gets worse when the two thoughts aren’t even well formed. Apparently the call to be consistent is parsed in this way: “who is that socialist who says I have to believe him–when I’m an individual just like my church and don’t have to!” It’s funny to think of the use of technology involved in running a campaign, and to see that the authority of science behind it is accepted without question. Those who actually “let the market decide” don’t seem to have the same problems with science when it generates competitive products.
As a general rule, whenever Daryl compliments me, I want to frame it and hang it on my wall.
I hear you, Josh. I feel the same. Also when Deron pulls a comment to the front page.