21 Years in Captivity

by Eric Martin

Julian Sanchez methodically obliterates the "Free Sarah Palin" meme that is all the rage in conservative circles these days (via Teh Henley).  For those unaware with the tenets of the Free Sarrah movement, the theory is that she has been over-coached and over-prepared, and as a result, she stumbles through interviews sounding uncertain and spouting talking points without segue.  Sanchez is having none of it:

It’s a nice enough theory, but where exactly is the evidence for it?  Sure, we can look back and find instances where she’s handled herself more competently, but her gaffes have not been, as some of her apologists seem to want to imply, a matter of getting flustered by her failure to recall the name of the Brazilian finance minister.  Her problem is not mastery of the details: It’s fundamental cluelessness about how the economy works, and a demonstrable inability to conceive of foreign policy in anything but the crudest terms.

Put it this way, one thing I learned from college debate is that a reasonably bright person can generally manage to sound at least competent talking about issues they don’t really understand. I recall one case my partner and I debated where the other team argued against dollarizing the Ecuadorian sucre. We didn’t know a damn thing about the economic or political situation in Ecuador, or a whole lot about monetary policy. I doubt I could have told you the name of Ecuador’s president, let alone the finance minister. But we had some basic econ and game theory down, and I knew a bit about the Mexican peso crisis of the mid-90s, and so we were able to bluff our way through and win the round.  The kind of mess we’ve seen in Palin’s interviews, then, can’t really be ascribed to an ignorance of details that could be remedied with a few more flash-card sessions. As Jeff Goldberg puts it, the problem isn’t so much that she doesn’t have the right answers, it’s that she doesn’t seem to have enough of a grasp on the questions to bluff her way through with something vague but halfway cogent sounding. This suggests that she’s either profoundly ignorant on economic and foreign policy questions, in a deep and architectonic way unlikely to be remedied by a few briefings geared toward filling in the lacunae, or that she’s just not terribly bright.

Sure, Palin is probably personable and appealing when she can just ad-lib to her fans, provided the subject is her disdain for coastal latte-sippers or her fictional rejection of government largesse.  The truly strange thing about this whole narrative, though, is that the high point of Palin-love, the moment the hacks are all wistfully recalling now, is the governor’s appalling alpha-Heather schtick from the RNC. In other words, the time we saw her at her most scripted, and with a script penned by one of those very Bush holdovers who are purportedly keeping True Sarah under wraps.

The simplest inference from the available data points, it would seem, is exactly the opposite of the theory behind the calls to “Free Sarah”: At the end of the day, Palin is still basically a local TV news personality. Give her a prompter loaded with punchy zingers, and she’ll deliver it smoothly and with verve. It’s when she’s forced to get interactive that she runs into trouble.

This is, of course, more or less the line conservative have long been pushing about Obama: He’s great with a prepared text, much more uneven in debates. Obama’s problem in that context, though, seems to be a lingering professorial tendency to want to think through his answer in realtime, covering all the angles as though the exchange were some sort of Socratic inquiry, when a well-packaged talking point would better fit the bill. This, to put it as mildly and kindly as possible, would not appear to be Palin’s problem.

Do read the rest.

In the immediate aftermath of McCain's selection of Palin, the press attention given to the choice was overwhelming.  The media (and the country) was caught off guard, and in the scramble to vet the candidate and get to know her, there was a deluge of coverage - some negative, though more positive.  Right out of the gate, her political star shot through the glass ceiling roof.  Her rise was aided by a well-delivered speech on a big stage at a time when she was commanding the eyeballs of the nation. 

Political blogs (this one included) were certainly swept up in the maelstrom - dedicating significant bandwith to Palin-related posts.  At the time, many a concerned blogger and commenter warned that there was too much focus on Palin, and that by dwelling on Palin the commentariat was shielding McCain and ultimately helping the GOP cause by talking up the more popular half of the ticket.  "Stop writing about Palin," went the plaintive cry.

My guess is that those concerns have subsided and, in retrospect, most people would agree that keeping the heat on Palin wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

Of course, at this point, if Palin does more than come out and drool, at the debate, she'll be said to have "exceeded expectations," and thus wins the debate!

[Jesurgislac]

the problem isn’t so much that she doesn’t have the right answers, it’s that she doesn’t seem to have enough of a grasp on the questions to bluff her way through with something vague but halfway cogent sounding.

It's the "are you pondering what I'm pondering" problem, isn't it?

“Well, I think so -POIT- but where do you stick the feather and call it macaroni?”

[liberal japonicus]

Gary, that only works if you are a former B grade Hollywood actor with incipient Alzheimer's.

I hope...

[Eric Martin]

I fear that Gary might be right that the bar is low, but I think the verdict will be "draw." And I don't think it will give a big boost to the McCain/Palin ticket either.

But it won't be as bad as one might hope for expect given her recent performance with Katie Couric.

[MeDrewNotYou]

Obama’s problem in that context, though, seems to be a lingering professorial tendency to want to think through his answer in realtime, covering all the angles as though the exchange were some sort of Socratic inquiry, when a well-packaged talking point would better fit the bill.

I know Obama gives great speeches, but being the nerd that I am, his thinking through an issue is what I love most about hearing him talk. I can see how that leads some to say that he's bad at spontaneous speeches, but I'd rather have someone that thinks twice and speaks once. Obama does do a hell of a job speaking, though, so best of both worlds.

My guess is that those concerns have subsided and, in retrospect, most people would agree that keeping the heat on Palin wasn't such a bad idea after all.

I remember being on the side that wanted to stay focused on McCain, but I agree the intense spotlight turned out well. It burned away her credibility and, it would seem, flustered the campaign. (Who probably expected us to fall in love with Palin and not be too critical.)
I think her sheer incompetence has outweighed any sympathy she gets from being beat up by the 'meanies' in the media. That being said, PLEASE let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin from now on. People are smart enough to know that folksy charm is no substitute for competence, especially when McCain's age makes the liklihood of her becoming president relatively high.

[Eric Martin]

MeDrewNotYou,

Because you asked

Post title: Lyric from "Free Nelson Mandela" by the Specials.

[MeDrewNotYou]

Heh. I figured it was a movie this time. ^.^;

[Gary Farber]

"People are smart enough to know that folksy charm is no substitute for competence,"

Ronald Reagan refutes that.

[efgoldman]

Gary Farber - Like it or not (and I certainly didn't) Reagan was a great and skilfull politician. No less than Speaker Tip O'Neill, a political saint to me (and my Congressman) said so, often.

Remember that Reagan worked succesfully on the greatest of the state polticial stages, California - bigger than many countries.

Did I like him? Nope. Been a lifelong progressive. Couldn't. Did I agree with him? Maybe once in our lives. Maybe. But did I respect the hell out of him as a politician? Betcher ass.

[liberal japonicus]

Couldn't one respect Nixon's political prowess as well. That might make it an even lower bar than the no drooling during the debate bar

[xanax]

Vegas odds on SP drooling: 8 to 5 against.
(Sorry, Gary, no cite available at this time).

[Jeff]

"People are smart enough to know that folksy charm is no substitute for competence,"

Ronald Reagan refutes that

I dunno. I think that Bush may have burned "folksy charm" as a campaign strategy for a while. On the other hand, the race is much closer than it should be, given that all McCain/Palin have is "folksy charm".

[MeDrewNotYou]

Although I was much too young, I get the impression that Reagan generally had an idea of what he was talking about. And, as efgoldman said, being gov of CA in the late '60s/early '70s was a lot harder than being the gov of AK.

Maybe I'd be more correct to say that Sarah Palin has a next-door-neighbor kind of charm. You'd trust her to watch your house over the weekend, just not the country.

[Gary Farber]

"Although I was much too young, I get the impression that Reagan generally had an idea of what he was talking about."

No.

[Erik Ostrom]

I watched a gubernatorial primary debate with Sarah Palin and two other candidates sitting around a table with a moderator, casually arguing with each other. She seemed pretty sharp. She didn't have any great insight on foreign policy or financial markets, but they didn't really come up. She talked with confidence and, as far as I know, intelligence about things that people who cared about Alaskan politics knew about.

I don't think "Freeing Sarah" would make her seem qualified to govern the nation, but it might make her seem like someone capable of tying her shoes. Wouldn't save the ticket, but it might save her political future.

(Which reminds me: Did you guys see the videos of W. in his gubernatorial debates? When he was capable of putting together coherent sentences? What does Rove DO to these people?)

[davidm.]

On the first half, I LOL'd when I read the words "Free Palin Sarah Meme." To paraphrase one blogger after the Gibson interview (might have been Halperin?): 'Palin talks foreign policy like I talk European football. I've never been interested in European football, therefore I don't have the pedigree to even fake it.' So yeah, the problem isn't making gaffes on a name or issue. The problem is how new these issues seem to be to her.

Second half. The initial onslaught of Palin coverage was incredible. After the pick, she was all anyone wanted to talk about. That played really well into the 'blame the media' strategy from the convention. My mother-in-law still talks about what an unfair hand Palin got from the press (even though it was liberal bloggers). I suspect the MSM is cognizant of this fact, and the McCain campaign certainly knows it, so they're still able to work the refs to an alarming degree.

[The Crafty Trilobite]

She didn't have any great insight on foreign policy or financial markets, but they didn't really come up. She talked with confidence and, as far as I know, intelligence about things that people who cared about Alaskan politics knew about.

Exactly. I don't know why so many people miss the fact that intelligence is not the same as knowledge is not the same as interest. Palin has intelligence -- maybe not as much as Obama, but at least as much as McCain. She could theoretically acquire knowledge. But she won't, because she has no interest. This is not because she's stupid, or even lazy, it's just that those subjects don't grab her. If they did, she would be at least as conversant with them already as all of us here are. She's not. QED.

Look, we have all taken required courses at school in a subject that just plain bored us. But we were stuck with it, we buckled down, and we passed. The problem is, she has to get an A and then go on to teach the course. Sure, she could - she's a smart, hard-working, reasonably responsible person. But she'll do it 2x as slowly as any of us would, and she'll never really get the point.

That's only half the problem, of course. The other half is that even if she could achieve competence by the standards of Republican governance, she would still be trying to solve the nation's problems based on failed economics, failed foreign-policy principles, phony science, deliberate non-empiricism, and cronyism.

BTW, even without cronyism, Presidents do and should put some long-time, trusted friends in the Cabinet and key staff positions. Which A-level experts has Palin even met?

[Eric Martin]

which A-level experts has Palin even met?

Or seen.

[Dan S.]

" at a time when she was commanding the eyeballs of the nation. "

Eyeballs . . . Attack!

[jcd]

Of course she has architectonic, structural blah blah blah weaknesses in knowledge: She's a beauty pageant alum. She knows presentational skills, that idiotic mantra she keeps repeating ("Don't blink!"), no doubt a few other pop go-get-'em! nostrums, and a boatload of just delusory Christianist nonsense. Full stop.

That's all that's in there--not a thing with velcro for reality-based knowledge or judgment about anything.

[Pacific moderate]

I especially enjoyed this passage from Sanchez's update to his own post:

"As we’re sure to be reminded, lots of ordinary Americans probably couldn’t name another important Supreme Court case [besides Roe v. Wade], just as lots of Americans (we were admonished) don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is. I keep waiting for the tongue-clucking op-ed observing that fully half of Americans are of below-average intelligence."