We've got our Conor Friedersdorfs and Kathleen Parkers shooting
at Sarah Palin and Erick Ericksons defending her. The defenders
wonder what team the critics are on. The critics appeal to
intellectual honesty.
I appeal to the concept of edificiation. Do the words we write
or say actually contribute anything to the election and to the
civic discussion? Are they adequately considered after time to look
at all the evidence? If I look at it in those terms, I have to side
with the defenders.
The only possible way the critics could be in the right is if
the writer really believes Palin is unfit to serve. I have a hard
time believing that a bad interview demonstrates that. The
situation is simple. A person with a career in state and local
government, so greatly cherished by conservatives who love
federalism, needs a little time to adjust to the national frame. I
think it is really that easy. Patience is a virtue, friends.
I think the problem is endemic to the pundit class. We feel a
need to produce a product, which is opinions, and so any thought
that might have any possibility of generating a little action or
emotion is vomited into the ether. When it comes to punditry, the
idea of holding one's tongue (or pen or keystroke) is counter to
the entire business as it has evolved in the internet era. Words
are free and readers are checking for updates constantly.
topics:
Sarah Palin, Business