The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Palin Is No Reagan

Text Size

I have absolutely no problem with those who are arguing that Palin’s story is one of a citizen politician thrust into the national spotlight who left office to protect her family from merciless attacks. But for those still arguing that she can or should have a future as an elected political leader, let alone president, I’m baffled. And I think that Palin’s defenders do her absolutely no favors by consistently making excuses for her no matter the circumstances.

Over at the Corner, Steve Hayward posted a few examples of the media writing off Ronald Reagan at various points in his career, only to be proven wrong. But such comparisons do a disservice to Reagan, who not only served two full terms as governor of California, but also spent decades studying the issues and immersing himself in conservative philosophy. His writings and radio commentaries make this abundantly clear. He proved people wrong because they objectively were wrong. This does not mean that whenever the media writes off or attacks a conservative politician that he or she is the next Reagan. (For more, see: Bush, George W.)

Meanwhile, Victor Davis Hanson wrote that “it doesn't matter that much what critics say, but — should she pursue politics — only what she does with her newfound time, especially if she travels widely, studies foreign policy, and helps galvanize the party base.” He continued, “She's not looking at 2012; but in eight years by 2016 she will be far more savvy, still young, and far more experienced. It matters not all that the Left writes her off as daffy, since they were going to do that whatever she did; the key is whether she convinces conservatives in eight year of travel and reflection that she's a charismatic Margaret Thatcher type heavyweight.”

The problem is that to win and govern effectively you have to do more than "galvanize the party base" and "convince conservatives" -- you also have to convince independents and even some Democrats, as Reagan did. Furthermore, what Hanson is suggesting now is the same sort of thing people were writing after last fall’s election. However, instead of going back to Alaska to gain more governing experience as many advised, Palin resigned after just two and a half years on the job. And there’s nothing to indicate that she has the slightest interest in boning up on policy. Honestly, what’s her incentive to study policy and do the boring task of governing? No matter what she does, her army of apologists will make excuses for her and lash out at those who dare to criticize her by accusing them of being liberal elitists who are threatened by her sheer awesomeness.

And again, none of this really matters if Palin intends to leave elective politics and become some sort of television or radio personality. My comments are only meant as a response to those who are still seriously suggesting her as a potential presidential candidate. Last October, an ABC/Washington Post poll found that only 35 percent of Americans thought Palin was qualified enough to be president, yet now her boosters expect us to believe that an additional nine months in office is all she needed to assauge Americans' concerns, allowing her to resign and prepare for a presidential run.

For an alternate take, you can read Robert Stacy McCain on our main site.

View all comments (35) | Leave a comment

Bob| 7.6.09 @ 8:45AM

As usual, Philip, you are directly on target.

Liberal Reader| 7.6.09 @ 9:12AM

I agree with Mr Klein's analysis here. I'm getting tired of people, too, who accuse every criticism of Palin as an "attack."

I have no ill will whatsoever to Sarah Palin. Her big mistake was accepting that nomination last year. She was too new to politics to succeed on the national level, and she paid the price. None of this makes her a bad person. I'm sure she'll make millions on her book or consulting with gas and oil concerns. More power to her.

What I do find worrisome is the hysteria on the right. Conservatism was once all about decorum: it was the force in our culture for restraint, education, memory, civility, and reason. In many ways, I think, small "c" conservatism carried our nation through the cultural low points of the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

But a vocal quarter of conservatives now seem positively to resent and revile these very traits. Frankly, I think conservatism was in much better shape when George H W Bush was around, and William F Buckley. The rodeo-clown Glenn Beck, the priestess of Alaska, and Joe the Plumber make "dumbing down" an inadequate term for describing what's really going on.

Rick| 7.6.09 @ 9:42AM

I, for one, would rather have Palin in the White House than the current Marxist/Community Organizer. And I really don't give a rats rear end what you think, Phil, because I don't believe you.

Mary| 7.6.09 @ 9:50AM

VDH and other people of consequence admit she has to learn and study. They’re basically admitting she’s not up to the job right now. If the Vanity Fair piece is accurate in reporting her opinion on having facts and figures at the ready (What does it all matter?) and if she holds that opinion still, it’ll continue to be platitude or bust.

Margaret Thatcher was a chemist before she entered politics. She was smart and she had the kind of mind Hanson seems to be demonstrating is necessary for a credible presidential candidate.

I prefer Maggie as a speaker to Reagan; maybe it’s the British accent. But Reagan’s writing reveals a man who has thought about the principles he has attached himself to. His writing is direct and inspiring, and there’s a warmth there emanating from his pride and love of Country and love of man.

She quit the energy commission she was on too, and that didn’t stop her from becoming governor. So, I’m not sure I’d write her off. She has some of the same superficial things going for her that Obama has, and if she can become articulate the electorate might forgive her quite a bit. But if she continues to speak as she has up to this point, I don’t see her capturing the White House.

Maybe if she goes 3rd Party, cleans up with 35% and splits the votes between the other two parties and wins a plurality? She is a “maverick” after all. :)

louis tully| 7.6.09 @ 10:02AM

"I think that Palin’s defenders do her absolutely no favors by consistently making excuses for her no matter the circumstances. "

When we last heard from this blogger, he was defending the Love Gov's secret dash to Argentina.

Tripp| 7.6.09 @ 10:13AM

This whole discussion is really reminiscent of the death of Michael Jackson- it's a festival of talking heads and bloggers celebrating this country's pitiful and dim-witted celebrity worshipping ethos by bursting at the seams to put in their two cents. Sure, everyone wants to be heard and to look smart by saying something profound concerning Palin's political future or lack thereof. It all misses the point- who freaking cares? If she's done, she's done. If not, so be it- why are we talking about it? There are plenty of perfectly legitimate contenders for the GOP nomination with far more experience than Sarah Palin, and you don't hear a peep about them- IE: Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal, or Rick Perry. Not to mention Gary Johnson or John Thune. Gov. Palin is a very nice lady, a good Christian mother, and had a good stint as governor with no major mishaps other than accepting the nomination to a campaign with less charm at the top of the ticket than Dukakis in 1988. So forget about her, quit with the People/US/ET crap and move on boosting the real contendors for a change. There are more important things happening than Palin, Jacko, or Mark Sanford.

Ran| 7.6.09 @ 10:22AM

"I have absolutely no problem with those who are arguing that Palin’s story is one of a citizen politician thrust into the national spotlight who left office to protect her family from merciless attacks."

Mr. Klein, perhaps she has taken an opportunity to do exactly as you say... to enable herself to reach out to independents and even to some Democrats, as Reagan did? Perhaps the strategy is not mere cut 'n run, but change the rules of engagement? Until she tells us more, or time reveals more, we're stuck with a lot of guesses.

"And there’s nothing to indicate that she has the slightest interest in boning up on policy. Honestly, what’s her incentive to study policy and do the boring task of governing?" Is there anything to indicate that she has no interest? Again, we're guessing. If anything, taking the opportunity presented to spend more time in the 48 rather suggests genuine interest.

We know one thing for certain... the challenge of undoing legislative mischief of the combined years of Clinton, Bush and Obama will be anything but boring. Palin is one of the lonely few politicians with a track record of successful challenges to the status quo.

There's a groundswell of Tea Partiers out there - who's cross section precisely includes those Independents and Democrats - who will be looking for a genuine maverick and fresh faces in Congress and an agenda of roll-back. Palin, anyone, interested in leading that surge will need all the active time they can muster engaging and studying. You may be right - perhaps Sarah isn't willing or capable of going there. My guess is otherwise.

Tim| 7.6.09 @ 10:23AM

When the going gets tough, the tough resign in a snit, giving a farewell speech in front of an audience of quacking ducks.

ds80| 7.6.09 @ 10:27AM

"Palin Is No Reagan"
Subtitle: Klein is no Buckley.

ds80| 7.6.09 @ 10:29AM

Sorry, Liberal Reader. Conservatives won't be put in your box.

Kingsmill| 7.6.09 @ 10:45AM

Romney's purchase of off the rack Beltway conservatives has filled the blogs with wall to wall anti--Palin rants. Looks like he bought a bakers dozen of mouthpieces at the Am Spec.

Philip Klein| 7.6.09 @ 10:57AM

--louis tully, you write, "When we last heard from this blogger, he was defending the Love Gov's secret dash to Argentina."

To correct the record, I was not "defending Sanford." Before we knew that Sanford was having an affair in Argentina I wrote tongue and cheekily that on a personal level I identified with his spirit of adventure, but at the same time I criticized his conduct as a governor. So you see, I was actually applying the same standard to Sanford that I did to Palin by drawing a distinction between him as a person and him as an elected official. Furthermore, once I found out about the affair, I updated the post to say it changed everything I wrote, and I posted a subsequent item calling his actions "disgraceful."

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/24/sanford-likes-to-be-in-south-a

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/24/sanford-and-sons

And to "ds80" -- Neither I nor anybody else has ever compared me to Buckley, whereas Palin has actually been compared to Reagan. So I don't really get your point.

Old Texican| 7.6.09 @ 11:03AM

Well Phil
Rush has 35 million cheerers.
Palin has 100 million cheerers.

That's a pretty strong base. OK, now let's throw in 50 million embarrassed Democrat voters and independents.

Things are going to go to hell in a handbasket in this country over the next two years. The Congressional/Senate seats up are crucial.
What if she helps a bunch of good guys get into office by generating activists in tandem with the Tea Party movement...hmmmmm?

Jeff Anderson| 7.6.09 @ 11:17AM

Let's go back in time:
The July 1972 edition of The American Spectator
Philip Klein (who insist on his first name being pronounced Phil-eep) submits a column titled 'Reagan is no Goldwater' and admits to being "baffled" that people believe Reagan could possibly ever mount a successful presidential campaign.

Now fast forward to 2013.
January edition of The American Spectator.
Philip (he's Phil-ip now) Klein submits a column titled 'I Was Wrong, Very Wrong', in which he generously doles out advice to President Palin on how she might win reelection in four years despite her just routing Obama in an electoral landslide.

Some people...never learn.

Jackson Brown| 7.6.09 @ 11:20AM

Palin Is No Reagan -- nor is she Margaret Thatcher.

She is Sarah Palin.

She has ONE talent that scares the crap out of the left -- PLUS -- the RINOs and Republican "professional politicians" who are hoping to get their turn-- she can provide a rallying point for this center right country..i.e. be a power broker...a voice for those that have no voice...the majority of this country.

I don't care if she runs for President. She doesn't have to to be the biggest force in America in the face of this disaster called Obama and the demo-RATic congress....and their RINO cowards.

THAT is why she is a target.

BTW -- How's that change workin' for ya'.

Philip Klein| 7.6.09 @ 11:20AM

Kingsmill -- I find it highly amusing that you would consider me a paid Romney mouthpiece given that I've been accused by Romney partisans as being unfairly harsh on him.

See some examples here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4753.html

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/04/did-romney-just-out-himself-as

Also, you may find it interesting that I criticized Romney for what I saw as him taking a cheap shot at Palin in his CPAC speech:

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/02/romneys-swipe-at-palin

And last summer, argued that Romney would be a bad VP pick:

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/07/24/mccain-should-say-no-to-mitt

If I'm on his payroll, he certainly isn't getting his money's worth.

And Old Texican -- considering McCain and Obama received 130 million votes combined in the last election, I'd like to know where you get your stats saying that Palin has "100 million cheerers" plus 50 million others waiting in the wings.

bc3| 7.6.09 @ 11:21AM

Philip Klein has a unique gift as a writer who makes one actually feel far dumber for having taken the time to read his tripe.

Seigfried X| 7.6.09 @ 11:44AM

"who will be looking for a genuine maverick"

Groan. A second run for John McCain? I thought the Republican Party had learned its lesson. We're the party of Reagan Conservatism, so why can't we proudly run a Reagan conservative?

Brian J| 7.6.09 @ 11:53AM

Yeah, quoted an ABC/Washington Post poll.
That carries a lot of weight - NOT!

Liberal Reader| 7.6.09 @ 11:57AM

The response by some of you to Klein's piece is just weird. Your attachment to Palin despite the obvious realities is weirder.

Can you honestly listen to the speech she gave Friday and say, "Now there's a national leader for the Republican party"?

What were her main ideas, and what were the connections between or among them?

If she's a woman returning to private life, or at least resolving to earn in the private sector, then that speech makes all the sense in the world. And all the best to her.

But if that speech was a prelude to a run for president, I think she has -- and many of you have -- a big disappointment coming.

Lucy| 7.6.09 @ 11:57AM

Palin is not under the control of either party and she refuses to sit down and keep quiet like a nice little lady. Who in the Republican party has the gumption to take her on without playing dirty? Who in the Republican party has her values, morals, and patriotism? She scares all of you because she has her priorities in the same order as everyday Americans: God, Family, Country.

She may or may not run for President. It's too early to know and she hasn't announced. So why the rush to take her down? Those of us who support Palin support what she stands for. We are worried for our children as we watch the highly-educated clowns and cowards in Washington sell off our country piece by piece. If she has the courage to fight them then so will I. THAT is the power of Palin. Conviction. Faith. Patriotism. No other politician can stand up to her. Not one.

Ran| 7.6.09 @ 12:06PM

Seig... McCain was no "maverick." He was always and remains just another RINO squish, willing to cave to dweebs in penguin suits.

Palin, by contrast, actually bucks the system. I don't know where she's headed, but we do know her moved was unconventional. I just don't regard Phill's take on it as useful.

Angel| 7.6.09 @ 12:09PM

Another Palin hit piece from Klein--what's new? Liberal Reader seems to be all hot and bothered over it; perhaps Phil is writing for 'him' and Bob now.

You're a bore, Klein.

PolishKnight| 7.6.09 @ 12:15PM

One of Palin's greatest problems seems to be that she accepts the stereotype of her detractors that she's a helpless damsel in distress. Conservatives need to accept that they will be viciously attacked in the media. Reagan certainly was.

In addition, I have yet to see something "new" come out of her. Reagan was great, but the talking points are dated and I see conservative politicians run all the time with the same "keep taxes low" and "keep crime low and put criminals away" commercials. These are great positions but the public already associates them with conservativism. The left, to their credit. spin and wrap up relevent issues even if it's with oily newspaper such as "green" energy and healthcare.

On a personal level, she seems to have thrown her son-in-law overboard which doesn't do her credit either. One of the most significant problems the Republicans face is that their women are often half-footed in with the democrats and like seeing men laid off to give jobs to women (if their own husband or son-in-law gets laid off though, he's through) or call up 911 if he raises his voice to her.

Bob| 7.6.09 @ 12:42PM

Philip -- How can someone who is so analytical and objective be a blogger on TAS? Your analysis of the financial crisis a few months back was both superb and right on. I notice that many times you refuse to argue with other writers here when you clearly disagree -- especially on financial issues where you have some expertise.

That said, welcome to our group of logical, analytical, fiscal conservatives who believe that reason is more important than ideology. The truth is that there is currently no place for us among the major parties. From this time forward, social conservatives will no longer listen to your logic -- you are a dead man writing.

You've written a lot of good articles on health care as well. I don't believe in an all or none solution -- nor to I believe that having a public option will eliminate private insurance. I come to that conclusion by actually having experience in the group insurance industry and understanding the actuarial underpinnings of group insurance. Otherwise, your points are on target.

Lastly, any positive reference from me is clearly a death sentence for you. My apologies, but you deserve better.

Mary| 7.6.09 @ 12:44PM

Good post, Polish Knight.

What you wrote here is important. To be a national party without an environmental policy is not good. I'd also like to hear a republican speak to the weaknesses of capitalism, and the necessity for proper regulation. Was getting rid of Glass-Steagall a good thing for Clinton to do, etc.?

Health care is more problematic because people tend to want something for nothing. Last I read, 80% of people were satisfied w/their health care, so I don't think the politics of it are that pressing. It may be pressing for business needs, but that requires a completely different approach and one that can convince people that reform won't just lead to a steady 8% unemployment rate and reduced choices in care.

That said, I think this is a good piece from Angelo Codevilla:

“America’s “Best And Brightest” — the media’s haughty personages, the college towns’ privileged residents, affimative action’s beneficiaries, the “mainstream” politicians who supported billions for bailouts and “stimuli,” the upscale folks who look down on the rest of us and upon themselves as saviors of the planet — these are the people who made Palin into a political force by making her a symbol of everything they are not. They did this despite her lack of brilliance when it came to communicating her ideas on the issues.

The 2012 election’s potential for revolution, then, depends on whether Sarah Palin or anyone else lives up to the contemptuous caricature that the Court party has drawn of the Americans they imagine to be their underlings. Any leader of the Country party would have to challenge the Court party’s assertion of wisdom and morality, attack it for its privileges and corruption, and repeat the most damning of questions: Who the hell do you think you are to presume to rule us like this?”

In case link doesn’t work: http://tinyurl.com/n22ssb

Angel| 7.6.09 @ 12:47PM

I hope Sarah gets out there and starts talking to average, everyday Americans. She has tremendous charisma and a LOT of us love her.

The negative coverage of Palin has made me curious; I want to find out for myself why so many of you media people hate her. I never make an effort to see politicians speak, but I will this time just because of all the over the top hostility you've shown her.

Ironic that you've turned Palin into an underdog; and Americans always root for the underdog. At least real Americans.

Whether you elitist clowns like it or not, Sarah is here to stay; and if we get real lucky she just might be POTUS someday. She's head and shoulders above the joke who is the current TOTUS.

Conservative 1| 7.6.09 @ 12:48PM

The GOP needs more Sarah Palins and far fewer Beltway types like Mike Murphy, David Frum and Kevin Madden, who helped get the GOP where it is today.

Sarah Palin represents true conservatives who compose the rank and file of the GOP. She exudes conservative values and leads by example.

No politican in recent history has endured the slurs thrown at Sarah Palin. Name another politician who children have been attacked by the national media and blogs. And, she has endured endless backstabing by Romneybots, some of whom were on the McCain campaign staff.

If Sarah is the woman I believe she is, she will come back stronger and more powerful than ever.

May God be with her.

Angel| 7.6.09 @ 12:53PM

Don't flatter yourself, Bob, it's not about you--I've always thought Klein was squishy.

Ran| 7.6.09 @ 2:02PM

Conservative 1's point ought be amplified...

To be capable of significant roll-back the next leader must have a phalanx of Palins and Reagans in Congress. That requires us to get active supporting local conservative and libertarian candidates. I believe Palin is indeed capable of returning stronger and more powerful that ever, but that's a choice she has yet to make.

Then there's the "center." There are a lot of political shoppers in the muddle who had been neglected in the last campaign. They flip from Left to Right if the candidate appears to represent their long-term best interest. McCain was no alternative... he was just more Bush. Those flexible elements of the "middle" and a huge chunk of the conservative and libertarian base stayed home. Should Palin run - or someone of her mold - we would see a repeat of the Reagan Democrat phenomenon.

Methinks the same phenomenon will play-out at the local level as well. We must get active and press like H^ll for conservative or libertarian candidates at the Federal and State levels.

Bob| 7.6.09 @ 2:28PM

Ran, your simplistic view of voters being on the left, right, or "squishy" middle is an example of sloppy thinking. Such a categorization requires one to accept that if someone does not have 100% of their views in concert with "yours", they are not conservatives. The fact is that categorization is much more complicated. In addition, an individual can have strong beliefs in all issues and yet have some that lean to the left the some to the right. There are many of us who are strong fiscal conservatives but are social libertarians and think that social conservatives should be divorced from the Republican party. These are not "mushy" views at all.

Therefore, the cognitive process by which we choose our candidates is done basis their alignment with our specific views. I have yet to find a national candidate on either side that fits entirely with my viewpoints -- but it is a rational and logical process based on reason -- not belief.

I doubt if you'd vote for a true Libertarian candidate who believed that gay marriage and abortion are the domain of individuals and should be left out of government. Am I right?

Angel| 7.6.09 @ 3:12PM

Yup, Bob, that's you--squishy, mushy and sloppy--and not a backbone to be found anywhere.

And, NO, you're never right.

Heather Robinson| 7.8.09 @ 6:04PM

While I understand the sense of outrage many conservatives feel at the undeniably abusive treatment Mrs. Palin, and her children, received from many members of the "progressive" media, I've got to hand it to Mr. Klein for delivering as objective an analysis as any I've read. While acknowledging the clear media bias against her, Mr. Klein has been able to step back enough to see that, while Mrs. Palin may be a valiant leader and a woman of high moral character, it may also be true that she was not ready to be VP or, if circumstances had warranted it, President. All moral judgments aside, her recent decision does not suggest she has the kind of single-minded, obsessive ambition and toughness--at least at this point in her life--she would need to get to the White House and govern effectively as leader of the free world. But that doesn't mean she's not tough, or smart. It would appear she simply prizes family, faith, and dare I say it -- her own quality of life. Is it possible that, in this age of media excess, such a decent, normal individual could not make it to the White House? One hates to be pessimistic, but...whatever she decides, Godspeed Sarah, and thanks for the objective and incisive analysis, Klein.