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.
