Sarah Palin is toast.
Or, at least that is how a lot of conservatives are feeling (myself included) after Palin’s disastrous interviews with ABC’s Charlie Gibson and CBS’s Katie Couric.
Blogger Alan Stewart Carl thinks those die-hard Palin supporters are throwing out accusations of “gotcha” journalism and questioning Gwen Ifill’s integrity (Ifil is the moderator of tonight’s veep debate), to hide the fact that their VP candidate is so craptastic.
On more than one occasion, I’ve wondered if McCain should just dump Palin and try another person, but the fact is, it is too late for that now anyway.
Joe Carter, an editor for the conservative web magazine Culture 11 (think a center-right version of Slate) wrote a persuasive article on how people’s reasoning on Palin might be shortsighted and a victim of our telegenic age.
He starts by sharing the story of Vice Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot’s running mate in 1992. People remember the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate where Stockdale came off as a blathering old idiot. Carter notes:
The late Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale was one of the most highly decorated officers in the history of the United States Navy. In Vietnam, he earned the Medal of Honor and four Silver Stars because of his actions as a prisoner of war. As an instructor in test pilot school, Stockdale taught math and physics to John Glenn; as a fellow at Stanford University he taught philosophy to grad students. Later in life he would serve as the president of The Citadel and the Navy War College. He was one of the most accomplished men in modern military history…
After being chosen to be Ross Perot’s running mate, Stockdale appeared during a vice presidential debate and, because of faulty hearing due to his war injuries, came across as elderly and confused. The media mocked him mercilessly. Late night talk show hosts made fun of him. SNL trashed him in an infamous skit. Comedian Dennis Miller noted, in a pique of defensive fury, that Stockdale “committed the one unpardonable sin in our culture: he was bad on television.”
Being “bad on television” becomes the basis of Carter’s debate (which is a counter-argument to an article by Conor Friedersdorf, also of Culture 11). Carter believes that many conservatives (and in my view, many independents and liberals) are basing their assessment of Palin solely on her television appearances and not being able to make clear and concise policy statements.
But Conor believes that character carries more weight than wonkishness. He says:
…for most conservatives, “policy” is not a mere abstraction in utero eugenics of the lebensunwerten Lebens is sound policy. Whether Palin could make the opposite case as smoothly remains to be seen. She has, however, revealed she has the character to make the right decision on such issues, even at great personal cost. This, in my view, is the core of leadership and the primary reason she is more qualified to be the chief executive than anyone on the Democratic ticket.
Those of us who stand behind Palin do so not because we prefer moose burgers to arugula but because we believe she is a person of integrity, a woman with the moral fortitude to put her beliefs into action, and a leader who recognizes that adhering to conservative principles is more important that the ability to read policy points off a teleprompter.
I think Carter is trying to say something that I have tended to play down in the past: character matters.
The fact is, Americans don’t simply vote for someone based on their positions on say, the Russo-Georgian conflict. They don’t vote for someone because they read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. We vote for someone based on their character, not solely, mind you, but we do place importance on it.
Someone can know about the “Bush Doctrine” or name a Supreme Court decision they disliked and not necessarily have the fortitude to be president.
Stories matter to Americans as much or even more than positions are certain issues. It’s why John McCain tells his story about being tortured for five years, or why Obama tells us about being a “skinny kid with a funny name.” It’s why Bill Clinton, even though he was an uber-policy wonk, spoke more about being from “a place called Hope,” than he did about his positions on health care reform. We Americans want to know as much about the interior life of a person as we do about issues.
The fact is, you can “know” all about certain issues and still not have good character. You could know about the current economic situation and still not be a good leader. Leadership isn’t simply about head knowledge; there is something mythic about American leaders and someone can have that and not be a walking encyclopedia.
I don’t know if Palin was the wisest choice, but I do think we should look more deeply into how good a leader she could be instead of worrying about if she has any experience in foreign policy. That’s what I will be looking at tonight, not simply answers on policy.
Crossposted at the Square Deal.