Sarah Palin gave an energizing speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008. She said a fair number of things that struck a nerve, and said it with gusto and verve.
The ability to give an electrifying speech can catapult a political career (Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin) but is certainly not necessary for one (George Washington, George W. Bush).
What really matters in picking a leader is their willingness to act with integrity, their ability to reach good judgments, and their ability to be effective in office. To her credit Sarah Palin appears to have blown the whistle on corruption in her own party in Alaska. That doesn’t mean she automatically acts with integrity, but it is a good sign. But on the topic of reaching good judgments and the ability to be effective in office, Sarah Palin has of late made some startling statements.
Palin on why her experience as Governor of Alaska matters for foreign affairs:
COURIC: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don’t know, you know … reporters.
COURIC: Mocked?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.
COURIC: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…
COURIC: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state.
Palin on Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s plan to get Wall Street functioning again:
COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it’s got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.
Contrast Palin’s understanding of the Paulson plan to Warren Buffett’s description of the importance of the Paulson plan. The difference between the world’s best investor’s understanding of the plan and Sarah Palin’s understanding is unfortunately quite massive.
Palin also is apparently completely unaware of the Bush Doctrine, something anyone knowledgeable about American foreign policy should know (see wikipedia article). She is informed of the definition by the journalist interviewing her:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
Palin struggles to name a Supreme Court case other than Rowe v. Wade:
COURIC: What other Supreme Court decisions [than Rowe v. Wade] do you disagree with?
PALIN: Well let’s see… (sigh) Of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that uh… there’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues like Roe v. Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there … Going through the history of America there would be others…
COURIC: Can you think of any?
PALIN: Well I would think of, of any again that could be best held on a local level, that maybe I’d take issue with. But uh, as a mayor and as a governor and as a vice president, if I am so privileged to serve, I’d be in the position of changing those things, but supporting the law of the land as it reads today…
I have a great deal of respect for both John McCain (see my citing David Brook’s profile of him) and Barack Obama (see my citing a profile of him, my praise of his support of a law making government contracts searchable, my review of Audacity of Hope, my description of his potential use of Internet technology as President, and my criticism of his critique of Wal-Mart). I think both candidates are greatly concerned with the future of America, both appear to me to have made mistakes but learned a great deal from their errors, both seem effective as leaders, and there are aspects of each candidate’s judgments on policy matters which I prefer to the other.
But I can’t help but agree with the increasing criticism of John McCain for choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech that Made Abraham Lincoln President, by Harold Holzer.
The Way to Win (see my prior book review) confirmed that despite the criticism presidential campaigns get for concentrating too little on substantive ideas, it is critical for a candidate, particularly an unknown candidate, to put forward a powerful message on the electorate’s most pressing problem.
Lincoln at Cooper Union makes clear that Lincoln’s eventual election to the Presidency owed a great deal to a speech he gave that tackled the central problem of the electorate.
The foremost issue of the day was whether slavery should be allowed to expand to the territories. Democrats held it to be fine and proper. Abolitionists held it to be an abhorrent evil and felt it should be stamped out everywhere. Republicans, a newly formed party, agreed it should be limited from spreading further, but contained both abolitionists and those who sought merely to limit slavery from spreading. The Democrats painted the Republicans (“Black Republicans”, as the Democrats called them) as an outlandish and fringe group, who would support the rights of blacks over whites.
Although somewhat renowned for his debates during his campaign for Illinois senator (against Stephen Douglas, who lost the popular vote to Lincoln but won the office), Lincoln was still a relatively unknown lawyer from the backwater state of Illinois (in what was then considered the West) until he gave the speech that electrified the audience at Cooper Union in New York city, energized the 5 year old Republican party, and seized the attention of the country.
In 1860, it was considered unseemly for candidates to actively campaign any time near election day, so his speech at Cooper Union was particularly powerful because it was published across the country by newspapers and its themes were picked up by others campaigning on his behalf. Why was the speech so powerful? It addressed the central issue of the day in a new and persuasive way.
Lincoln’s famous rival, Democrat and Senator Stephen Douglas, had argued that as America expanded westward each new territory should choose for itself whether it be slave or free, a doctrine called popular sovereignty. This argument actually splintered the Democrats, many of whom felt Douglas did not go far enough in defending slavery. As part of his defense of the idea of letting each territory decide for itself whether to be slave or free, Douglas argued that this is what the founders had intended, and they knew best.Lincoln’s speech at Cooper Union flipped this statement by Douglas on its head.
Lincoln’s speech, backed up by Lincoln’s own thorough research, stated that the vast majority of the founding fathers were in favor of containing and eventually eliminating slavery. Rather than the Republican party being an outlandish and radical group, Lincoln aligned the Republican party with the conservative will of the founding fathers, the core of America’s secular faith. Lincoln’s thorough examination of what the founders had intended impressed many with him personally, and energized the Republican party faithful.
Lincoln carefully avoided a strong abolitionist stance, arguing that although slavery is wrong it is also improper to abolish it immediately as that would cause strife, which made him a far more acceptable a candidate than a pure abolitionist would have been.
Although in a prior speech Lincoln had suggested a civil war was inevitable, that a “house divided must soon fall”, in his Cooper Union speech he argued that the country could be held together if the founder’s intent was followed, and even the South should recognize this and avoid war.
He famously concluded that “right makes might”, that the new Republican party must stand by its principles and its duty on this important issue. The speech was perfectly targeted for its time, thrusting Lincoln onto the path of history.
In our current political environment it will be intriguing to see if any of the candidates can similarly address the issues most Americans care about. Foremost among those may be the war in Iraq, and particularly what our role as a nation should be in foreign affairs.
It is interesting to see that the two most prominent candidates who are for withdrawal in Iraq, Barack Obama (a Democrat with a sophisticated speaking style and a strong respect for Abraham Lincoln) and Ron Paul (a libertarian Republican) have somewhat opposing views on the value of foreign entanglements, with the Republican being in favor of them to an even lesser extent than the Democrat.