by publius
Via Sullivan, Fallows articulates part of what I was arguing here, although he does it better and more diplomatically. The upshot is that the interview shows that Palin has not followed — and thus probably has no interest in — the foreign policy debates over the past seven years. And I’m not talking about at a wonk level — she’s not even up to “regular newspaper reader” level. And she might be President in 2 months. Excerpts below the fold, but you should read the whole thing.
Fallows:
Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don’t. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we’re able to talk and think about it in a “rounded” way. . . . Mention a name or theme — Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong’s comeback, Venus and Serena — and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.
People who don’t like sports can’t do that. It’s not so much that they can’t identify the names — they’ve heard of Armstrong — but they’ve never bothered to follow the flow of debate.
. . .
What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the “Bush Doctrine” exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.
Watching journalists/pundit reaction this morning, what has become clear is that a pretty high percentage of them don’t actually understand the underlying issue here. They don’t understand the mistake that she made particularly because they don’t seem to understand what is so novel about the Bush Doctrine. Its fascinating as well as disturbing to realize the truly towering ignorance of the people who control our discourse.
publius,
you still gettin email? if so, please check…
Agreed.
And Fallows comment that Palin reproduced G W Bush’s toxic blend of ignorance, lack of curiosity, and “decisiveness” was also bang on the money.
Not that it matters. Sarah has moxie – much more valuable than judgement, if you want to get elected. As for governing, well, the Lord will provide…
They don’t understand the mistake that she made particularly because they don’t seem to understand what is so novel about the Bush Doctrine.
i’m so smart.
Fallows also points out this nice little turn by Joe Biden.
i’m so smart.
I have no doubt that you are pretty smart but your comment is about what the general viewing audience knows or doesn’t. What is interesting to me is that various journalists and pundits who are discussing this issue don’t seem to understand the issue here with any level of sophistication either. They think her answer was OK if not great because they aren’t quite clear on the distinctions between preventive and preemptive warfare. Perhaps they do know that there is some difference but they don’t have much of a sense of how big and important a difference it is. It is an abstraction to them. Not a matter of life and death.
I have no doubt that you are pretty smart…
indeed. it cannot be denied.
…but your comment is about what the general viewing audience knows or doesn’t. What is interesting to me is that various journalists and pundits who are discussing this issue don’t seem to understand the issue here with any level of sophistication either.
yeah. i guess i was assuming reporters would be smarter than that. some are, thankfully.
Also from Fallows, (FTW, I believe) a description of the triple threat Palin offers in common with GWB:
The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:
1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) “Decisiveness”
The way she stalled, tried to buy herself time, and then tried to trick Gibson into telling her what the Bush doctrine was was precious.
Can’t way to see her try that on Putin.
Seriously, if she can’t even handle a reporter, how’s she going to handle the leaders of rogue states?
Maybe we should ask the electorate to move to China until the election. Fallows view is clear in spite (or perhaps because) he’s outside the country, and not being inundated with all this crap.
The thought of Palin going head to head with Putin is really scary. He’d play her like a balalaika and she’d never even know it.
He’d play her like a balalaika and she’d never even know it.
Even A-zad would be able to play her. Kim Il-sung, on his deathbed, would be able to play her. Fransisco Franco, who is still dead, would be able to play her.
He’d play her like a balalaika and she’d never even know it.
The problem with incompetent people is that most of them don’t know they’re incompetent. A good number of them think they’re very competent.
Seriously, if she can’t even handle a reporter, how’s she going to handle the leaders of rogue states?
By refusing to talk to them until they’d already conceded everything she wanted, of course. Isn’t that the standard approach that the McCain campaign is proposing for dealing with rogue states?
I’m not getting the frenzy over Palin’s “linking Iraq and 9/11”. What she said seems like the standard Republican line that the U.S. military in Iraq is now fighting Al Qaida. There’s a lot of things to criticize about that description of what’s happening, but it doesn’t seem to be anything new. Am I missing something?
Palin’s Pathetic Interview with Charlie Gibson
by blue stockings | First, the pathetic:
I feel clever, coz I posted
the same point about Palin even before her interview. Fallows says it better, but I win.
If that durn link comes apart the way my last few did, I will feel markedly less clever.
But she would say that she had looked into his eyes and saw his soul.
But she would say that she had looked into his eyes and saw his soul.