Just two short weeks ago Sarah Palin was the darling of media and public alike. Commentators gushed about her common man appeal, right-wingers fainted over her abortion and gay marriage positions (not to mention her looks), and pollsters reported a meteoric rise for the McCain-Palin ticket. And the Democrats were confused, unsure whether to attack Palin on lack of experience (and risk highlighting Obama’s own short resume) or extremism (and risk alienating religious voters) or to just ignore her and focus on McCain (but miss the opportunity to attack a vulnerable candidate).
Fortunately for all of us, Palin’s resume (or pitiful lacks thereof) speaks for itself. Check out Palin’s one-on-one with Katie Couric from earlier this week:
The Palin “bounce”, once celebrated by the Republicans, has fallen back to earth. But the fall may not stop at the pre-Palin status quo of a slight Obama lead. Instead, Palin now threatens to drag down McCain even further than before. Consider a September 26 opinion from Kathleen Parker, a nationally syndicated conservative columnist, who decries the “Palin problem”, which could be roughly defined as an inability to say anything intelligent about any of the serious problems facing our nation.
To be honest, it was only a matter of time before conservatives soured on Palin. She’s totally out of her element, particularly in foreign and economic policy, and there’s nothing that conservatives hate more than a risky neophyte (consider their dislike for Obama). But Obama’s now surging in the polls, and at least in part because Sarah Palin’s been exposed.
Once upon a time, when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson served our country, the presidency was a profession. That is to say, it demanded a technical skill set. The well educated, those well versed in diplomacy and negotiation and finance and French (among other things), governed the country. Certainly there were speeches and campaigns and the like, but they were only sideshows to the true business of governance, which happened behind closed doors.
Today things are different–the presidency has been fully politicized. In a constant media spotlight, with every move recorded and analyzed and played for jokes on late night television or YouTube, a president has precious little room to maneuver. Heaven forbid he should cut spending or scrap wasteful projects, as any smart business executive would. No, the contemporary president must carefully cultivate a persona that appeals to his constituents, lest the polls head south and his fair-weather allies abandon him.
This has turned the presidency into a grand theatrical show. The president himself must constantly attend to one constituent or another, speaking about parental responsibility one day and eating deep-fried something at the Iowa state fair the next. This is how coalitions are built in American politics–through smoke and mirrors and inspiring speeches.
Of course this theatrical business has a skill set of its own; successful presidents must be good actors. This is why we can’t drag just any well-meaning bureaucrat away from his post and install him in the Oval Office. The presidency requires more than a good heart and less than a knowledge of econometrics.
In a sense, this is why we have campaigns for president. In building coalitions, attacking one’s opponent, negotiating with one’s allies, and managing an organization at the national level, a candidate can demonstrate political skills. That’s not to marginalize past experience, but only to suggest that the job that most closely resembles being president is being a successful candidate for it.
In this current election, which pits Barack Obama against John McCain, we should question the claim that Barack Obama’s resume is too short or that John McCain lacks executive experience. The idea that an extra six or twelve years in the Senate should change our opinion of Obama, or that McCain might gain something from governing a state (like Alaska, for example) is ludicrous. The truth is that after two years in the national spotlight, after countless debates and speeches and state fairs and (un)warranted criticism, Obama and McCain have amply demonstrated their ability to thrive in a presidential role.
Of course that doesn’t mean either will make a good president. It just means that experience is not a good reason to disqualify either of them. Certainly we may judge McCain’s experience to be superior and vice versa, but only in joint consideration of other qualities like character and policy preference can we render a final judgment.
One candidate for national office who might merit disqualification, however, is Sarah Palin. I’ve already written extensively to criticize this running mate pick, but I will do so again. Palin will only have occupied the national spotlight for two months before the election. Many have justified her candidacy on the basis of her executive experience in Alaskan politics, but (to use an analogy) that’s like the Yankees calling someone up from the minors because he pitched a nice fastball in the Little League World Series…last week. The Major Leagues, however, have a tendency to break promising young pitchers, just as the national spotlight tends to destroy lesser candidates. With Palin we may only find out too late that’s she’s not ready for job.
But with McCain and Obama let’s get over the petty part of the experience debate. Maybe John McCain isn’t keen on economics and perhaps Barack Obama isn’t a foreign policy expert, but we shouldn’t hold it against them in terms of experience. They have advisers for that. You don’t need to be a professional technocrat to be president.
With the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate there was a short-lived feeling among Democrats that Palin was vulnerable on her lack of experience. Sensing an opportunity, Obama spokesman Bill Burton quickly released a statement mocking Palin’s short resume. He noted that only two years ago, before her current tenure as Alaska’s governor, Palin’s biggest political credential was being mayor of an Alaskan town of 8,500 people called Wasilla. But the statement was soon retracted. The reason, no doubt, was fear of falling into McCain’s so-called “brilliant trap”. This trap, by inducing the Obama campaign to criticize Palin for her lack of experience, would highlight Obama’s own limited experience. It would also draw him into a shouting match with the bottom half of the Republican ticket, not the most flattering role for the Democratic standard-bearer.
At risk of falling into this trap ourselves, let’s give some thought to the experience question. How does experience qualify one for the presidency? What are the most important experiences? Does Palin have them? Does Obama have them?
To start, not all experiences are created equal. Certainly being the governor of California is a more impressive experience than being the governor of Alaska. California, after all, has more than thirty-six million citizens while Alaska has only 683,000. But let’s not stop there. Would it be reasonable to say that the mayors of Austin, TX, Columbus, OH, and Jacksonville, FL have equally impressive resumes as Sarah Palin? Probably, since Austin, Columbus, and Jacksonville each have larger populations than the entire state of Alaska. But no one’s called John Peyton, Michael Coleman, or Will Wynn to tell them they were on the short list for a VP nomination. And for good reason: they’re not particularly qualified. Of course that’s only to say that Sarah Palin’s meager resume is no qualification for the vice presidency of the United States. Although one Fox News analyst believes that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives Palin some sort of foreign policy expertise. Huh?
But what about Barack Obama’s supposed lack of experience? Can Bill Burton still criticize Palin’s resume and avoid hypocrisy in supporting Obama?
The answer is yes, Palin can (and should) be criticized for her lack of experience, even by Obama supporters. This is because Barack Obama does have the experience to be president. Put aside, for a moment, his eight years as an Illinois Senator and four years as a US Senator. These qualifications are already impressive, but I agree with critics who worry that twelve years of legislative experience are not enough. Fortunately Obama has another qualification on his resume: Nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States of America. In a campaign that lasted for twenty months, spanned all fifty states, Puerto Rico, and Guam, witnessed twenty-six debates, and faced relentless 24/7 media coverage, Obama came out ahead. His personal management of the campaign is testament to his outstanding leadership ability. Even when Obama trailed both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the polls, and Clinton appeared to be the inevitable nominee, Obama never gave up. Instead, his record-breaking fundraising in early 2008 set the stage for his shocking upset of Clinton, concluding with his nomination at the DNC last week.
Obama’s experience running his national campaign is the right kind of experience to qualify him for the presidency. This is most true today, in a media driven age, when the presidency is more about management and judgment than it is about technical expertise. Obama has demonstrated both qualities; we know this because otherwise he wouldn’t be the nominee. Sarah Palin, however, has demonstrated neither quality. Yes, she has been successful in Alaska, but the stakes in Alaska are about as high as they are in, well, Jacksonville, FL. When it comes to the national stage she’s untested and grossly under-qualified.
Obama supporters fear not, you can criticize Palin’s inexperience and not worry about undercutting Obama. He’s plenty experienced and the voters agree.
UPDATE 8/31:
Now Cindy McCain’s claiming that Palin has “national security” experience because Alaska is close to Russia. Also check out Michael Kinsley’s analysis of Republican hypocrisy and John Podhoretz’s feeble defense of Palin’s candidacy (which proves Kinsley’s point).
Let’s get the superficial differences out of the way first. One of our vice-presidential candidates is a man and one is a woman. One’s from the continental US and one’s from northwest of Canada (that being Alaska). One is old and one is young. One’s never been in a beauty pageant and one’s a former beauty queen.
Now for the real differences. One’s political resume reads US Senator 1972-2008 and one’s reads Mayor of Wasilla, AK (pop. 8,500) 1996-2006. One knows national prominence on the basis of 35 years in the US Senate and extended chairmanships of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (1987-1995) and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (current). The other one knows national prominence on the basis of veep speculation during her two years (2006-2008) as Governor of Alaska. One has weathered critical coverage from the national media his whole career while one’s never been covered by the national media, until today.
One, of course, is Democrat VP nominee Joe Biden. The other is the surprise Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin.
The question now facing voters, in addition to the choice between Barack Obama and John McCain, is the choice between potential Commander-in-Chiefs should the unthinkable happen to our newly elected president. Could we trust Joe Biden and his 35 years of national experience? Absolutely. Could we trust Sarah Palin and her two year governorship of Alaska plus ten year stint as mayor of a town of 8,500? I don’t think so.
Plus we only have two short months to examine her candidacy. That is simply not enough time to vet a candidate for this nation’s second highest office. With Joe Biden, on the other hand, we’ve had 35 years to find faults (and we’ve certainly found some).
The presumptive nomination of Sarah Palin should also cast substantial doubt on John McCain’s judgment. Whereas Obama picked a running mate with strong credentials and experience, McCain picked a running mate with none whatsoever. Indeed, the Palin pick looks like a cynical ploy to win over disgruntled Hillary voters. This is not to suggest, of course, that they will be won over so easily. Surely anyone should recognize the deficiencies of a Palin vice-presidency or, heaven forbid, a Palin presidency.
Finally, this is not the same debate as Obama’s change vs. McCain’s experience. Obama was a raw and unknown candidate when he began his campaign over a year and a half ago, no doubt. But the intervening time has given us a chance to question, scrutinize, and debate Senator Obama. He has weathered the national stage like a veteran. But Palin, only a heartbeat away from the presidency, has faced no such scrutiny. Again, two months and one vice-presidential debate is just not enough exposure to know Palin’s presidential mettle (or lack thereof). John McCain has made a risky, foolish, and cynical decision which deserves our condemnation.
