I'm sorry if this has been posted before...interesting article from the editor of Newsweek that is worth reading. I do not always agree with John Meacham, and there are many parts of the article linked below that I do not agree with (for instance, he thinks that McCain would make a fine president, which I disagree with. But he does not seem partisan when he makes that assertion, and he noted in the article that he thinks Obama would also make a fine president, as would Biden if he needed to be). But Meacham is not able to say the same of Palin, and he makes some really good points in the article about Palin's "populism" (similar to the ones that Peggy Noonan has made, but in a more eloquent way). The most disturbing thing about Palin is her celebration of mediocrity, rather than aspirations to rise above it. Lack of intellectual curiosity may be an apt description of the "everyday man", but it is not befitting a leader, and one can UNDERSTAND the every day man without being "one of them". Meacham even says in his Editor's desk article that it is fair to say that Palin "won the debate" (which I also disagree with) by not imploding, but he moves on to say that her populist positioning is "risky for us" , and almost "surely makes for poor governance. I am not writing from a knee jerk Liberal perspective. I disliked much of the MSM's reaction to Palin. I admire John McCain, respect him, and have little doubt that he would make a fine president (As I have little doubt that Obama and Biden would also do the job with skill and grace). But the vice presidency of the United States in any age, especially in the age of terror, should not be a slot for the proudly mediocre."
The Palin Problem ...She's One Of the Folks (and that's the Problem)
Yes, she won the debate by not imploding. But governing requires knowledge, and mindless populism is just that- mindless.
by John Meacham.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162396Palin is on the ticket because she connects with everyday Americans. It is not shocking to learn that politics played a big role in the making of a presidential team (ticket-balancing to attract different constituencies has been with us at least since Andrew Jackson ran with John C. Calhoun, a man he later said he would like to kill). But that honest explanation of the rationale for her candidacy—not her preparedness for office, but her personality and nascent maverickism in Alaska—raises an important question, not only about this election but about democratic leadership. Do we want leaders who are everyday folks, or do we want leaders who understand everyday folks? Therein lies an enormous difference, one that could decide the presidential election and, if McCain and Palin were to win, shape the governance of the nation.
snip
A key argument for Palin, in essence, is this: Washington and Wall Street are serving their own interests rather than those of the broad whole of the country, and the moment requires a vice president who will, Cincinnatus-like, help a new president come to the rescue. The problem with the argument is that Cincinnatus knew things. Palin sometimes seems an odd combination of Chauncey Gardiner from "Being There" and Marge from "Fargo." Is this an elitist point of view? Perhaps, though it seems only reasonable and patriotic to hold candidates for high office to high standards. Elitism in this sense is not about educational or class credentials, not about where you went to school or whether you use "summer" as a verb. It is, rather, about the pursuit of excellence no matter where you started out in life. Jackson, Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton were born to ordinary families, but they spent their lives doing extraordinary things, demonstrating an interest in, and a curiosity about, the world around them. This is much less evident in Palin's case.
snip
We have been here before. In 1970 a Nebraska senator, Roman L. Hruska, was defending Richard Nixon's nomination of U.S. circuit Judge G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. An underwhelming figure, Carswell was facing criticism that he was too "mediocre" for elevation. Hruska tried an interesting counterargument: "Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos." Fair enough, but it still seems sensible to aspire to surpass mediocrity rather than embrace it.
snip
Sitting with her for part of the Couric interview, McCain implicitly compared Palin to Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, saying that they, too, had been caricatured and dismissed by mainstream voices. The linkages are untenable. For all of his manifold sins, Clinton was a longtime governor, and George H.W. Bush's attacks on his qualifications failed for a reason: people may not have respected Clinton's character, but they did not doubt the quality of his mind. A successful two-term governor of California, Reagan had spent decades immersed in politics (of both the left and the right) before running for president. He did like to call himself a citizen-politician, and Lord knows he had an occasionally ambiguous relationship with facts, but he was a serious man who had spent a great deal of time thinking about the central issues of the age. To put it kindly, Palin, however promising a governor she is, has not done similar work.
I could be wrong. Perhaps Sarah Palin will somehow emerge from the hurly-burly of history as a transformative figure who was underestimated in her time by journalists who could not see, or refused to acknowledge, her virtues. But do I think I am right in saying that Palin's populist view of high office—hey, Vice President Six-Pack, what should we do about Pakistan?—is dangerous? You betcha.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
