The Litmus Test
Commentary by Aslan, 10.1.2008
Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric was ghastly.
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 air space of the United States of America, 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 our state.
People do not want their President (potentially) to say things like: "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go?" That is incoherent.
One of two things is then true: Sarah Palin is either not very bright (a la Dan Quayle) or she is ignorant. Conservatives are hoping – cross-your-fingers-with-your-eyes-shut-while-praying hoping – that it is the latter. Given her substantial accomplishments, that hope is not at all unreasonable.
Thursday’s debate answers this question.
It should be noted that ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing. Why would the governor of Alaska need to know about Uzbekistan? The most brilliant people in the world are ignorant about far more subjects than they are knowledgeable. The issue is not ignorance, but capacity.
Many reading these words have the capacity, if they dropped everything and were tutored by the sharpest state department types for a month, to become masters of foreign policy sufficient to impress a sober panel comprised of David Gergen, Henry Kissinger, and Charles Krauthammer. It quite simply is not that hard; she does not need deep knowledge, just a coherent grasp of the landscape. True, most of us would not have the ability to perform under the kind of pressure Sarah Palin will see in the Vice Presidential debate, but since she has already demonstrated the ability to handle pressure (at the Republican National Convention), Thursday can accurately be regarded as a litmus test on her brainpower.
Very simply, if Sarah Palin is a smart woman – a gifted woman – she will be transformed on Thursday and show mastery of the kind of detail that eluded her with Couric and caused her answers to be a jumbled mess (very likely caused by overcoaching). She has had the necessary time to cram for this test, and, if she gets an A, then the quiz or two she flunked mid-semester will be forgotten, and the McCain-Palin ticket will surge.
If Sarah Palin remains incoherent, she will be revealed to be a honest, populist leader who has succeeded because of her simplistic, purist view of the role of government, and the Republican ticket will flounder. There is a compelling argument that can be made that such purity is exactly what the overly-complex and nuanced world of Washington needs, but that argument will be an academic one that President Obama will laugh about over a glass of wine with his new Treasury Secretary, Christopher Dodd.
Copyright © 2008 Dan Hallagan. All Rights Reserved.