Can Sarah Palin make a political comeback? The question itself turns political prognosticators into Calvinists. Of course not. It's predestined. She's way too...unpopular? Well, she's not unpopular. She's way too...polarizing... (Who isn't?) A lot of these folks know she can't be president because they don't want her to be president. The truth is that no one knows when this conservative populist energy attenuates; we don't know who creates the structures to harness and exploit it. We don't know what happens if Mike Huckabee decides not to run -- we assume he will, but we don't know.
President Sarah Palin. That's an ankle-snapping stretch. But to be the GOP nominee? That's merely a strain. I think she can make a comeback. From where she comes back, I'm not sure. The truth is that Palin's threshold problem is sobriety. Americans don't think she's experienced enough to be president. Palin has displayed no evidence that she accepts this judgment. A few Randy Scheunemann epistles on her Facebook page do not convey experience. A mid-summer's dalliance with Death Panels made her look foolish, or worse. The key to a comeback is to change something about yourself, and Sarah Palin is making it too easy for us because nothing seems to need changing. If populism fuses with cultural conservatism, Palin can probably win a Republican nomination, or -- because the rules of the GOP nomination process still favor the establishment -- a spot on a third party ticket.
She's still the Panglossian archangel of the anti-intellectual strain in conservatism? She blows off evolution and asserts that humans can eat meat because animals are made of meat. Evolution might reply that if Sarah Palin didn't exist, God would have had to invent her. The conviction that she's the talisman for a vital center in American politics? Check. The ability to capture the patronizing -- and yet pornographically attentive -- focus of the establishment media? Check. The preternatural skill at making the other side feel good about making the other other side feel bad? All there.
Somehow, Palin is supposed to represent a revanchist populism that has its lineages in Andrew Jackson and William Jennings Bryant. Why? Because she angers the media elites. She's from Alaska. She's... Well, that's really the case. That's all there is. Put aside for the moment that Jacksonian Democracy preceded Jackson and was grounded in a technological revolution, rather than a sense of anger at banking or financial elites. Palin's resume is thin. What distinguishes her from other Alaskan politicians is not that she worked to get the state off the dole, but that she relied on the dole a little bit less. She was a pragmatist, not a conservative. Her sole claim to the Bryant-Jackson mantle is that she can ape the talking points of modern movement conservatives and do so with a twang that annoys liberals. Her hagiographer, Matthew Continetti, writes that she has not "tied her pointed criticisms of the Obama agenda and the liberal media to a larger argument about how ordinary people with common sense can rescue the American economy and revitalize American democracy. Palin has Jacksonian instincts, but she still hasn't forged her own political persuasion."
That's curious. Her "pointed criticisms" of the Obama administration aren't revolutionary. They usually begin with an out of context quote from Ronald Reagan and end with a clever allusion to the faith she has in the American people to do what's right. The reason why there is no larger argument is because no larger argument exists. Sarah Palin is as much a personal vessel as Barack Obama. Her appeal, as Continetti must recognize, is much more limited than this, even though, to him, it is quite considerable. There is absolutely no evidence that the American people are looking for a candidate whose principle attribute is her willingness to pretend to know less than she really knows.
It's limited because -- and this ain't the media's fault -- the American people don't generally think Palin belongs on stage with other presidential candidates. If that's the truth -- and that is what the polls show -- then it would behoove Palin to address that concern. The Palin Populist Persuasion is self-limiting, since it praises "common sense" over problem-solving, which necessarily requires a will to suspend common sense when it doesn't work. (Common sense, in this recession, would dictate a massive additional stimulus from the government. But that's not going to happen, for reasons of pragmatism and politics.)
For Sarah Palin to come back from somewhere, she needs to set a goal. To start with, she might immerse herself in a single issue for a few years, become an expert, and then use it to launch a broader conversation about what America ought to look like. Her policy statements to date have been, and don't believe me, just ask any smart Republican you know, treacly at best. If Palin gets smarter and more serious, if she embraces reality, then she can probably change the perception that many Americans have of her. Palin can be formidable and a real player in American politics, if she wants to. But she has so far expressed no doubt that her 2008 persona is the right persona for the future. No self-doubt. No awareness of her own humanity and imperfections. That's common sense?
That's curious. Her "pointed criticisms" of the Obama administration aren't revolutionary. They usually begin with an out of context quote from Ronald Reagan and end with a clever allusion to the faith she has in the American people to do what's right. The reason why there is no larger argument is because no larger argument exists. Sarah Palin is as much a personal vessel as Barack Obama. Her appeal, as Continetti must recognize, is much more limited than this, even though, to him, it is quite considerable. There is absolutely no evidence that the American people are looking for a candidate whose principle attribute is her willingness to pretend to know less than she really knows.
It's limited because -- and this ain't the media's fault -- the American people don't generally think Palin belongs on stage with other presidential candidates. If that's the truth -- and that is what the polls show -- then it would behoove Palin to address that concern. The Palin Populist Persuasion is self-limiting, since it praises "common sense" over problem-solving, which necessarily requires a will to suspend common sense when it doesn't work. (Common sense, in this recession, would dictate a massive additional stimulus from the government. But that's not going to happen, for reasons of pragmatism and politics.)
For Sarah Palin to come back from somewhere, she needs to set a goal. To start with, she might immerse herself in a single issue for a few years, become an expert, and then use it to launch a broader conversation about what America ought to look like. Her policy statements to date have been, and don't believe me, just ask any smart Republican you know, treacly at best. If Palin gets smarter and more serious, if she embraces reality, then she can probably change the perception that many Americans have of her. Palin can be formidable and a real player in American politics, if she wants to. But she has so far expressed no doubt that her 2008 persona is the right persona for the future. No self-doubt. No awareness of her own humanity and imperfections. That's common sense?
Can you define what you mean by popularity?
According to this: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/16/2009-11-16_going_rogue_try_going_south__poll_shows_sarah_palins_not_as_popular_as_her_book.html
Sarah Palin is, indeed, somewhat unpopular. When more than half of the population doesn't like you.. that would seem to be a fair way of describing someone as unpopular.
I agree that there is a path back to national credibility for palin, though I increasingly think she's incapable or uninterested in taking it.
I have a hard time looking down at her as so many do however, because:
1. She has every right to do what she's doing.
2. She seems to be having a blast
Her foaming-at-the-mouth detractors (hi Andrew!) only make themselves look foolish.
No sane person could possibly believe this is true. There was definitely a time when I thought Sully had finally lost it on this Palin issue. But now? Every lie she tells, every time she gets down in the dirt wrassling with Levi Johnston just makes Sully look like a prophet.
Yep.
And his point, that she is THE representative of a certain pathetic strain of contemporary right wing populism, is about right. She's not worth taking down because she's important or interesting in and of herself, but because she's the perfect distillation of everything that's wrong with the contemporary GOP base.
And she's popular as HELL among those people. So laying out a careful case that she is dishonest and unseriousness is worth doing. It's odd, to see someone as smart as AS spending so much time attacking a lightweight like Palin, but people who want American conservatism to reform itself could do worse things with their time.
As an Obama supporter, I can't think of anything better than to see Palin be the GOP candidate in 2012. It'd be a cakewalk, and letting the party see how marginal Palin conservatism really is outside of the deep South might finally wake them up. Let 'em have it their way. There's nothing to be scared of.
Palin's path to national credibility is the same that it has always been: do exactly the opposite that she has been doing.
"For Sarah Palin to come back from somewhere, she needs to set a goal."
One truthful statement would be a good place to start.
Sorry, but this strikes me as a Phillip Space posting. For one thing, it's William Jennings Bryan (and William Cullen Bryant). If you don't know the name of the only man to lose the presidency three times, maybe it's you who need to take time off.
Did you mean William Jennings *Bryan* (not Bryant)?
If only Dr. Lightman from CBS's Lie to Me could check her out!If Palin's popularity is 25%, and enthusiastic, that can turn into 35% because of "turnout", especially if the opposition is divided and damaged. That's why, given the peculiarities of our Electoral College, a candidate of regional appeal (FL up through MI, and through the mid to mountain states) in a three-way race could WIN the presidency while placing 3rd in the national popular vote. She has apparently figured this out. Why can't the so-called MSM?
Sarah Palin quit before the end of her term of office as the Governor of the state of Alaska. How can she ever be taken seriously as a candidate for the most demanding political office in the world?
A run on the third party Alaska secessionist ticket would be different, I'll say that.
I completely agree with Marc and a few upstream posters about the complete lack of self-reflection. She isn't drilling down to become an expert on anything: she already knows how she feels about stuff, and what more would she need to know?
But she has so far expressed no doubt that her 2008 persona is the right persona for the future. No self-doubt. No awareness of her own humanity and imperfections. That's common sense?
Not common sense - Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Palin's a textbook example.
I credit Couric with saving the country from a disaster (the economy tanking didn't hurt) by exposing this empty dress for what she is. She is not only vacant but complacent about it. We couldn't survive four years of her and I only hope that the rest of the country with triple-digit IQ scores realize that.
Barrack Hussein Obama proves that anyone can become president. No matter how inexperienced and radical you may be, or how much person baggage you bring. Of course it helps if the media falls in love and refuses to vet the candidate.
It's really not necessary to overthink anything Palin - we all tend to make the obvious far more complicated than it really is. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, she 'doesn't know what she doesn't know.' Absolutely no self-awareness and therefore, no need to change anything. As long as she finds adoration wherever she goes, Palin will continue to reaffirm herself and her motives...with her children in tow to kow-tow to Mommy. Reality smacking her up side of the head will come as a complete surprise....
SheilaMarie is absolutely right. It's a mistake to overinterpret anything about Palin.
She is a political lightweight with no sense of how unpopular she is with a clear majority of people. She has a small fervent base of fans who will earn her a 61-39 defeat against Obama.
The notion of whether she "can," in the abstract, make a "comeback" is nonsensical without Palin showing some sign of TRYING to pivot or recalibrate or rebrand in some way, shape, or form. But she shows no sign of ever acknowledging mistakes, big or small, or learning from them (which of course requires first acknowledging them). And big mistakes are what define her political behavior, and that's putting it very gently. She's never going to make any kind of comeback because she's never going to change. And if she's the Republican nominee, 2012 will be anti-Republican bloodbath from Palin down to all the county and local races and everything in between.
Um...this is exactly what Obama is criticized for. Except his supporters think it is entirely justified.
Time for a Palin palate-cleanser, don'tcha think? Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx4kXgF88wQ.
Cheers!
Marc,
Palin can easily chart a reasonable path to the WH. Much easier than the path you've detailed here:
Skip 2012. Run for congress in 2010. When the guy who took Ted Stevens's seat comes up for election, take it from him. Run for President from Washington D.C.
The people who hate her, are not going to change their minds if she gets a PhD in Political Science. The ones who trivialize her or say she's "dangerous" (some at the same time) are deluding themselves. Probably deliberately. They disagree with her stances on issues and find her total package way too appealing. So I guess she is "dangerous" to them in a way.
If one could buy whatever it is she has, Romney would have bought it all, Obama would have a czar overseeing it, and McCain would have sponsored a bill limiting its use within 30 days of a campaign.
Don Young, Alaska's sole U.S. representative, is a Republican but he and Palin are not friendly. Palin could primary him, and might win. But I can't imagine she'd be happy for four years in the House until Begich comes up for election. And there's no evidence that Palin is planning a primary run in 2010. Indeed, that primary is only months away, and she'd have to pack in her book tour to jump in. That's probably not going to happen.
Even if she won, Palin would be a backbencher in (probably) a minority party, unless she somehow takes a leading role in a big 2010 Republican congressional insurgency. But it's hard to see how she might come to be viewed that way, since she wouldn't be flipping a seat, only wresting it away from another Republican.
Bottom line: big, big mistake for her to resign the governorship, if power is what she seeks and not merely fame and money.
1. Do you really believe this shit that you say here?
2. If you do, and let's say it's true, does that make you happy or sad for the future of this republic?
Marc,
Why in the world do you refer to Sarah Palin as a "conservative?" She is anything but-- she represents an unhinged, radical form of raw nativist sentiment that has nothing to do with the traditional definition of conservatism.
Oh, Marc Ambinder.
Don't you know that all Sarah wants is a title and/or the moolah? That's why she couldn't care less about gettin' all "serious." Why should she?
She'll cheerily split the Repubs if she can head up a "Sarah's Values" 3rd party and/or she'll happily bow out to "spend more time with her family" if the Repub establishment pays her to get the heck outta there.
Also.