In the current New Republic, Sam Tanenhaus offers a long analysis of the state of conservatism under the provocative heading: “Conservatism Is Dead” – minus the customary editorial precaution of a protective question mark.
There are two obvious rebuttals to Tanenhaus’ claim.
The first is that the social and cultural basis of American conservatism remains very much alive and active. Conservatives may have lost their majority, but that is not the same thing as disappearing outright.
The second is that conservative ideas continue to be relevant – and will soon re-emerge more relevant than ever. The current US administration and congressional majority seem determined to forget every economic lesson learned in the years since 1966. They are rapidly expanding social spending in the name of “stimulus.” They are redirecting investment from high productivity to low productivity uses in pursuit of “green jobs.” They are toying with “buy American” protectionism while repudiating “hire American” enforcement of immigration laws. They are so eager to restore the dominant liberalism of the 1930s that they cannot see that they are repeating their own errors of the 1970s.
So Tanenhaus overstates his case. Yet within that overstated case, there is contained an ominous truth.
Tanenhaus warns that the dominant mood of what we still call “movement conservatism” is alienation and anger.
As Garry Wills, who broke with the movement in the 1970s but continued to call himself a conservative, observed: “The right wing in America is stuck with the paradox of holding a philosophy of ‘conserving’ an actual order it does not want to conserve.”
The attack on the “new class,” rooted in cultural hostility, dominated movement conservatism for the next 30 years, up through the administration of George W. Bush. On one side, as [William] Rusher described it, were “businessmen, manufacturers, hard-hats, blue-collar workers, and farmers.” On the other: “a liberal verbalist elite (the dominant media, the major foundations and research institutions, the educational establishment, the federal and state bureaucracies) and a semipermanent welfare constituency.”
This conservatism was not a philosophy of government – for these conservative governments felt little interest in governing. They lived to oppose and to overturn. For them, politics amounted to a series of exciting crusades: stop ERA, defeat the Panama Canal treaty, reverse Roe v. Wade, halt the assault weapons ban, impeach Clinton, topple Saddam, build the Mexico fence, pardon Ramos and ??
Once done, it was either on to the next or time to go home.
As Tanenhaus puts it, in an important passage that opens with a quotation from Irving Kristol:
American conservatism is a movement, a popular movement, not a faction within any political party. Though, inevitably, most conservatives vote Republican, they are not party loyalists and the party has to woo them to win votes. This movement is issue oriented. It will happily meld with the Republican party if the party is ‘right’ on the issues; if not, it will walk away. (Kristol wrote in 1995.)
By this calculus, all the obligations flow in only one direction. Parties are accountable to movement purists, while purists incur no reciprocal debt. They determine the “right” position, and the party’s job is to advance it. Kristol does not consider whether purists might be expected to maneuver at all or even to modify their views–for the good not only of the party but also the larger polity.
In this, Tanenhaus observes accurately that the unending and harassing burdens of governance are fiercely uncongenial to many conservatives. The Republicans profiled by Geoffrey Kabaservice in his series for NewMajority – Republicans like Henry Stimson and Thomas Dewey – understood that some important political problems can only be managed, never solved. They appreciated that compromise must sometimes be accepted or even sought. They did not wage “culture wars,” but accepted and defended their society in all its inevitable imperfections. They were men of responsibility, not men of wrath.
And it is this tradition that many modern conservatives reject and repudiate.
For an example of this rejection and repudiation, turn to another important article in another important magazine: Yuval Levin’s “The Meaning of Sarah Palin” in the current Commentary.
Levin’s article has two contradictory points to offer, and it tip-toes indecisively between them.
One prong of Levin’s argument – postponed deep into the body of his essay – is an admission (grudging and evasive, but unmistakable) that Sarah Palin was indeed inadequate to the presidency that she might have inherited at any moment. While offering many excuses and palliations for these inadequacies, Levin does eventually concede, “There could be no denying Palin’s real deficiencies.” Actually there was quite a long of denying, and there still is, and Levin continues to contribute his mite.
Still, after a hiatus, Levin does return to this first point.
Palin was a problematic candidate. … [S]he ended up at the center of a political and cultural vacuum of her own creation. She began by opening up a huge space for herself, and then was unable to fill it. …
Palin’s reformism, like McCain’s, was essentially an attitude devoid of substance. …
[McCain and Palin] offered no overarching vision of America, no consistent view of the role of government, no clear description of what a free society should look like, and no coherent policy ideas that might actually address the concerns of American families and offer solutions to the serious problems of the moment. …
In the end, [Palin] was no more able than McCain to offer a coherent rationale for his presidency. …
You might think it wrong and reckless to gamble your nation’s future on a potential president who offered “attitude devoid of substance” and who lacked “policy ideas that might … offer solutions to the serious problems of the moment.” You might think it no compliment to describe a politician as occupying a “vacuum of her own creation” or as incapable of offering a “coherent rationale” why anyone should vote for her presidential ticket.
But be warned: if you do think any of those things, you will be deemed a member of a cultural elite with an “unfortunate and unattractive propensity” to “treat those who are not deemed part of the elect with condescension and contumely.”
While Levin himself acknowledges Palin’s flaws, he chafes when others do so. In all those other cases,
the overheated response to Palin’s presence on the national stage, from both friend and foe, was oddly disconnected from Palin’s actual actions, statements, and record.
Levin is tough on Palin’s left-wing critics.
The reaction to Palin revealed a deep and intense cultural paranoia on the Left: an inclination to see retrograde reaction around every corner, and to respond to it with vile anger.
But he does not have a lot more tolerance for those conservatives and Republicans who were dismayed by her selection. Dismissing the stated grounds of objection offered by Palin’s conservative critics, Levin reveals our concealed motives:
[T]he implicit charge was that Palin’s failure to speak the language and to share the common points of reference of the educated upper tier of American society essentially rendered her unfit for high office.
We were misled by a false theory of the proper qualifications for high office.
Palin’s detractors were animated by an
unstated assumption that governing is fundamentally an exercise of the mind: an application of the proper mix of theory, expertise, and intellectual distance that calls for knowledge and verbal fluency more than for prudence born of life’s hard lessons.
Sarah Palin embodied a very different notion of politics, in which sound instincts and valuable life experiences are considered sources of knowledge at least the equal of book learning.
This excessive regard for expertise and knowledge pushed us into a “kind of manic outburst … triggered by a false understanding of who Palin was.”
Now it might be said in reply that Palin’s career in government has demonstrated nothing like the prudence praised by Levin. She governed Alaska as if the price of oil would remain high forever. Palin used the windfall of 2006-2007 to double the per-citizen payout to more than $2,000. Cutting that payout is the obvious response to the decline in the price of oil, but also the least politically palatable. So Palin instead used her 2009 State of the State speech to demand that the Legislature produce large budget cuts – transferring responsibility for the cost of her own decision.
On the campaign trail in 2008, Palin took credit for tearing up a pipeline deal to extract better terms for the state. The terms were so favorable that the deal has now fallen through – and the state’s $500 million investment in the deal looks likely to be lost.
In her 2009 State of the State address, Palin proposed that the state generate 50% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025 – without offering any details or even any suggestion of how such a thing might be done. Palin has “sound instincts” all right, but they are the instincts of the shrewd vote catcher looking to move up the ladder, not the instincts of the manager or builder.
And I am convinced that Yuval Levin knows all this. He is an intelligent man, who has served in government and thought long and hard about public policy – one of the right’s few bright intellectual hopes in the generation born after 1970. He sees as plainly as I do that Sarah Palin would be a disastrous president. And yet … he cannot bring himself to say so in a direct, uncontorted manner. Why not?
You’d think that after eight years of George W. Bush, conservatives would have discovered a new respect for the difficulty of successful governance. Yet just as Tanenhaus diagnosed: it is cultural hostility that still most excites our passions.
Here’s Levin again:
The reaction of the intellectual elite to Sarah Palin was far more provincial than Palin herself ever has been, and those who reacted so viscerally against her evinced little or no appreciation for an essential premise of democracy: that practical wisdom matters at least as much as formal education, and that leadership can emerge from utterly unexpected places. The presumption that the only road to power passes through the Ivy League and its tributaries is neither democratic nor sensible, and is, moreover, a sharp and wrongheaded break from the American tradition of citizen governance.
Isn’t this a strange thing to write about a candidate whom Levin himself has said displayed little or none of that “practical wisdom” he admires?
Notice too Levin’s transition from the uncontested truth that talent can emerge anywhere to the insinuation at the end of this passage that talent can be found everywhere: that any citizen has what it takes to be a successful president. As we’ve all witnessed, that is not the case – not even if the unsuccessful president has two Ivy League degrees.
But of course the crackle in passages like these comes not from Levin’s wan defense of Palin, but his angry and energetic attack on her critics. His essay corroborates with almost too perfect timing Tanenhaus’ observation that the modern American right
defines itself not by what it yearns to conserve but by what it longs to destroy–”statist” social programs; “socialized medicine”; “big labor”; “activist” Supreme Court justices, the “media elite”; “tenured radicals” on university faculties; “experts” in and out of government.
These particular resentments as we have seen provide a very poor basis for governing. Increasingly, however, they are also proving a very poor basis for politics. While Levin optimistically detects grand future possibilities in Palin’s combination of social conservatism and cultural populism, he offers no justification for that emotion. As a candidate, Palin was a disaster, plunging 20+ approval points in key demographics in just two months in the public eye.
Cultural populism comes in many forms, and it’s not at all clear that Palin’s particular style of populism has much shelf life. The resentments of the future are much more likely to be expressed with a Latino accent.
In one respect, at least, I very much agree with Levin. The Palin story was always less about Palin, and more about the response to Palin. And the continuing inability of even our conservative best and brightest to elevate their concern for the responsibilities of government over their cultural animosities suggests that this story’s most painful chapters remain to be written.
107 responses so far
1 larryo // Feb 5, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Not bad, on the whole. But you quoted Levin’s “a deep and intense cultural paranoia on the Left” without comment, whereas the left reacted with horror, not fear, as did many responsible people on the right, to Palin’s ascendance. And it wasn’t because of intellectual elitism or cultural bias – it’s because she is a vapid opportunist, and I noticed that you forgot the deficit she ran up as mayor of Wasilla. However, to your everlasting credit, you see that a knee-jerk, reactionary abhorrence for “statist” social programs et al is not a credible political philosophy. What you don’t see is how all that fits into the larger picture that is your belief system, and how much of that must be discarded to remove it.
2 Bulldoglover100 // Feb 5, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I went and read the article and found myself torn as to my feelings. On one hand I agree with some parts but he is incoherent in regards to Palin.
The anger that was expressed was not just one group of people nor was it people only on the left. It was the total onslaught of her day after day after day showing her inability to be truthful. That seemed to be her biggest failure. You mentioned her road to no where. She lied and even when it became a given, she continued to lie. People from both parties had a hard time accepting that. Her anger that she expressed at her Rally’s became a theme that peoiple picked up on and Tanenhaus failed to address that fact. If those of us who do realize her inability do not stand and demand a candidate that is capable, we will wind up with her.
Life experience is one thing but I don’t want someone who watches House to operate on me.
The anger continues though and hurts our party more and more each day. Palin? Will ensure an Obama second term. Bet on it.
3 HHomer // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:40 am
I really like Sarah Palin, she’s charismatic and down to earth. I have no doubt her life experiences qualify her to understand the needs of the majority – a good thing for a politician. Sadly I don’t trust her not to misuse power and this is what matters most for those who seek to govern.
4 Clarence Darrow // Feb 6, 2009 at 7:03 am
Sam Tanenhaus is completely wrong!
They are redirecting investment from high productivity to low productivity uses in pursuit of green jobs. They are toying with buy American protectionism while repudiating hire American enforcement of immigration laws.”
Green jobs are the most productive becuase they work on the transformative systems of the future, limit our reliance on foreign governments that are often hostile to us.
Conservation is a conservative value, so is conservative business without greed.
If you want to eliminate a permanent government welfare like I do – replace it with an infrastructure of urban farms and other “green” projects and socially responsible companies that spend on public service projects.
5 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 7:39 am
David Frum: “On the other: ‘a liberal verbalist elite (the dominant media, the major foundations and research institutions, the educational establishment, the federal and state bureaucracies) and a semipermanent welfare constituency.’” You forgot scientists. Irving Kristol included scientists. I think Irving Kristol’s definition of the New Class (integral to his arguments for building the conservative movement’s think tank network) was in many ways almost indistinguishable from his earlier anti-communism, and, I think, was essentially paranoid. Remember, *this* is an example of anti-communism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio#t=53m13s
6 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 7:48 am
As far as the liberalism of the 30’s goes, I think contemporary liberalism is not your father’s liberalism. I think there were some lessons learned (of course). Cass Sunstein and Paul Krugman are a long way from J. K. Galbraith and Thorstein Veblen. Although, I think Krugman and Sunstein gives a nod to those earlier economists too. You can’t build a healthy democracy without a healthy middle class: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/407?in=00:14&out=41:48
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0465083323/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
7 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 8:43 am
Speaking of my father’s liberalism, a member of my family was in the legislature of a small state for a number of years and was one of the original Reagan revolutionaries. I’ve been trying to explain to him some of the things I’ve been learning from liberal historian Rick Perlstein and conservative historian Sam Tanenhaus, some of the backlash politics invented by Nixon and elaborated by Kevin Phillips. He just says “those guys are crazy” and then passionately insists, to the point of being red-faced, that his thinking doesn’t come from any time-wasting intellectuals but from observing bureaucrats in government, with their salaries higher than he ever dreamed of and with their clock-punching mentality. “Once you bring them in, you can’t fire ‘em” he says. And then he says several other things that sound a lot like the conservative intellectuals that I’ve read, but that he says are crazy. I say that even if there are bureaucrats like that, there are still problems to be solved, right? He grumbles passionately about things getting out of control with these types. With liberalism, he sees these bureaucrats. With movement conservatives, this is what I see: http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/a-video-for-the-heartland-institute/ Long live the Orthogonian/Franklin divide. (He defends Sarah Palin, by the way. He thinks she can be brought up to speed no problem.)
8 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 8:47 am
By the way, I don’t like bureaucrats wasting the taxpayer dime either, but I’d like to have real problems solved.
9 HollywoodBill // Feb 6, 2009 at 8:55 am
Some really great stuff in here. “Parties are accountable to movement purists, while purists incur no reciprocal debt.” The movement conservatives somehow think that the Republican Party is obligated to preach their message and force it down the throats of the American electorate. Ultimately, it is the voters who determine the course that the country will take and not “movement conservatives.” By rejecting the Republicans so severely in 2006 and now in 2008, the electorate has sent a very clear message: Whatever the GOP is selling, the public isn’t buying. Now the Republican Party can attempt to resell a message that the public has rejected or it can focus and find a NEW MAJORITY. As for Palin, thankfully the American public has rendered a decision on her.
10 jjv // Feb 6, 2009 at 9:36 am
The populist right compromises with the Republican Party all the time. It is not like the marriage amendment, or abortion are front burner issues except during election years, but depreciation rules are on the front burner every day. Similiarly, Alaska’s boom and bust cycle is a feature of much of th West and not something that started with her. How many governors have better records over a comparable period? Palin was no worse a VP pick than Biden, and gave McCain a lead for the first and last time. The argument that she hurt the GOP in “key demographics” is neither proved nor correct. Would those “key demographics” voted for McCain in other circumstances, while not repelling other votes the Republicans needed? The question is was she a net plus or minus, as Yuval demonstrates it was plus, and plus in a way no other pick could have been. Further, it was McCain’s Stimson like actions that had his polls crater the fastest. Running back to DC to “govern” killed him. Had he attacked the big spending waste and culture of Washington, rejected the TARP, and denounced Paulson for a bait and switch he might be President today. He returned to DC to go along to get along and it killed him. Palin put him up, and Stimsonism put him down.
Finally, Mr. Kabaservice’s pieces are very interesting but Tom Dewey lost, twice. Once to an unpopular President. Stimson was not elected to his chief post. A recent Republican in their mold was Bob Michaels. I can hear him in my mind’s ear singing in his rich baritone through a permanent minority; taking a few crumbs here and there from his “good friend” Tip, and refusing to engage in the culture wars with any brio. In what way does Dewey/Michaels Republicanism reach a majority? As ancient wisdom tells us the lukewarm is spit out (by the electorate even if not the Almighty).
11 larryo // Feb 6, 2009 at 9:40 am
JJW, clock watching bureaucrats are the least of our problems – obstructionist Republican ideologues who prefer the prospect of widespread suffering and destitution to admitting that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy much are much higher up on the list.
12 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 9:45 am
“Palin was no worse a VP pick than Biden.” On what planet? Do you own a television? She may be the “real deal”, but does that make her qualified? If I’m about to get on an airplane, I don’t care if the pilot is the “real deal.” I want to know that he or she can fly a plane. If you think Palin’s record shows that she can be leader of the free world, I don’t know what else to do than laugh.
13 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 10:00 am
I’ve been thinking of this from the Tanenhaus essay for a long time and waiting to see it in print somewhere: “It is customary even now to say that the architects of the Iraq occupation failed because they naively placed too much faith in democracy. In fact, the problem was just the opposite. So contemptuous of the actual requirements of civil society at home, Bush’s war planners gave no serious thought to how difficult it might be to create such a society in a distant land with a vastly different history. Those within the administration who tried to make this case were marginalized or removed from power…” Yup, it’s like John Bolton said, “Just give them a copy of the Federalist Papers and say ‘Good luck.’”
14 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 10:05 am
The American Enterprise Institute played such a huge role in this war, but it seems like it was “so contemptuous of the actual requirements of civil society at home,” that when it went to create those civil institutions that enabled Enterprise overseas, they “gave no serious thought to how difficult it might be to create such a society in a distant land with a vastly different history.”
15 clinebrood // Feb 6, 2009 at 10:12 am
This is one of the most hopeful signs of an eventiual return to relevance of conservatism I’ve seen in weeks! Congratulations for going out on a limb and actually saying this!
Note, though that I agree with larryo. As long as Republican party conservatives continue to believe that is was only the far left that was frightened by the Palin pick, or that people were frightened by the pick because they blindly followed the left wing media, future electoral defeats for Republicans and minority status will continue. Palin scared people all by herself, because she was so unready, so obviously opportunistic, and so vapid. As a city dweller veteran, I was personally offended by the real Americans nonsense that spewed out of the campaign, and the discredited you’re only a patriot if you agree with us bile.
With regard to Palin in particular I was offended by her inability to articulate even simple answers to journalists with any clarity. And then the campaign machine ridiculously thinking that viewers would buy the argument that she was trapped. My goodness, how hard is it to answer a question about what you read?
Listening to Palin speak was like listening to someone with buzzwords on Yahtzee dice rolling them out of the cup and randomly blurting out what whatever came up on the dice.
16 Robert Graves // Feb 6, 2009 at 11:35 am
Why is David Frum so afraid of Sarah Palin? Why does he spend so much time deprecating her? I’ll tell you why. Governor Palin has tremendous potential to learn, grow, and refine her ability to lead and govern, just like Ronald Reagan, the “amiable dunce”, who became one of our very best presidents, after learning, growing, developing a conservative political philosophy, and governing the state of California. Palin has potential, but Frum and his fellow travelers have stopped growing. They’ve become reactionaries, desperately trying to preserve a way of life that won’t accomodate new realities. Sad.
17 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 11:54 am
George Bush was an empty vessel, just like Sarah Palin. Hmm. Empty vessels to be filled by people like… Bill Kristol. Hmm. “A former Republican White House official, who now works at the American Enterprise Institute, a bastion of Washington neoconservatism, admitted: Shes bright and shes a blank page. Shes going places and its worth going there with her. Asked if he sees her as a project, the former official said: Your word, not mine, but I wouldnt disagree with the sentiment.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/2827217/Neoconservatives-plan-Project-Sarah-Pain-to-shape-future-American-foreign-policy.html#article
Seems to me that didn’t work out so well last time.
18 Chekote // Feb 6, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Robert. Could we please dispose of people are afraid of Palin analysis? NOBODY is afraid of Palin. She represents the current GOP politics of focusing on social issues over fiscal and defense issues. She represents the same electoral strategy of pitting urban vs. rural; real America vs. fake America(?); elites vs. the people. Nothing will change if Palin heads the party in 2012 and, thus, we can expect the same electoral results. The question is not why are people afraid of Palin? The question is why so many people insist on pursuing the same electoral strategy in light of recent defeats? What are you afraid of Robert? It is not like the GOP has much to lose. We have lost everything, White House, Congress. We are barely hanging on by one vote in the Senate and in 2010 the Dems stand a excellent chance to pick up the 60th seat. So what have we got lose? Why are you so afraid of change Robert?
19 troyriser // Feb 6, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Still Palin-bashing, I see. Unlike yourself and many of your colleagues in the punditry–I think Sarah Palin is eminently capable of assuming the Presidency of the United States, certainly moreso than President Obama–whose clearly now-manifest shortcomings and lack of experience you and Parker and Brooks and Noonan somehow failed to note, since most of you were too busy going after the GOP VP candidate rather than, say, the opposition’s front-runner. I personally think of you and yours as Country Club Republicans, of the same type and kind as those WSJ writers who bemoaned conservative resistance to amnesty and other open borders-like immigration measures as a blow to the nanny and gardener job markets. But you’re right about one thing: reaction to Sarah Palin is telling. Your reaction, for example, tells me worlds.
20 Chekote // Feb 6, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Robert, Palin is not Reagan. Listen to Reagan’s “rendezvous with destiny” speech and tell when Palin as ever given a speech comparable to it. All she has done so far, is peddled the same editorial about opening ANWR to drilling editorial. That’s it. Sorry but Reagan understood the issues; he demostrated intellectual curiousity. I could go on but I think I have made my point.
21 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:00 pm
But they want her to be Reagan. The Evil liberal media won’t airbrush our dear leader’s face:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/14/palin-fox-news-newsweek
So if New Class media pigs won’t comply with correct Country and Western Marxist Doctrine, so we must send after them Joe the Plumber: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BE0rc2aZpc
Glorious Workers State will triumph over State of Managerial Elites and their New Class media dogs. Palin/Wuzelbacher 2012!
22 dantana // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:11 pm
We will have citizen politicians who want to serve their constituents or we will have professional pols who continue to suck the national tit, leaving DC much richer and connected than when they arrived.
Palin and her ilk is not the problem. The hypocritical, self serving political elite in Congress is the problem.
23 Chekote // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:15 pm
troyriser. Palin still has not done ONE Sunday talk shows. Until she can pass that test, she can’t govern. I do not want another POTUS who can’t defend his or her positions. It would be a repeat of GWB.
24 realconservativ // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Sarah Palin has accomplished ten times more in her short life than David Frum will ever accomplish in his. I realize the objective of the New Majority is to destroy the conservative movement (under the guise of “building a conservativism that can win again”) and doing everything possible to discredit Sarah Palin because she is not one of the “elite.” David, don’t you miss Canada? Real football with 12 men per team, 110 yard fields and the “rouge?” Any time you or David Brooks want to return, I’m available to help you pack..
25 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:25 pm
How do you say hoisted on your own petard? Hey, how come Huckabee didn’t get Sarah’s position as head of the movement? http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062703.php
I saw someone sent Coulter after him:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Coulter_Huckabee_clash_over_support_for_0112.html
26 globmgmt // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Come on admit it – What you are saying is that Sarah Palin is not as smart as you.
By the way – have you ever “run” anything.
27 libertah // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:38 pm
You should call yourself the new minority. Neo-Cons, Moderates, and all other RINO’s that have ruined this party and spit on the Constitution, wake up. It’s over. You lost, we true conservatives rode along with you as you all drove us into the gutter. NO MORE. We’re driving the car now, if you don’t like it, GET OUT! Or just go back to Canada.
28 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:42 pm
One problem with the conservative movement is that it reads its own press. 6 years, part time mayor of a town of 6300. Barely 2 years, governor of a state with barely more than a half a million. This isn’t even looking at how she actually governed. Yeah, she ran something…
29 JimAK // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Mr. Frum, like President Obama, has clearly never been to Alaska and makes several large factual errors:
*** Palin used the windfall of 2006-2007 to double the per-citizen payout to more than $2,000. Cutting that payout is the obvious response to the decline in the price of oil, but also the least politically palatable. ***
Palin has nothing to do with the amount of the PFD payout. That is handled by a separate state corporation and the amount is dictated by law.
*** So Palin instead used her 2009 State of the State speech to demand that the Legislature produce large budget cuts transferring responsibility for the cost of her own decision. ***
Unrelated issue. Money flows into and out of the Permanent Fund and is completely separate from the General Fund. Yes, there is less money available for the State to spend this year but that is not unique to Alaska. And note that the Legislature always has responsibility for the budget.
*** On the campaign trail in 2008, Palin took credit for tearing up a pipeline deal to extract better terms for the state. The terms were so favorable that the deal has now fallen through and the states $500 million investment in the deal looks likely to be lost ***
Wrong and wrong. The deal is still alive and, in fact, Exxon just announced plans a few weeks ago to settle a long standing dispute with the state over some 30 year old leases. Exxon is now going to drill and develop that site and if they hit gas – as seems likely – there will be even more of an incentive to build the gas line. Why has Exxon been dragging their feet? They wanted to get out all the oil first. And note that only a fraction of the $500 million has been transferred to TransCanada, the company building the gas line. Warren Buffet’s MidAmerica was also very interested but, oddly enough, backed out about the time Buffet fell in love with Barack Obama.
30 JimAK // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:55 pm
JJWFromME, please list all of Obama’s experience “running something.”
Palin is responsible for 18,000 employees; how many did Obama direct prior to Jan 20?
31 sinz54 // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:06 pm
When observing the Angry Left of the Howard Dean campaign in 2004 (culminating in the famous “Dean scream”), Rush Limbaugh observed, “Anger doesn’t win elections.” He was correct then about the Angry Left of the Dean campaign–but he would also be correct about the Angry Right now. A movement that is driven primarily by anger must burn itself out, before it figures out how to actually govern a nation and can convince the electorate that it knows how. What has been missing from the conservative movement is a positive vision of what good governance means–both at home and even in Iraq. Bush had no such vision here or anywhere, and we saw the results. Rudy Giuliani cleaned up New York City and set it on the right path. Yet nobody in the conservative movement has suggested drawing any lessons from the New York experience; primarily because to them, New York is alien territory–far from the small-town America they prefer.
32 sinz54 // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:10 pm
But while I agree with David Frum’s main conclusions, his using Sarah Palin as an example is incorrect. She certainly saw herself as representative of rural and Red State America. But she didn’t have the angry biting bitterness of an Ann Coulter or a Michelle Malkin. She defended small-town values with even temperament most of the time. She was a weak candidate, but I don’t want to draw any sweeping conclusions about conservatism from that. On the other hand, Michelle Malkin is my own poster child for exactly what’s wrong with the conservative movement: Angry; all negative and nothing positive; nativist; and even paranoid (anybody who disagrees with us is a traitor to America).
33 sinz54 // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:14 pm
JimAK: There is no point in asking any of us conservatives to compare Sarah Palin to Barack Obama. Of course I didn’t vote for Barack Obama. I don’t agree with his philosophy. I don’t agree with his policies. I don’t think he had demonstrated real talent for the job, other than in public speaking and being “not-Bush.” But all kinds of potential GOP candidates and conservatives are “not-Obama.” The mere fact that Sarah Palin is “not-Obama” does NOT necessarily make her the way forward for the GOP. Like Obama, she can put across a good speech. Whether she could *GOVERN* America better than either Bush did, or Obama is doing now, is the question. Can you answer it?
34 troyriser // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Chekote, you’re right: Sarah Palin should appear on a serious, topical forum and explain and defend her positions on various issues. No question. And you’re also right when you imply President Bush was an inadequate communicator–a source of huge frustration for me when I supported him through thick and think, knowing what W. was about, that core of decency residing at the man’s center. I personally believe, however, that Sarah Palin would communicate marvelously on a show such as ‘Meet The Press’. I also believe Frum and others dislike Palin not because she’s unqualfied for the position but because she isn’t ‘of their sort’. Palin lacks the upper class, Ivy League bona fides Brooks, Frum, Buckley and others find requisite for higher office, and Palin’s accomplishments and potential to attain the presidency upset their measure of intellectual and social worth. In short, they’re snobs, and I have no use for them. Let the Democrats hold and keep them forever.
35 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:16 pm
JimAK– If Obama had the problems with interviews and the press that Palin had, then you might have a point. But I think he’s shown himself to be more than competent. Plus he has um, actual interest and curiosity about policy. This is something that both Bush and Palin have both shown themselves to lack, which is shocking for someone who would be leader of the free world.
36 TelecomEsq // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:19 pm
David Frum epitomizes the type of insecure conservative “elite” reaction to Palin. A geographical diversity matriculant, he worked his butt off to get two degrees from Yale and then a Harvard Law degree. He wrote a book that pleased Mr. Buckley. And he worked at the White House (until it didn’t work out).
And now comes along this woman who has more concrete achievements than he will ever hope to have, but none of those hard-won credentials.
(This isn’t the first time Frum has had a snobbish reaction to those who don’t fetishize his credentials — think about his “break” with the Bush administration.)
Don’t be so insecure, David. In a true meritocracy, the establishment celebrates the success of those who come up through the ranks, so to speak.
37 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:37 pm
” And now comes along this woman who has more concrete achievements than he will ever hope to have” Yes, if all you’ve been reading is Republican press releases.
38 HollywoodBill // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Sarah Palin’s extreme socially conservative views is what makes her unacceptable. She really is a continuation of George W Bush and that is no longer going to work. Incredible that two Western state politicians could not carry any Pacific Coast states and managed to also lose Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. It is expected that Montana and Arizona will be in the Dem column by 2010. Palin is a base candidate and has NO appeal outside of the South and the Bible Belt. The Rovian methods of winning elections are over. She brings nothing to the GOP. No more social conservatives in the White House. No one is afraid of Sarah Palin. But anyone thinking that she is going to unify the Republican Party and that all are going to vote for her needs to put the crack pipe down.
39 kikkimay // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:53 pm
JJWFromME – You posted,”If Obama had the problems with interviews and the press that Palin had, then you might have a point.” If Obama had been given an interview like Palin’s, you might have a point. Here is a comparison of the Gibson interviews:
Obama interview:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to win?
How does your family feel about your winning breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitors [Clinton] speech?
Palin interview:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job youre seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Arent you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy:
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war?
To compare Palin’s reaction to a hostile press with the embarrassing, sycophantic way the media treated Obama is dishonest.
40 Chekote // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Sinz said: “Yet nobody in the conservative movement has suggested drawing any lessons from the New York experience; primarily because to them, New York is alien territory–far from the small-town America they prefer.” I don’t believe that it was a question of city vs. small town. Giuliani did not make it because of 1) he is pro-choice and 2) messy personal life. The purity gang just could not look pass those two issues and see the NYC miracle.
41 Ploughman // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Frum is absolutely right when he says that the Palin story was less bout Palin and more about the response to her. But he is mistaken in thinking that coservatives can isolate politics from the culture wars. Maybe David Frum can sit out those battles, but public officials and opther political functionaries will almost inevitably be drawn in, and they will have to either fight or surrender. It sounds plausible in the abstract to criticize right-wingers wanting to “destroy”, but if you believe in smaller government, what sort of response toward big government is possible? The genius of Liberals has been creating and cultivating constituencies for the kind of government Liberals like. Will it be possible to create any constituency for the kind of bloodless conservatism which Frum advocates?
42 Chekote // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:55 pm
troy said “Sarah Palin would communicate marvelously on a show such as ‘Meet The Press’”. Until I see it, she is completely unacceptable.
43 jsinger008 // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Quite frankly, this post by David is why I wanted to join him on this website — his intelligence and thoughtfulness concerning the issue of how the GOP can win back power to govern SUCCESSFULLY using conservative IDEAS, which he reminds readers are still relevant and actually practical from a governing standpoint.
That is part of the reason the Tanenhaus essay is so frustrating — he refuses to acknowledge that many conservative ideas, including those that stand in opposition to the prevailing liberal consensus are GOOD ideas, worthy of implementation.
As for the broader discussion concerning Sarah Palin, I think David’s criticisms are only partially correct. As both “Chekote” and “troyriser” note, Palin just wasn’t very good at articulating conservative ideas and a positive alternate vision of government (and as Levin points out, this wasn’t only her problem — it was a problem she shared with McCain). This ability to articulate a vision is what we need from our Republican leaders.
Where I disagree with David is in his analysis of Palin as an electoral “disaster” — as Levin notes in his piece, she attracted many voters as well as repelling them. I also think David should address the policy details provided by “JimAK”, which suggest she continues to govern Alaska wisely (and let’s not forget her willingness and ability to help remove corrupt politicians and bureaucrats from the Republican party’s own ranks). And finally, I think the question of whether or not Palin was ready to become President is unfair in the context of Biden’s candidacy — does anyone on the Right really believe Biden would make better decisions than Palin? He can give better answers to Sunday interview questions, because he is better at B.S. — but I for one will never forget his pompous answer in the V.P. debate that had him glibly telling viewers that the U.S. had kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. In many ways Biden is more dangerous than Palin as a V.P. in the same way that sometimes a little knowledge can be more dangerous than ignorance (as long as you are willing to acknowledge your ignorance).
44 larryo // Feb 6, 2009 at 2:59 pm
troyriser, you wrote: “I supported [George W. Bush] through thick and think, knowing what W. was about, that core of decency residing at the man’s center.” Now, I see that differently – I see George Bush as an amoral, cornball humbug who is gifted only at appealing to everything dark, selfish, narrow-minded, prejudiced, superstitious, opprobrious and shameful in the American psyche. I see his overseer, Karl Rove, as a malevolent, treasonous, mendacious, fanatic troll. What I cannot figure out is which of them the faux reporter/male prostitute was visiting in the WH more than 100 times when there were no press events scheduled.
45 jsinger008 // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:01 pm
By the way, for a great response to Tanenhaus, the always witty and acerbic Roger Kimball can’t be beat:
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2009/02/03/good-news-for-conservatives/
Also, Levin himself weighs in on the piece:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yjk5ZjU2N2JhMzAxMWVlNmMxZWM0NTFkNjhhNDI4OTA=
46 Chekote // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:06 pm
larryo. now that spewed your venom, can you please go back to Kos. You are not a conservative. You are not interested in rebuilding the conservative movement. There are plenty of sites where you can spar with conservatives. Go there. This place is for us conservatives, libertarians, Right to come up with a new agenda for the movement.
47 Frauenhoffer // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Frum’s obsession with Palin is getting both old and creepy.
Tory courtiers like Frum think they see a new dynasty arising and,like Talleyrand,seek to make themselves acceptable to the new regime.
Thus his perpetual attacks on Palin,whose very existence drove the East coast crowd into a frenzy.
Sadly,I believe Frum and Co. may have miscalculated.
The last(first)2 weeks seem to be showing Obama to be what is and has always been,a state level,provincial politician with little knowledge of domestic,foreign and economic policy and deeply lacking managerial skills,exactly what Frum and the Left accuse Palin.
“The resentments of the future are much more likely to be expressed with a Latino accent.”
The GOP Establishment has spent a quarter century digging this particular hole,skillfully avoiding every opportunity to save itself.
This is why the GOP is known as the “Stupid Party”.Not because of the rank and file,but because of the establishment
It also reveals the Frum conservatives lack interest in “conserving” much of anything themselves,other than themselves.
If your role models are the bloodless CA GOP and Cameron’s equally bloodless Tories,there is little reason to bother.
“If Obama had the problems with interviews and the press that Palin had, then you might have a point. But I think he’s shown himself to be more than competent.”
Competent?
Giving speeches,or rather variations on a speech,perhaps,tho if your benchmark of competence is glibness,that’s just sad.
I reiterate,the last 2 weeks have been underwhelming.
Is that the delicate aroma of peanuts wafting from D.C.?
48 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:14 pm
“kikkimay”–I’m sure there were softball interviews with Obama. But come on. I think someone was talking about putting buzzwords on Yahtzee dice, and Palin saying them during the interviews. That’s about right. I saw this movie. It was called Being There.
49 realconservativ // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Sarah Palin or David Frum? One has the charisma to attrack crowds of 20,000+, inspires people to drive hundreds of miles to see her and wait for hours in the cold just be sure they can get into the arena. The other put my dog and me to sleep the last time he was hawking a book on Lou Dobbs. TeamSarah and SarahPAC or New Majority? Tough choice.
50 Chekote // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Here is my humble proposal. We need to unite around certain conservative principles: free enterprise, free trade, limited but effective government and individual freedom. Whether you are upscale, downscale, urban, rural, college educated or not, it does not matter. All that matters is whether you share said principles. I am tired of the Right’s version of identity politics. Also, we need to stop bringing up Reagan. I know that for many people Reagan = conservatism; but to the political non-junkies it sounds like we are stuck in the 80s. All we need is the big hair and shoulder pads to complete the package.
51 TelecomEsq // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Yuvall Levin captured the reaction of Frum and the other lemmings: “And, perhaps even more telling, it revealed the unfortunate and unattractive propensity of the American cultural elite to treat those who are not deemed part of the elect with condescension and contumely.” I was a year ahead of Frum at Yale, and I at one point shared this propensity. I like to think, however, that I grew up.
52 Chekote // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:41 pm
RealCon. Frum is not running for office. If you don’t like what Frum has to say, don’t read him. Yes, I know. You need to keep your eye on the enemy. Newsflash: Frum is not your enemy. Obama is.
53 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:48 pm
” I was a year ahead of Frum at Yale, and I at one point shared this propensity.” This is typical. People from Yale calling other Ivies elitist. I am sick of this pseudo-striver bull s***. I don’t care where someone went to school. But Palin went to 5 of them, and then barely graduated. Then she sat in front of a teleprompter and did sports. She was part time mayor of a small town, then she was governor for 18 months before McCain picked her. Why are you inflicting this phoniness on the rest of us? I didn’t go to Yale or Harvard, but where I come from this is some dysfunctional stuff, people. How many years are you going to recycle this fake Nixon striver BS, instead of actually, you know, governing the United States?!
54 TelecomEsq // Feb 6, 2009 at 4:01 pm
JJWFromME: What? My point was I know these people, and the insecure elitists among them really are misguided, in my opinion. You disagree–fine. Enjoy the performance of your Columbia/Harvard president, who seems to be imploding as we type.
55 Robert Graves // Feb 6, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Give it a rest, JJ.
56 HollywoodBill // Feb 6, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Try as they might, the Palinistas are never going to win over the moderate wing of the GOP. For some of us, she is 100% totally unacceptable. The 2008 election results were a notice that we are prepared to have Dem leadership than accept or vote for Palin. She is that unacceptable. BTW, great points as usual ComradeC.
57 JimAK // Feb 6, 2009 at 4:11 pm
*** Try as they might, the Palinistas are never going to win over the moderate wing of the GOP. For some of us, she is 100% totally unacceptable. The 2008 election results were a notice that we are prepared to have Dem leadership than accept or vote for Palin. ***
That makes no sense. Palin wasn’t running for President, McCain was.
58 JimAK // Feb 6, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I will also say this: Sarah Palin is as gifted a natural politician as you’ll ever see. Freed of her McCain agenda and control, you’ll see a different person. She is not the idealogue many perceive her to be; I voted for her several times and never knew she was opposed to abortion until after her last son was born. It was never an issue here, just like her religion or her other supposed extreme conservative positions.
As one of her vanquised opponents said, ‘The Alaska landscape is littered with the bodies of people who underestimated Sarah Palin.’
59 Chekote // Feb 6, 2009 at 4:30 pm
JimAK “Freed of her McCain agenda and control, you’ll see a different person”. Well, she has been free of Mac since 11/5 and so far I have not seen her give a substantive speech or interview. “…never knew she was opposed to abortion until after her last son was born.” I guess you did not watch the 2006 gubernatorial debate. She said she would support an amendment to the AK Constitution banning all abortions except for the life of the mother.
60 HollywoodBill // Feb 6, 2009 at 4:32 pm
There were two names on the ticket McCain and Palin. The last unsuccessful Vice Presidential candidate to come back and win was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who lost in 1920 as the VeeP and came back twelve years later in 1932. Had McCain/Palin won, she would have shared in the victory. The loss is equally hers. She is a base candidate and cannot even unite the GOP much less bring in the Independent voters necessary for a win. She has no place on the national stage.
61 realconservativ // Feb 6, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Chekote: “Newsflash: Frum is not your enemy. Obama is.” Response: Perhaps they both are.
62 JJWFromME // Feb 6, 2009 at 5:28 pm
TelecomEsq: Here’s my point. The rustic non-elitist thing just is a front. Just like with George W. Bush. George Bush the brush clearing Texan is a front–the actual people who put forward the policy are a bunch of elitists with funny ideas: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/15/aei-bush-white-house/
Just like with the war. The rustic Toby Keith warrior is the front: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2007/09/18/courtesy_of_the_red_white_and/
The person really carrying things out is the highly educated elitist named Doug Feith:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Feith#Former_Coalition_Provisional_Authority_Official_General_Jay_Garner_.28Ret..29
And the rustic Alaskan Sarah Palin is the front. The people who really are interested in her want a “blank slate” on which they can impose certain designs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/2827217/Neoconservatives-plan-Project-Sarah-Palin-to-shape-future-American-foreign-policy.html
63 realconservativ // Feb 6, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Frum: “As a candidate, Palin was a disaster, plunging 20+ approval points in key demographics in just two months in the public eye.” I would like to point out to Mr. Frum that if he checked the Rasmussen Daily Tracking polls (which obviously he has not), he would be aware that the ONLY days McCain led Obama in the polls (between the time Obama secured the nomination and Nov. 4) were the days between Sarah Palin’s selection as the VP candidate and the financial meltdown. And, Frum considers Palin uninformed?
64 sinz54 // Feb 6, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Chekote: I wasn’t suggesting that the GOP should have nominated Giuliani. For the GOP to nominate a pro-choicer would have been too great a leap for 2008. I was asserting that the GOP should learn from his New York experience. Here was a Republican mayor of New York, *NOT* a liberal like John Lindsay but someone who really did put into effect conservative theories of economics and civil governance. And he made them work, and New York City prospered. Beyond that, during the primary campaign, Giuliani published an article in Foreign Affairs magazine on his proposed foreign policy. It had some genuinely good ideas, ideas which deviated from policies the Bushies had tried and which were not working well. The GOP ought to put together a task force to propose new policy directions. And Giuliani should lead it.
65 sinz54 // Feb 6, 2009 at 6:24 pm
JimAK: I have resolved to keep an open mind about Sarah Palin. If and when she holds a press conference or a one-on-one interview with someone who is *NOT* already on her side and throwing her softballs, and she can answer real questions about the economy and foreign policy and the War on Terror, and she shows that she has a reasonably consistent vision of where she wants to lead the country, I will consider supporting her for President in 2012. For example: The question of Gitmo and what to do about the detainees there has been hot in all the newspapers. Does Sarah Palin have any thoughts on the issue? And what does she think about Obama’s stimulus package now stumbling its way through Congress? Things like that. I’m not asking a lot, am I? I’m just asking for some demonstration that there is real steak behind the sizzle, where she is concerned.
66 Chekote // Feb 6, 2009 at 6:34 pm
sinz54. After four years of Obama, we will need a turnaround artist like Giuliani in the White House.
67 realconservativ // Feb 6, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Whoever follows Obama is going to need an industrial strength ShopVac.
68 Chekote // Feb 6, 2009 at 6:41 pm
real. Obama has run into a brick wall sooner than I thought.
69 realconservativ // Feb 6, 2009 at 6:45 pm
If any Republican seeking national office is wise, he/she will refuse taped interviews and insist on live interviews only. Not only will any Republican be asked tougher questions (than Democrats), but many of the best parts will never be aired. It’s a fact of life. Brian Williams and Katie Couric praising/defending Obama on talk shows demonstrate media bias (as if it needed demonstrating).
70 realconservativ // Feb 6, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Chekote – I agree. He may be a greater gift to the GOP than Bush was to the Democrats. Retaking the House in 2010 is key.
71 realconservativ // Feb 6, 2009 at 7:11 pm
It’s Collins, Snowe and Specter that have agreed to support the stimulus package – exactly the type of people Frum wants to see in the New majority.
72 jjv // Feb 6, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I think the commentary here is too marxist in that it attacks motives. David does not think Palin is up to the task of governance. He thinks that the impulse of certain conservatives to support her “type” as he sees it will doom them. Neither is he trying to destroy the Republican party. Its time the conservatives realize that they disagree with each other on important matters but it is not because one group is captured by mind control lasers, or the other is in the grip of religious frenzy. Its because we got or clocked cleaned twice in a row and people who feel the clock is spotless enough want to find way to change that verdict but do not agree on the means.
73 realconservativ // Feb 6, 2009 at 7:40 pm
jjv – First of all, david Frum is not a conservative. He is a neocon. There is a major difference. Secondly, the 2006 and 2008 elections were not lost because of religious issues. George Bush’s unpopularity affected both elections. GOP spending and Iraq – a neocon issue – were major factors in 2006. The economy was a major factor in 2008. Show me a poll that indicates a “religious frenzy” was a major issue in either election.
74 gerrysh // Feb 6, 2009 at 9:02 pm
How old is this site – a week or two? It’s tiresome already. We get it Dave – you’re obsessed with Palin. You need help. Get some.
75 Jonah // Feb 7, 2009 at 3:32 am
Frum has a real prejudice against incompetence and ineffectiveness. It’s so mean, though, because Palin can’t defend herself.More importantly, Frum points out McCain’s lack of substance in terms of vision and consistency. What future GOP platform will unite former McCain supporters?
It’s a pity to hear commenters cheering for Obama’s failure, as so many did well before inauguration. All parties are better off hoping for their own success than for the failure of the opposition, and especially so when the consequences affect everyone. What kind of failed Obama agenda would most satisfy? Further worsening in the economy? Increased terrorism? Setbacks for the Armed Forces? Health care? Tech. and industry development? How many presidential failures would be enough?
76 coleman // Feb 7, 2009 at 3:45 am
“Frum has a real prejudice against incompetence and ineffectiveness”. And Jonah cites that as a critique of David Frum? Palin’s defenders defend her because she can’t defend herself. What an indictment of her many weaknesses.
You can’t lead (or follow) if you are incompetent and ineffective. And don’t forget to add an intellectual arrogance that is the hallmark of closed minds and true believers.
Palin’s extraordinarily low approval ratings should make her radioactive to any conservative interested in winning elections. Which is curious. Rush Limbaugh is a smart man: Is he interested in winning elections or growing his audience?
77 Eugene C // Feb 7, 2009 at 7:31 am
David says that Governor Palin managed the Alaskan State budget as if oil prices would stay high for ever. He gives this as an example of her lack of prudence–in addition to the rebates from the Alaskan Permanent Fund. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but my information is that she acted in precisely the opposite manner, refusing to go on a spending spree in the last two years. Instead she accumulated savings accounts of over 7B dollars–these are separate to the Permanent Fund, which is mannaged independently. Alaska has no debt! Surely this is an example of her great prudence not the other way around.
78 HollywoodBill // Feb 7, 2009 at 7:40 am
The Palinistas just don’t seem to get it. Palin lost the election just as much as McCain did. Her extreme brand of social conservatism is unacceptable and while it played well with a certain segment of the base, it totally turned off Independent voters and a large segment of Republicans. Two Western politicians lost more Western states than any Republican in recent memory. Palin is totally unacceptable as a national candidate.
79 realconservativ // Feb 7, 2009 at 7:40 am
Like George Bush, David Frum was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Daddy sent David to all the best schools. Sarah Palin was one of five children born to a school teacher. She financed her education through everything from beauty pagent schoolorships to odd jobs. She has had to scrap for everything in her life, usually fighting great odds. While Frum has had “jobs” as blogging and at “think tanks” which accomplish nothing, Sarah Palin runs a state. But then she associates with common people and goes out of her way to make special needs children and their families feel … well special. These are people Frum wouldn’t be caught dead with. You’re right David. This woman is a cancer and must be destroyed.
80 realconservativ // Feb 7, 2009 at 7:43 am
Hollywood – Did you come up with the name Palinistas all by yourself? You’re a true genius. Care to make any bogus claims about McCain-Palin not carrying any suburbs like you usually do so I can refrute them again?
81 jummy // Feb 7, 2009 at 7:46 am
a taste of the palinite populist mentality at hotair.com –
Those of us who support her do so from the heart, and realize, as well as embrace, the power of a single person to affect those that touch from their heart – the true servants heart.
Much the same could be said and argued about Christ and Christianity, but those who believe and accept, simply do; they do not waste the time intellectualizing His existance and purpose.
singlemalt_18 on February 6, 2009 at 10:17 PM
We have principals and ideology and that trumps your thought process.
Sultry Beauty on January 22, 2009 at 3:01 PM
82 jummy // Feb 7, 2009 at 7:52 am
the funny thing about the spammer calling itself “realconservative” is that i’ve been using the term “‘real’ conservative” as a pejorative for the exact variety of deranged, populist socialcon for a while now.
you may as well ban it now. it will only drag the discourse here down.
83 Chekote // Feb 7, 2009 at 7:57 am
Jonah. Give me a break. For years the Dems cheered for us to fail in Iraq. Enough said.
84 jummy // Feb 7, 2009 at 8:01 am
they want to coronate her as party standard-bearer for 2012 already. they have an entire developed passion play of her trials through the valley of haters they recite in place of arguments on her behalf. charges of apostasy are slung freely at even the slightest deviation from palin apologetic and apostasy is punished with excommunication from the conservative cause. the priests of palinite populism presume that authority.
85 Chekote // Feb 7, 2009 at 8:04 am
RealCon is not a spammer. Even he recognizes that Palin needs to improve her knowledge of national and international issues. She will speak at CPAC. This is the first time that she will be speaking to the conservative base not as Mac’s VP choice. We’ll see.
86 jummy // Feb 7, 2009 at 8:21 am
you can’t see how that’s facially ludicrous?
if she “needs to improve her knowledge of national and international issues,” why is she even being considered?
i’ll tell you why, in their own words: “Those of us who support her do so from the heart…Much the same could be said and argued about Christ…they do not waste the time intellectualizing…”
she is nothing but a cipher for the bellicose anti-intellectualism of socialcons for whom things like the interrogation of root assumptions are regarded as a form of corruption.
87 Chekote // Feb 7, 2009 at 8:36 am
jummy. Why did Obama win the presidency? Cult of personality. It certainly wasn’t his list of achievements, experience. Palin has charisma. Palin has star power like Obama. That’s why she is being considered.
88 realconservativ // Feb 7, 2009 at 8:53 am
My concern about the “big tent” philosophy can be summed up with Collins, Snowe and Specter and their support of the Stimulus Package. While we disagree on a number of issues, I doubt that any of us support this monstrosity. CBO has said it will do more harm than good. There’s more pork than stimulus. It will hurt the GOP as it funnels money to groups like ACORN. By the time it’s done, it will be nearly a trillion dollars. Yet three Republicans broke ranks to support it. Why did they support it? What did Obama promise them? Imagine if they were Democrats supporting such an important GOP-favorable issue. They would be stripped seniority, any chairmanships and have reduced party support when they sought reelection.
89 jummy // Feb 7, 2009 at 9:22 am
Chekote – do you like obama? do you like the way obama won? do you like cults of personality? do you expect that model to work well for obama and the dems when reality comes knocking at the door?
no. nobody here does.
let’s pretend for a moment that this is a model we regard as acceptable and look at the reality of that for a moment. the country has already been stirred to a populist pique. obama was carried into office on it. that space is already occupied. populism has been mobilized for the left and against the right. and palin is specifically what that populist mass was mobilized to defeat. the more this palinite populism – a minority populism which only stirs a subset of the grassroots of the party which was defeated – is asserted against the majority populism, the more pushback it will receive, and the more it will shrink. you see, there isn’t even a tenable pragmatic reason for a pragmatist to cynically nurture this deranged palinite populism.
90 Chekote // Feb 7, 2009 at 9:45 am
Jummy. I was just answering the question of why Palin is in contention. I didn’t say I support her candidacy. I want to see what she does in the next couple of years. Starting with her CPAC speech.
91 larryo // Feb 7, 2009 at 9:49 am
Chekote – while Palin was running up a big deficit for the people in Wasilla to pay, Obama was teaching Constitutional Law – which portends better for a prospective President of the United States?
92 larryo // Feb 7, 2009 at 9:55 am
jummy, I agree with most everything I have read that you have written, and not just on this thread, except for this: I don’t think that populism has been “mobilized for the left” so much as the right has vigorously and single-mindedly – you might say myopically – pursued policies that are truly elitist – that benefit only a very small, cohesive and identifiable group at very high expense to everyone else.
93 Chekote // Feb 7, 2009 at 10:14 am
larryo. I’ll take the person who actually tried to run something over someone who just know how to talk about the law. Besides, according to Obama our constitution is fatally flawed. So I will take Palin over Obama anyday. And you will too after a couple of years of Obama’s intellectualism.
94 Chekote // Feb 7, 2009 at 10:15 am
“that benefit only a very small, cohesive and identifiable group at very high expense to everyone else.” Here we go again with the same old, stale thinking that it is a fix pie and the success of some can only come at the expense of others. What do you do for a living larryo? At whose expense are you gaining?
95 Eugene C // Feb 7, 2009 at 10:51 am
It seems to me that to understand the ‘meaning of Palin’ better, we need a more complete and accurate account of Governor Palin’s political history. Many paint her as having ‘fringe’ appeal only to a ‘narrow’ part of the Republican base, and to religious conservatives. I find this difficult to reconcile with the fact that she was elected Governor and retains high approval in a State with a relatively high proportion of independent voters., and which, according to Gallup, is the fifth most ’secular State in the Union! Add to this such acts as placing a veto over attempts to rescind marraige-like benefits from same-sex couples in State employ, upholding a finely balalnced interpretation of the Alaskan constitution, rather than acting on what may have been her personal convictions. Clearly, Sarah Palin is a more complex person that we are given to believe.
96 dragonlady // Feb 7, 2009 at 11:15 am
Another Frum hit piece on Palin (yawn). Frum, what is wrong with giving this woman a chance to prove herself? If she’s a disaster like you portend, it will become evident to the the party at large. You object to moderate Repubs being dissed by conservatives–so why do you continue the tactic of eating our own? Chekote and Sinz54, please continue to be open-minded to Palin’s candidacy. I support giving her a chance but I do acknowledge the concerns that everyone has posted on. And let’s not kid ourselves–culture is not going away as an issue. I’m all for a re-emphasis on economics, foreign policy, and effective governance, but conservatives have ceded cultural institutions to the Left in the media, education, hollywood, etc and have not been better off for it. I also agree that conservatives cannot promote divisiveness in cultural messages but at the same time, we need to stand up to the Left when they use the same tactics against us (you’re a bigot if you’re not fory marriage, you’re a racist if you’re against illegal immigration, you’re a religious wacko if you are not pro-choice, and so forth). Let’s not use their tactics but call them out on it when they use them.
97 petty boozshwa // Feb 7, 2009 at 11:57 am
I agree the venom directed at Palin seems misplaced – it’s like Frum is trying to relive, like Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny, the Harriet Miers triumph of years past. Palin is a weak, platitudinous pol. So is Joe Biden, who has been wrong on every major issue since he beat Pete DuPont’s seatwarmer in 1972. I’d still like to see a coherent response to Tanenhaus’ critique, but I didn’t find it in this posting.
98 realconservativ // Feb 7, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Dragonlady – You don’t understand. Without an Ivy League education and being well connected with Beltway intellectuals like Frum, there is no way a peasant like Sarah Palin could ever amount to anything. Just because millions of conservatives like her? What do they know? Have they graduated form an Ivy League school, Northwestern or Stanford? Exactly!
99 jummy // Feb 7, 2009 at 12:05 pm
another example of palinite zeal: “Our job, as supporters of Sarah, is to stand behind her and encourage her to be the best she can be and to defend her to the death against those who throw up roadblocks or are obsessed with thwarting Sarah from fulfilling what we perceive as her eventual destiny.” – technopeasant on February 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM
100 Jonah // Feb 7, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Coleman, my phrase “prejudice against incompetence and ineffectiveness” is ironic, in the vein of the sarcasm in Frum’s article. Of course Palin wasn’t up to the task –no pedigree or Ivy degree would have saved her from herself. Reagan went to Eureka College, but he had more than superficial charisma.
Chekote, if you’re equating hopes for Obama’s failure with Dems’ cheering for failure in Iraq, isn’t it hypocritical to defend the former and condemn the latter? (Or will you tell me, “But they’re hypocritical, so why can’t I be?”) I should think you’d hate to be right, or love to be wrong, if what you’re predicting is disaster. Even if your adversaries stoop, why lower the bar?
101 Chekote // Feb 7, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Dragonlady, I am looking forward to Palin’s speech at CPAC. This is the first time that she will be speaking on her own to the party as a whole instead of her constituents. I also want to see her on a Sunday talk show. Both Chris Wallace and Bob Schiefer are very fair. I will reserve my final judgement until then. She has charisma and star power but not much substance. I also want to see how she handles social issues.
102 Chekote // Feb 7, 2009 at 8:32 pm
dragonlady. I agree that the cultural wars will continue. However, I think it would be more effective to fight those battles in academia, entertainment as opposed to trying to use government to impose a certain set of values. This approach does not work for conservative. At the core of liberalism is a belief that government knows best. At the core of conservatism is that the individual knows best. That is why social issues strike a discordant note. We cannot say that we want government out of our lives and at the same time try to use government to impose a certain set of values. It undercuts our argument for limited government. I can join you in defending the attacks on traditional values by the Left but I can’t join you in legislating morality as many in the SoCon movement want to do.
103 larryo // Feb 7, 2009 at 9:55 pm
“Here we go again with the same old, stale thinking that it is a fix pie and the success of some can only come at the expense of others.” Chekote, as long as a private syndicate of bankers has its foot on our monetary airhose – that is, as long as it has an exclusive license to print our money, which it does and then, in effect, loans it to us at interest, the size of the pie is not only fixed but it is then manipulated for the benefit of the syndicate of bankers. Has that not yet become clear to you? I am astonished. Read “The Creature from Jekyll Island.” Read “Secrets of the Temple.”
104 dragonlady // Feb 7, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Chekote, I agree that cultural wars are better adapted to institutions like media and education. Generally, I think these issues belong to the states. But some of them can’t be punted like that. It is untenable for one state to recognize marriage for one couple and for another state to deem that couple as illegitimate, or withhold benefits from them. Also, how do you propose we fight values from the Left that are continually hoisted on us by judicial activists? You can be pro-choice, but see Roe v Wade was an activist decision. Ditto for redefining trad’l marriage, an institution that’s been around longer than democracy itself. Sometimes legislatures are the only way to fight back. Again, I think we should go the “hearts and minds” route but how agnositic do we want gov’t to be on these issues?
105 Cforchange // Feb 9, 2009 at 7:38 am
The lingering fanaticism surrounding Sarah Palin is bothersome.
Sure I had a favorite candidate who with his clear 12 point plan for our county and incredible presentation skills couldn’t even get near the ticket. This candidate had a lifetime of proven skill of successfully prosecuting some of the worst and then mastered the management Gotham where the size of the Mayor’s office staff probably exceeded the entire population of Wasilla.
Sure I was disappointed that our party couldn’t see that the electorate was looking for someone who could communicate expertly and provide clear direction. But I am over it like you all should be with Sarah. To recycle someone who isn’t even remotely close to the caliber of a candidate such as Rudy is absurd and would cater primarily to a noisy rigid segment of the party.
106 sinz54 // May 12, 2009 at 8:13 am
Larryo: As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The growth in inflation-adjusted GDP over the last 100 years is proof that the pie was never fixed.
The fantastic growth experienced by South Korea (just compare against North Korea), Japan, Singapore, China and India (as soon as each of those nations stopped listening to lefties like you and adopted free markets) is real proof that the pie isn’t fixed.
The only places the pie is fixed are command economies.
107 sinz54 // May 12, 2009 at 8:21 am
dragonlady sez: “Chekote and Sinz54, please continue to be open-minded to Palin’s candidacy.”
I am open-minded. Candidates can recover from electoral defeat–Nixon, for example.
But Sarah Palin *must* show that she can stand on her own feet with national and international issues. (Not just read a prepared text.) What would she do about Iran? What would she do about Afghanistan-Pakistan? How would she reform the global financial system? What form of health care reform does she favor? Is she against cap-and-trade?
I’m not going to support her just because she’s a “regular person,” or because she can shoot a gun, or because she’s against abortion. America is still a nation at WAR, there are still lots more issues to deal with than those hot-button issues.
BTW: I don’t think Harry Truman was qualified either. But putting him on the ticket kept Henry Wallace, with his KGB agents of influence (such as Harry Dexter White), out of the White House. We were lucky. We almost got the Manchurian Candidate Presidency.
You must log in to post a comment.