Her World View

Normally I don't post much about politics because I tend not to be deeply informed, and because I only manage to be neutral and objective for all of thirty seconds, before becoming fiercely drawn in on one side or another. I think it is right to feel strongly, because politics do have such a large influence on everyone's existence, and any idiocy or lack of sympathy or incompetence is magnified a hundredfold in its effects. I can't think of political arguments as a game, either, when, for instance, the Iraq War has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. My opinion may have no effect on anything, but I do not want to take lightly, or to discuss as a theoretical exercise, events and policies that cause so much suffering to others. Still, I do modify my views as I learn more, so what I write is neither written in stone, nor as forceful as it may sound, and I believe it is only just to take the following with a pinch of salt:


Yesterday I watched a portion of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC, and today I read a transcript of other parts of the interview. Taken as an indication of how Mrs. Palin would be as vice president, it was deeply disturbing, but taken as an example of how an interviewer can make his subject display her inadequacy simply by asking reasonable questions and then letting her talk freely, it was one of the funniest things I've seen.

On Russia and Georgia:

PALIN: [. . .] For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors. We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Source: "Excerpts: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin," Sept. 11, 2008, abcnews.go.com

Altogether it is painfully evident that she knows next to nothing about foreign affairs. There is her failure to note that Mikhail Saakashvili did actually provoke Russia with his offensive on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, which by one estimate that I heard was 98% destroyed, and the reported deaths of hundreds of Russian citizens. Every interpretation of current events that she brings forth in the interview is clearly parroted from her coaches, and she is simply repeating phrases without having synthesized them in her own mind sufficiently to reconcile their contradictions. As for the claim that Russia's closeness to Alaska provides her with a unique insight, it is astoundingly stupid, though the "small world" emendation is a fairly good save.

It becomes worse when she is asked about Iran, nuclear weapons and their threat to Israel, and she says that, "I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes." Never mind that most countries of the world would be out of range if the Iranian government did develop nuclear weapons. This fantasy that terrorists could lug, let's say, 50-tonne atomic bombs along in their suitcase, and drift from one country to another until they find a good target, while airport security and border control wave them happily through, is childish and embarrassing.

What I particularly enjoyed, though, is when she was asked about the Bush Doctrine, i.e. the policy of conducting preemptive military strikes, and had no idea what it was. Quite honestly, I'd forgotten what the Doctrine was about myself, and thought it referred to the "you're either with us or against us" idea. Besides, it is not a novel idea; take as an example the preemptive Israeli military strikes in the Six Days' War. But, still, I think Sarah Palin should have known it, and while she covered up her utter ignorance reasonably well, this ability to cover up ignorance is no qualification for her intended vice presidential role, and is indeed a disqualification. The Republican Party leadership clearly hasn't learned yet that political offices require more than good public relations. Here is the first part of the exchange:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

Altogether there are striking similarities between Sarah Palin and George W. Bush. They both owe their popularity to their "(wo)man of the people" persona and their ordinariness; they are both fairly young; they both worked as TV broadcasters; they are both not the brightest bulbs; they are or were both governors who (according to what I've heard) could not do their job without someone else briefing them, breaking down and explaining the matters at hand; they both have a poor understanding of character and psychology, and the most simplistic grasp of foreign affairs; and they are both terribly underqualified, in terms of knowledge and skills and experience, for their positions. I think of Barack Obama going to meet foreign leaders as a representative of the US, and I feel proud at the thought, because he has more integrity than, and quite as much capacity as, most other present heads of state; I think of John McCain and Joseph Biden, and then I feel ambivalent though I'm sure they have enough experience to do it competently; but when I think of Sarah Palin going to meet foreign leaders (she has never met a foreign head of state before), the thought is painful.

It is peculiar again how shamelessly the Republican Party contradicts itself. A big deal is made of the inexperience of Barack Obama, and I admittedly find this a problem, too. But the Party itself puts people in office who are not only unqualified now for their position, but who, due to their intellectual and other shortcomings, will never be qualified for their position.

I think that I would have liked to have Sarah Palin as a teacher, as she is confident, extroverted, good at speaking, and evidently fond of telling people what to do, but perhaps not even at a high school level, as I think she is a more practical type and I doubt that she would devote herself to a specific field for its own sake. But, to be frank, after my initial pleased surprise that she is a much, much better speaker than George W. Bush – or indeed most politicians – as far as accessibility and delivery are concerned, has faded, I am beginning to dislike her. At any rate I feel sorry for the US and the world if she and John McCain are elected, and if McCain does die in office, the prospect of her presidency is dreadful.