Palin’s paths – to the wrong destinations

posted at 4:49 pm on February 11, 2010 by
[ Politics ]   

Happy Birthday, Governor Palin!

Your post-Tea Party Nation publicity wave is still cresting, carrying your most ardent supporters and even some of your most determined enemies to new heights of exaggeration – hype piling high to the skies, it often seems. Apparently, you’re a genius who scrawled those notes on your hand knowing they’d be picked up, kerfuffled, and widely propagated. You may even be the embodiment of the Kabalistic Shekhinah, the human dwelling-place of divine joy (or something…):

Between right and left
the Bride approaches,
in holy jewels
and festive garments…

In this context, an ABC/WaPo poll putting your negatives very high, belief in your qualifications very low, is also a gift – pulling expectations back toward ground level, and preserving your underdog status even while David Broder urges us to take you seriously, or while Joe Klein for once puts the praise, however briefly and deceptively, above the usual fear-mongering and derision.

Chris Cillizza is also riding the “Palin surge,” but by arguing that it’s “overblown.” He points to that same poll and to the strengths of potential competitors, yet he may just be making the same mistake as leftwing data-cruncher and fellow Palinmania surfer Nate Silver – from the other direction. Both are asking and answering a question that no one in his or her right mind should be asking about a primary race two years away: What’s Palin’s “primary math” and best strategy to gain the GOP nomination in 2012? This question isn’t just premature: That anyone is even asking it makes for another birthday acclamation, but, all the same, it’s intrinsically malformed, since it attempts to envision a conventional race for the most unconventional major political figure of our time, one of the most unconventional we’ve seen.

Whether or not you think Cillizza, Silver, Broder, my Kabbalah-inspired colleague, or any other wave-rider including me is over- or underestimating Palin’s current and potential strengths, there’s something wrong with any analysis of Palin’s prospects that overlooks her main chance, her main justification for running, and quite possibly her main hope of accomplishing very much if somehow elected: The prospect of a “sweep the pieces off the board” election, not the traditional chess match. Even Broder’s comparison to past “outsider” candidates looks like faint praise indeed when you consider how little was accomplished by most of them. Even the outsider above all outsiders, Ronald Wilson Reagan, arguably achieved less in the realms of economics and domestic policy than Palin’s Tea Party revolutionaries – the Tea Party is first and foremost a revolutionary symbol – are demanding.

In anything short of a second American civil war, Silver’s analysis may still be somewhat useful, and Cillizza’s informed counter-insights suggestive, but, assuming continued or accelerated development roughly along current lines – Obama failing and flailing, Palin and the Tea Party on the rise, the center shifted decisively right and political energies even more decisively anti-business-as-usual – Palin’s path may look a lot different.  It would likely be pushed – by positive and, considering the likely reaction, negative influences and feedback – well away from any track marked out by ’08 exit polls, ’09 fundraising figures, and 2010 guesstimates.

Call this the “Perot Squared” scenario, or maybe “Twilight of the Liberal-Progressive Gods.” It’s understandable that a circle of mainstream and leftwing, and mainstream-leftwing observers would discount the likelihood of such a turn of events. There’s no way to tease it from the numbers or frame it in familiar terms (though they’ll try, and try, and try…). It would represent the extension, possibly the culmination, of a broad historical process, not a familiar repetition of the usual four-year cycle. Any arguably similar events taken from American or world history will be, to say the least, resistant to direct statistical or theoretical conversion.

In addition to seeming the safer bet, it’s got to be comforting to many to imagine that by 2012 American politics will have reverted to the recent historical norm, and such a presumption may also lend comfort to those Republicans who might prefer a more traditional candidate than the thrilla from Wasilla – though for the latter group it probably shouldn’t. Among other things, it tends to imply the likely re-election of the incumbent president.

In the meantime, the same factors that are forcing observers suddenly to take Palin seriously have to throw all of their calculations, their very modes of calculation, into doubt. She (or what she represents, not necessarily Palin herself as future contender) rises as they fall, and she doesn’t have to reach orbit to move a lot here on Earth.

cross-adapted from Zombie Contentions

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

There will be a lot of water under the bridge between now and 2012. Throw in a lot of headlines, catastophes, speeches, blogging, and so forth and so fifth.

Sarah may or may not be a player in 2012, who knows. One thing is certain, as you well said: the mind-set of the Tea Party will be very much in play. The deficits aren’t going anywhere but north, Obama will still be a knucklehead, and the Saints will still be in the record books for SB XLIV. Maybe for XLV, XLVI as well. Who knows?

Robert17 on February 11, 2010 at 5:19 PM

This is a well thought out piece. Thank you!

portlandon on February 11, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Good piece! I enjoyed it.

deidre on February 11, 2010 at 7:20 PM

I do not think Palin will be a candidate for 2012 however I do believe she is playing a more important role as a lightning rod for left wing attacks. As the focus on Palin they leave Romney and Huckabee and other GOP probables alone.

Dennis D on February 11, 2010 at 7:47 PM

The playing field has changed and those players who have a clue are retiring before they are sidelined. The games are now being watched by those who previously were not aware that the rules had changed so radically. 2010 is going to be the best season in a hundred years. I am betting on the red team and giving odds.

Reality Checker on February 11, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Palin needs to run on consitutional change. Make amendments tot he consitution a central theme. A balanced budget amendment, term limits (maybe) a consitutional amendment to change tax policy. Bold new ideas and some ideas that Reagan left undone. Reagan revolution did not make lasting change because he failed to cement the revolution in the consitution and he picked a liberal vice president. Palin can overcome those two mistakes.

She is doing everything right at this stage and has all options open and will let God decide her fate.

A stronger wonan we will not see for a long time on the national scene.

unseen on February 11, 2010 at 8:51 PM

There’s always the question that, in the age of the Internet, would Ronald Reagan have been Ronald Reagan if everything he had done in his life and in his political career was immediately available for digital callback and dissection by millions of people on both the left and the right.

That the arena Palin works in, which means she has to be even more careful than Reagan was, since any gaffe gets YouTubed, circulated and magnified in way that never happened in the past (and in ways that the big media outlets still won’t do with Barack Obama’s errors). At the same time, she also needs over the next 15-18 months, to find her own voice on proactively providing policy ideas to the public, because she has to counter the image in the minds of the swing voters (a Palin speech nowadays has no problem getting her core supporters going, but much of her speeches could just as easily be delivered by Sean Hannity at his next Freedom Concert — it’s effective for the target audience, but it’s too generic).

Reagan had a distinct voice and emphasized his beliefs in the free market and a strong U.S. military and told the public what he would do if elected. Reagan had the better part of 40 years to develop that style, from the time Jack Warner signed him to when he was elected president. Palin’s been around for all of four years in the Alaska spotlight and 18 months nationally, but she’ll have to do a speed course in (as much as I hate the word) gravitas in order to reach the threshold among moderate swing voters that Reagan reached in the 1980 campaign.

jon1979 on February 11, 2010 at 9:04 PM

jon1979 on February 11, 2010 at 9:04 PM

If Palin needs to attain that threshold, I don’t think she can – certainly not by 2012, maybe not ever. Reagan was immensely qualified and experienced, and his thinking had matured over the course of decades, and in ways that his detractors never acknowledged, of course.

But it’s not 1980. Reagan had to face the entire liberal order, which was still in place despite having been exposed as exhausted by the events of the ’60s-’70s. To “help” him, he had a Republican Party that was largely dominated by people strongly adverse to his ideas – Dole and Rockefeller Republicans, not so many Goldwater-Reagan Republicans. There weren’t even enough economists who understood and supported supply side theories to fill up the available staff positions. And he had to deal with the Soviet Union, which ended up dominating his attention and his agenda. He wasn’t exactly alone, but it was a much different time.

A President Palin would have to call upon a sizable core of true believers and trend-followers inside and outside of Congress, a highly motivated popular following, and a looming economic conjuncture forcing decisions on the power structure that Reagan and the Congress were in their time able to start financing into the distant future – that is, into our present and near future.

CK MacLeod on February 11, 2010 at 9:50 PM

CK MacLeod on February 11, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Good follow-up. Bear in mind BarryO’s dilemma. The prince’s court is made up of the only people he associated with, pre-candidacy. It was a small, inbred circle of socialists with no real world experience in leadership, productivity, courage, or maturity. The only ‘outsiders’ sought were bargained for at the donor trough.

Sarah may face similar issues in that she is young, from an isolated world (not in a mean -spirited way). Her leadership skills seem to be very good so far but that is not enough. Reagan had a lifetime, as you stated, of understanding, introductions, study, and intro- as well as retro-spection at his disposal. Fighting any battle, whether war or raising kids, running a business or a household, means you need a lot of expert advice quite often, more than yes-men, more than hangers-on, more than a handout. Also, there must be a strong spiritual foundation. Unmistakenly this tends to be a characteristic of the leaders the world most admires and remembers.

Add a few more items to the list. I know it’s incomplete. Hopefully we’ll see another great leader in our lifetimes. If physics teaches us anything, the law of ‘equal and opposite reactions’ effect should counterbalance the current boneheads with a real winner before long.

Robert17 on February 11, 2010 at 10:12 PM

One of Palin’s big positives for the Tea Party right is that she starts out not thinking in the terms of the quadrennial, by-the-rules “chess match,” and moves forward from there.

It’s inevitable that the MSM, and much of the GOP establishment, will continue to evaluate her in terms of her suitability for the chess match. What else are they going to do? Even if they have imagination, there are a lot of ways in which it would be proposing a change in their own job description, for them to proactively cooperate with this kind of rogue wave before it crashes over them.

I think the biggest challenge of any potential candidate who leverages Tea Party voters to the Oval Office will be how to faithfully execute the charter: “Govern less.” Interestingly, the only “name” I see in the mix that might find some way to actually do that is — Sarah Palin.

J.E. Dyer on February 12, 2010 at 12:32 PM

This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Ed Morrissey on February 12, 2010 at 5:52 PM