Jim Burgess and others want to know if my opinion of Sarah Palin has evolved since the last time I posted about her. It's somewhat academic, since there was never any chance of me voting for McCain. I like Obama a great deal, and even if I didn't the Bush regime has turned me against the Republican Party enough that it would take something extraordinary to make me consider voting for any Republican to high-level office this year. Nevertheless, on the day Palin was nominated I was willing to say, based on what I knew of her record as governor, that Palin "would probably be a pretty good president".

The answer to Jim's questions is yes, I have gradually come around to the view that Palin would be a pretty lousy president. I don't think I need to detail the path that leads me here. It's the same as you may have read from any number of anti-anti-Palin liberal or moderate pundits. (Here's one from Glenn Greenwald that I was able to quickly locate, but others would do as well.)

My biggest objection to Palin is, for lack of a better description, how quickly and easily she resorts to bullshit. I don't mean far out radical ideology; I mean bullshit. Contrast this with, say, one-time Obama opponent Alan Keyes. Keyes has some very strange ideas — even some delusional ones, I would say — but he's quite clear in articulating his thinking. Palin, on the other hand, as often as not is just making shit up. Bullshit is an important part of politics and facility with it is not a wholly negative quality for a politician. Bill Clinton had such a facility, and although I didn't care for it then either, I was willing to overlook it. But after 16 years of presidential mendacity I think that's one area in which we really do need change.

I still disagree with the hysterical pronouncements that Palin's nomination is a complete joke and she is so comically underqualified that it defies discussion, and I still think that many of the commonest criticisms against her are exaggerations and caricatures. But yeah, I don't think she'd be a very good president.

Jim and Pete both object to my claim that Palin is not a "nut case radical". Maybe this is a matter of perspective. For one thing, I don't care nearly as much as they do what is taught in schools. Even if a candidate really did make it her agenda to teach kids that God created the earth in seven days, or ban Catcher in the Rye from all school libraries, that would have little or no bearing on my vote. Basically, I think school is stupid, and most kids are either smart enough or dumb enough that they won't believe what they're taught anyway, so it hardly matters.

More to the point, whatever her own views may be and whatever she may be advocating now, Sarah Palin did not govern Alaska as an activist on social issues. They simply weren't her agenda. Yes, I know you can read shocking stories about her conversation with the librarian at the Wasilla Public Library, or her meeting with radical secessionists, or her dismissal of evolution, but nevertheless these were not the things she pushed as governor. Maybe as president she would, I don't know, but as governor she did not.

It's possible that my attitude (and Palin's) is a function of growing up in Alaska. Steve Hutton directed me to this entertaining memoir by another former Alaskan. (I link a lot of stories in this post. If you read only one of them, I recommend this one.) Parts of it may sound like a joke to you, but it rings very true to me. Yes, there are a lot of people in Alaska who believe a lot of really nutty things. (Some would argue that I am among them.) And yes, in spite of that, people all manage to get along anyway. My first girlfriend had a best friend who believed that I, as a non-believer, served as a portal through which evil demons could access her friend. I'm not sure what my girlfriend believed, but whatever it was it didn't prevent her from getting along with both of us. (I even let them try to exorcise me once, during which the friend went into a sort of trance and spoke in tongues.)

My point is that to me it seems perfectly normal that one can have strongly held and vastly different views on religious or cultural issues but not feel a need to push your own views once you reach elective office. Apparently this does not seem normal, or even imaginable, to Pete nor to the mainstream media. It is assumed that if Palin has nutty views, she will promote those views a president. So I guess a clarification of my earlier statement is in order. When I said Palin is not a nut case radical, I meant that as a politician she does not promote a nut case radical political program. If ever I feel sympathetic to Palin — or rather to the pre-nomination Palin — it's probably because I feel that this special Alaska brand of tolerance (as opposed to the snooty, condescending "tolerance" so popular among blue-state liberals) is something that the rest of the nation needs.

Jim has supported my view that the best way to learn about Palin's career is to eschew all stories written after her nomination and read only those written before. It's probably too late for that now, but early last month I did start to compile a list of some of those I found online. (This was surprisingly difficult: The Web has a strong bias in favor of the current, and when a person is essentially slashdotted by history, the avalanche of hits that follow overwhelm the few that were there before.)

None of these stories is earth-shaking. Just a humdrum sample of what people were saying about Palin before she became a national figure:

• New York Times, Oct 3, 2006. Gubernatorial race, after she won the primary.

• Christian Science Monitor, Dec 6, 2006. General introduction after she won the election.

• New York Times, Feb 19, 2007. Gas pipeline.

• Anchorage Daily News, May 30, 2007. Sourcing and analysis of approval ratings.

• SitNews (a local paper in Southeast Alaska), June 29, 2007. State budget.

• Weekly Standard, July 27, 2007. Puff piece by Fred Barnes.

• Seattle Times, Sep 21, 2007. General portrait, emphasis on the state's Republican establishment.

• Alaska Business Monthly, Dec 1, 2007. Recap of first year in office. (Notice the trip to Kuwait.)

• Associated Press, Dec 26, 2007. Recap of first year in office. (Notice the non-partisan slant.)

• Associated Press, May 22, 2008. Polar bears.

• Associated Press, Aug 14, 2008. Trooper investigation.

I wanted to include something from before the gubernatorial election about her ventures, in partnership with Democrat Eric Croft, to lodge ethics complaints against various state officials, but I hadn't yet turned up anything.

The thing that strikes me most in comparing pre-August and post-August discussions of Palin is the extent to which, prior to her nomination, she is seen as a non-partisan figure. It's been two months now and the press still hasn't caught up to the fact that Palin, having overthrown the party establishment in the state, had virtually no political support within her own party. In her first year as governor, most of her programs were passed with Democratic support, not Republican. A simple examination of the legislative record would demonstrate this, but in today's news media there is no place for such an examination. They'd rather solicit opinions from various Alaskans in interviews, in spite of the fact that most or all of them are spinning the past to suit their new partisan interests now that Palin is on the national ticket.

8:01:39 PM  [permalink]  comment []