The American Scene

An ongoing review of politics and culture

• Politics
• Economics
• The Media
• Culture

• Home
• About
• Archive
• Search

Leave a Reply

1. Her qualifications are important whatever the rationale was for nominating her, and are worth debating.

   But come on— this was the most nakedly, transparently political pick ever. Throw me that bone. I can’t imagine anyone in good conscience claiming otherwise.

   — Freddie · Aug 31, 07:07 PM · #

2. “Thomas Jefferson also had a few other accomplishments under his belt.”

   Don’t drink the Kool-Aid peddled by the docents at Monticello. He was liberally-educated in manner and degree unusual in our time, and made use of that in his manifestoes, &c. He founded a college (as did Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Ronald MacArthur). Beyond that his principal accomplishment was the mismanagement of his plantation. Gen. Washington made Mount Vernon pay.

   You do not explain why you exclude from ‘executive experience’ being a line administrator other than a chief executive, nor do you compare Gov. Palin’s background with that of other Vice Presidential candidates.

   I am not an actuary myself, but it is my understanding that the probability of a 72 year old man surviving the next four years is in the realm of 75-80%.

   — Art Deco · Aug 31, 07:16 PM · #

3. I’ll claim otherwise, Freddie, with the best conscience in the world.

   Was the choice — at least in part — political? Sure. Was it any more political, nakedly or otherwise, than Obama’s Biden pick? No, I don’t think so. It seems to me that what has some Obama supporters worried is not how nakedly political it might be, but how brilliantly political it has the potential to be.

   — Kate Marie · Aug 31, 07:30 PM · #

4. Ignoring the ones from the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It looks like you have to be an executive of a large state no? Alaska has 650K and is comparable to a city rather than a state. It is large, sparsely populated and has no major cities and it is biggest welfare state. You should look a the journalist’s and legislator’s opinions. They all say she sucks so nice try though.

   — dewces · Aug 31, 07:42 PM · #

5. but how brilliantly political it has the potential to be.

   How, exactly? The PUMAs aside, the Hilary voters that Obama has had the most trouble bringing over are men. Not women. And the idea that women will abandon their ideology and vote for a woman, any woman, is insulting and wrong— and if they do, they’re proving every negative stereotype about women. Palin is an arch-conservative with an extremists record on abortion. Obama is already polling at 55% to 35% with women. The idea that Palin can deliver women and seal the election for McCain is laughable.

   What’s more, the idea that Biden can’t go after Palin in the debates is rooted in sexism as well. And I think Joe Biden is perfectly capable of demonstrating Palin’s utter lack of foreign policy bona fides very well without being a mean guy beating up on a girl. I can’t for the life of me see why so many people are willing to say “It’s still a disadvantage to be black in American electoral politics” but don’t apply that thinking to being a woman— particularly when the woman in question is so laughably unqualified.

   Look, this pick didn’t happen in a vacuum. From what I’m hearing, McCain hated running as the Washington insider, voice of experience candidate, and the Palin pick signals he’s abandoning that meme. Fair enough. But the problem is, you can’t out-Obama Obama. John McCain can’t beat Obama in a change election. Republicans have just cede the campaign narrative over to the side with a dominant strength in that version of the narrative and are everywhere declaring victory.

   This is to say nothing of the fact that she has been barely vetted and already has skeletons leaping out of her closet, like her connections to corruption and to an anti-Semitic politician.

   This is a classic pundit’s pick; it’s great for energizing the intelligentsia but doesn’t little . I’m watching pundit after pundit, blogger after blogger get excited about the possibilities of what Palin could mean. I think the conservative blogosphere’s reaction to this has been rather embarrassing. Palin is a blank slate, so you’re foisting on her every possibly positive attribute you can imagine. Well, you’re welcome to do that. But this idea that Palin represents some incredible political dynamo that’s gonna swing the campaign for McCain is just nonsense. It’s wishful thinking.

   — Freddie · Aug 31, 07:44 PM · #

6. Interesting argument to pursue, but it’s unfinished as is.

   Re: executive experience, was the position earned, elected, or appointed? How was there performance evaluated… Successful? Unsuccessful? Too little time in job to determine? Are all executive positions equal? Are executive positions more prevalent than non-executive positions? Have voters always considered executive experience more valuable, or is it coincidental?

   We could go on, but that’s a start. At the very least, I think it’s too simplistic to say that those with executive experience are more qualified and that history proves that out.

   — CHART · Aug 31, 07:54 PM · #

7. “But come on— this was the most nakedly, transparently political pick ever. Throw me that bone. I can’t imagine anyone in good conscience claiming otherwise.”

   Freddie, we’ve had over 200 years of Vice Presidential selections, including one fellow whose previous position was Collector of the Port of New York. Get a grip.

   — Art Deco · Aug 31, 07:55 PM · #

8. “ I’m watching pundit after pundit, blogger after blogger get excited about the possibilities of what Palin could mean. I think the conservative blogosphere’s reaction to this has been rather embarrassing. Palin is a blank slate, so you’re foisting on her every possibly positive attribute you can imagine.”

   Freddie, does it occur to you that there’s certain irony in this formulation? Replace “conservative” with “liberal” and “Palin” with “Obama” and this statement could pretty fairly characterize the liberal blogosphere’s reaction to Obama at the beginning of his run. And I’m suggesting that that’s what is making Obama and his supporters nervous.

   I don’t think the idea is that Palin can “deliver women.” I think the idea is that she can potentially break off a very significant slice of that demographic while at the same time electrifying the base — which matters a lot in places like Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc.

   And, with all due respect, Freddie, the reference to her “connections” to Pat Buchanan seems kind of disingenuous to me. If that’s the kind of line McCain/Palin’s opponents want to take, though, I would think McCain would welcome it. All the more excuse to bring up Rezko, the corrupt Chicago machine, Ayers, et al. — and the media can’t with a straight face repeat the deceptive Buchanan charges without also mentioning McCain’s criticisms of Obama’s connection with Rezko.

   — Kate Marie · Aug 31, 07:59 PM · #

9. So are we saying that experience doesn’t count now? Which renders McCain’s entire previous argument against Obama obsolete.

   Or we saying that a little executive experience trumps senatorial experience. WHich would make Gov. Palin the MOST qualified of the 4 to be president.

   Or do we combine the experience of both sets of candidates and collide them? Of course then we would have to weigh life expectancy of the pres candidates, becasue VPs only really matter when the pres. is dead.

   What if we looked at all the info rationally. The experience thing is one factor but it has been raised up into a talking point which makes it nothing more that some argumental bludgeon. Maybe I should make some kind of chart giving grades for all the factors based on available evidence: temperment, judgment, communication skills, intellect, preparation for the job, ability to work with others, ethics….

   I could do that, but it would only matter to the very very few who haven’t already decided. We don’t pick presidents rationally as the past few days comments seem to me to prove.

   But anyway, I like the rational approach and I appreciate Mr. manzi’s attempt, though I think the prior experience subject is way too complicated to address that simplistically. For instance: one thing about that list of great presidents, all but TR we given the opportunity to be great by large circumstance.

   — cw · Aug 31, 08:00 PM · #

10. Freddie, does it occur to you that there’s certain irony in this formulation? Replace “conservative” with “liberal” and “Palin” with “Obama” and this statement could pretty fairly characterize the liberal blogosphere’s reaction to Obama at the beginning of his run.

    Of course, the liberal blogosphere hadn’t spent over a year ridiculing precisely that kind of thinking before Obama got nominated, and then completely changed their tune. Which is precisely what has happened with the conservative blogs and Sarah Palin.

    I don’t think the idea is that Palin can “deliver women.” I think the idea is that she can potentially break off a very significant slice of that demographic

    Wishful thinking, to my mind. But who knows?

    — Freddie · Aug 31, 08:07 PM · #

11. “We could go on, but that’s a start. At the very least, I think it’s too simplistic to say that those with executive experience are more qualified and that history proves that out.”

    A statement about qualifications incorporates an implicit statement of probability: not that the qualification determines the candidate will do better but that with it one can wager the candidate will do better. You are offering as a ‘sophisticated’ alternative the proposition that the experience of having superintended a public bureaucracy will (on average) not improve the performance of the candidate in superintending a public bureaucracy. I do not think you want to go there.

    — Art Deco · Aug 31, 08:07 PM · #

12. “Which is precisely what has happened with the conservative blogs and Sarah Palin.”

    Once more with feeling:

    1. She is the candidate for VICE President;

    2. Senator Obama’s supervisory experience consists of superintending his immediate staff. Ditto Biden.

    — Art Deco · Aug 31, 08:15 PM · #

13. “We may be seeing the first woman president. As a Democrat, I am reeling,” said Camille Paglia, the cultural critic. “That was the best political speech I have ever seen delivered by an American woman politician. Palin is as tough as nails.” Times Online

    I think someone on the McLaughlin Report said Palin’s not expected to deliver the Hilary core feminists, but she may draw part of the blue collar/ working class somen’s vote that went for Hilary in the primaries.

    — Julana · Aug 31, 08:17 PM · #

14. Ah! The candidate for Vice President! For a geriatric with a history of cancer. You’re right, man, case closed.

    Barack Obama has a supervisory role in running his campaign, one of the largest, best organized, best funded and most successful (regardless of the eventual outcome in history). In his role as a state senator, Obama had more constituents than Palin does as governor. Game set match.

    — Freddie · Aug 31, 08:21 PM · #

15. “ You are offering as a ‘sophisticated’ alternative the proposition that the experience of having superintended a public bureaucracy will (on average) not improve the performance of the candidate in superintending a public bureaucracy. I do not think you want to go there.”

    I’m starting to see the republican talking point. Palin has more “experience” than Obama. So is she then more qualified to be pres. thatn Obama? Do you really want to go there?

    If she’s going to “slice off” swing votes it going to be swing votes that were leaning right and this made up their mind. In other words, swing votes that would have swung to McCain anyway.

    — cw · Aug 31, 08:24 PM · #

16. Mr. Manzi: Hunh. I can see how you ended up leaving out Harrison and Garfield, but the 2005 presidential rankings that you link to references them as among the very worst, if not worst, of the presidents, so bad apparently that they’re literally not ranked by the WSJ poll. If they’re added to the list, as they should be since the concensus puts them in the worst category, then your argument is distinctly weaker, as both had executive experience as generals.

    — CHART · Aug 31, 08:42 PM · #

17. “In his role as a state senator, Obama had more constituents than Palin does as governor. Game set match.”

    A conscientious legislator sees that the mail is answered, reads and votes on legislation, and cuts deals. A non-conscientious legislator plays cards and does as he’s told by the majority (or minority) leader. He is not responsible for the budget or the operations of state (or municipal) departments. Of course, you have non-conscientious executives as well. It is more likely to show, however.

    Illinois has a population of 12,800,000 and 59 state senators. That would amound to 217,000 per constituency. Alaska has a population of 683,000. Match point’s mine, Mr. Pasarell.

    — Art Deco · Aug 31, 08:50 PM · #

18. “If they’re added to the list, as they should be since the concensus puts them in the worst category,”

    Mr. Garfield was in office about six months, much of it spent attempting to convalesce from a gunshot wound. If the purveyors of consensus have branded this hapless gentleman among our worst chief executives, perhaps they would be best ignored.

    — Art Deco · Aug 31, 08:54 PM · #

19. “Barack Obama has a supervisory role in running his campaign, one of the largest, best organized, best funded and most successful (regardless of the eventual outcome in history).”

    I think you may have stated in a nutshell what’s wrong with our political system – the talents it tends to reward and those it does not. Perhaps we should just dispense with elections and draw lots for our public officials from a pool of people employed in the fund-raising and advertising trades.

    — Art Deco · Aug 31, 09:14 PM · #

20. “Illinois has a population of 12,800,000 and 59 state senators. That would amound to 217,000 per constituency. Alaska has a population of 683,000. Match point’s mine, Mr. Pasarell.”

    Are the districts of Illinois divided evenly by population for the purposes of the state senate? I honestly don’t know.

    Personally, I find this whole debate misguided. There are many factors we all consider when deeming someone fit for a particular office. Superficially, Dan Quayle was more than qualified to be Vice President. But he struck many people as a lightweight without the seriousness or intellect for the job. Sarah Palin has a chance to prove herself to voters, and may yet do so. I’m voting for Obama, but I’m very curious to see how she does. She could have a very bright political future, or she could flame out now. She’s certainly jumped into the deep end, anyway.

    — c · Aug 31, 09:34 PM · #

21. “A non-conscientious legislator plays cards[*] and does as he’s told by the majority (or minority) leader.”

    With lobbiests, and “usually wins.”

    — J Mann · Aug 31, 09:36 PM · #

22. Two comments:

    Contrary to Kate Marie’s claim, much of the liberal blogosphere <i>was</i> initially doubtful of Obama as a presidential candidate. Many thought that he lacked the “killer instinct” necessary to succeed and were distrustful of his post-partisan rhetoric. This is a common misunderstanding, as many have incorrectly understood liberal bloggers’ disdain for the establishment or Washington insiders as a disdain for partisan politics—which is clearly false. Of course, after Obama’s success in a very tough primary race, most of these concerns have been assuaged.

    2. Mr. Manzi claims it is “uncontroversial to say that the key issue is what her resume indicates about her potential performance if she were to become president.” I disagree. As pointed out by <a href=“http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/08/the-importanc-1.html”>Max Bergmann</a> at <a href=“http://www.democracyarsenal.org/”>Democracy Arsenal</a>, in the post-Cold War era the vice president has become a more important office due to the VP’s stature and hence ability to represent the U.S. abroad. The U.S. foreign service has more demands placed on it today due to the rise of more effective international organizations, and an effective vice president could be a very useful tool in representing our interests abroad. I’m doubtful that Governor Palin could be effective in this role, whereas Joe Biden clearly could.

    — Joshua Livingston · Aug 31, 09:48 PM · #

23. “in the post-Cold War era the vice president has become a more important office due to the VP’s stature and hence ability to represent the U.S. abroad. “

    This is simply not an inherent or structural feature of the Vice President’s office. If their are concerns that our corps of 3,000 foreign service officers are insufficiently numerous to do the work they have to, you could always hire more.

    — Art Deco · Aug 31, 10:32 PM · #

24. Alaska has a population of 683,000.

    Congressional districts aren’t divided evenly, duder. Sorry to let you know. Obama’s district has 781,000 constituents.

    Isn’t someone doing a little research a bitch? GAME!

    — Freddie · Aug 31, 11:04 PM · #

25. You said his state senate district, Freddie. He has never been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, so I am not sure of the relevance of the population of the Congressional district in which he lives.

    As for the state senate district, the reapportionment decisions issued by the federal Supreme Court in 1963 required that state legislative districts be equipopulous or that members of legislative bodies be granted votes weighted according to the population of their constituencies. The latter is fairly common for county legislatures here in New York. I have never heard of it being used for a state legislative body.

    — Art Deco · Aug 31, 11:12 PM · #

26. See

    http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con4.htm

    for a copy of the Illinois Constitution. The money quotation is as follows:

    “SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING (a) Legislative Districts shall be compact, contiguous
    and substantially equal in population. Representative
    Districts shall be compact, contiguous, and substantially
    equal in population.”

    — Art Deco · Aug 31, 11:22 PM · #

27. Google around. “Substantially equal” is a meaningless phrase. Haven’t you heard of gerrymandering? Districts vary wildly in population. They’re geographically apportioned.

    — Freddie · Aug 31, 11:25 PM · #

28. I’m surprised how many decent people run for political office, especially those with families.
    Why must Chelsea Clinton and the children of Democrats be so protected, but the Palin’s daughter has already become a target?
    Why don’t followers of the Hope candidates bring a little hope to your responses to Palin?

    — Julana · Aug 31, 11:37 PM · #

29. “Google around. “Substantially equal” is a meaningless phrase. Haven’t you heard of gerrymandering? Districts vary wildly in population. They’re geographically apportioned.”

    Freddie,

    ‘Gerrymandering’ refers to the practice of drawing boundaries to benefit one party or another, by by contrivedly pooling the supporters of one side. It can be done and is done with equipopulous districts.

    Federal Congressional districts vary becuase they are first apportioned between fixed geographical units (states) ‘ere the territory within the state is allocated to districts. Interstate variation is typically the largest with regard to the smaller states while the larger converge around the national mean. The intra-state variation in district population is typically quite small. The same goes for the variation in the population of state legislative districts. Robert Bork has an account in his book “The Tempting of America” of serving as the special master for a Federal court in Connecticut engaged in redrawing the state legislative districts. He was initially instructed that every district was to be within 1% of the state mean. Around about 1986, I was given a list of the populations of all Congressional and state legislative districts here in New York. Just about every Congressional district had a population (as enumerated in 1980) of between 516,000 and 518,000. There was a bit more variation with regard to state Assembly districts, but I think nearly all had populations of between 114,000 and 119,000. Federal court decisions have at times invalidated state redistricting plans with a range of district populations as low as +/- 1.7% of the state mean.

    — Art Deco · Aug 31, 11:59 PM · #

30. I come from Illinois. There are about 3 IL state senate districts per congressional district (i.e. 200-250k per district). They are apportioned evenly by population. If they weren’t, I’m betting someone would’ve Baker vs. Carr’d the Illinois state legislature.

    — Constantine · Sep 1, 12:11 AM · #

31. Strictly looking at your “methodology,” I have some questions about your methodology and classification system. Are you counting being mayor of a small to medium size city as “executive experience?” Why does serving in a state legislature — even in a huge state such as NY, Texas, or California — not count as “legislative experience?” (As I recall — and I was only a little kid at the time ;D — Abe Lincoln’s only prior governmental experience was in the Illinois State Legislature.)
    And why should military “executive” experience be counted as relevant but not executive experience in business (cough * Ross Perot * cough)? Are there not other, non-military and non-governmental arenas in which someone might demonstrate executive, organizational, and leadership skills?

    Just wondering.

    Jeanene

    — Jeanene Pratt · Sep 1, 08:03 AM · #

32. I’m also wondering why you chose to look at only the “top” 5 and “bottom” 5. What pattern would your research show if you merely classified all our US Presidents by historical ratings of their job performance (e.g., A B C D F)?

    Your conclusion, “In fact, the best presidents have tended to have predominantly Executive experience, and the worst presidents predominantly Legislative experience,” is not warranted merely looking at the top 5 and the bottom 5.

    When you ask whether Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, John McCain, or Joe Biden have the experiential qualifications to be President/Commander-in-Chief, why not look at ALL previous Presidents who came to office with similar prior experience or less. For example, Grant and Nixon, generally ranked in the bottom 10, both had prior executive experience, while JFK, Truman, and Madison – none of whom had prior executive experience – are generally ranked in the top 10 to 15.

    You also grossly understate the pre-Presidency experience of James Buchanan – because of your narrow categories of “relevant” experience. Buchanan had 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 10 years in the US Senate, two US Ambassadorships (to London and Moscow), and 4 years as US Secretary Of State.

    I think if you look at the rankings (by consensus of historians) of ALL the US Presidents and compare those to their prior experience, you will find there is little correlation. That does not mean we should not weigh the candidates’ experiential backgrounds, but perhaps we should look at their demonstrated knowledge and skills in the areas relevant to being President, regardless of the venues in which they developed such knowledge and skills.

    — Jeanene Pratt · Sep 1, 03:03 PM · #

33. Jim;
    Maybe you can address the question, I raised over at Stubborn Facts(http://stubbornfacts.us/). Why doethe Dems historically (at least in the past 60 years) tend to strongly prefer sitting US Senators as their VEEP candidate?

    — c3 · Sep 1, 07:08 PM · #

34. “For example, Grant and Nixon, generally ranked in the bottom 10, both had prior executive experience, while JFK, Truman, and Madison – none of whom had prior executive experience – are generally ranked in the top 10 to 15.”

    Other than a brief (and failing) turn at running a small company which trafficked in frozen juice concentrate, Mr. Nixon was never a line administrator of anything. He was an attorney, and may have in that capacity supervised his secretary, a clerk, and perhaps a couple of associates; a legislator, supervising his staff; and the Vice President, supervising his staff.

    I think Mr. Manzi’s definition of ‘executive’ is overly narrow.

    Mr. Truman was for some years in the 1920s a county executive in Missouri (with the confusing title of ‘County Judge’).

    James Madison was, I believe, a cabinet secretary under Pres. Jefferson.

    — Art Deco · Sep 1, 11:33 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.

↑ knowledge

↓ The Real Palin Problem

All contents copyright The American Scene unless otherwise noted. Colophon. Archive.