Clive Crook on Sarah Palin
I haven’t seen the interview — I won’t have a television for a while, to my chagrin — but I’ve been struck by the ridicule Palin has attracted re: her confusion regarding the Bush Doctrine, as I’m pretty sure most of the people I know who’ve been doing the ridiculing couldn’t give me a plausible account of what it is either. Here’s Clive Crook:
I don’t go along with the view that her answers on the “Bush doctrine” were a serious misstep, however. True, she did not know what that term meant. The fact is, it means different things to different people. If Gibson had put that question to me, my answer would have been: “It depends what you mean by the Bush doctrine.” In effect, that was what she said. And it deserves to be noted (as Jim points out, but with a kindly lack of emphasis, calling it a minor error) that Gibson himself apparently does not know what it means.
GIBSON [impatiently]: The Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree…?
No, Charles. That is not what the Bush doctrine means. The right of anticipatory self-defence is already enshrined in international law. Countries do not have to wait until they are attacked to legitimately defend themselves. The Bush doctrine advances the notion of preventive war: the right to attack not in order to defend yourself against an imminent assault, but to deal with less certain, more distant but still possibly mortal threats.
Whatever you think about the Bush doctrine, people who laugh at Palin for failing to know what it is really ought to make sure they understand it themselves.
And of course there was the pre-9/11 Bush Doctrine, as identified by Charles Krauthammer. As always, Wikipedia provides a decent outline of the state of the debate over the term.
But honestly I think it’s fair to say, going only by the clips I’ve seen and not the entire interview, that Palin could have and ought to have done much better. Also, foreign policy is the central responsibility of the president.
Just go read Fallows.
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php#more
Also, it might be helpful for you to actually watch the thing before you assume your preordained role as a castigator of the “rabid anti-Palin press.” It would give you the appearance of evenhandedness.
— ethan salto · Sep 12, 08:17 PM · #
Whether or not she could explicitly explain the Bush Doctrine, her answer indicated that while she agrees with its general principle, she does not agree in the details: she disagreed with the very standard for action articulated by her top-of-the-ticket running mate and didn’t seem to understand that.
— James F. Elliott · Sep 12, 08:18 PM · #
I agree that the Bush Doctrine answer wasn’t a huge deal because what it is is vague and agreeing with it given Charles Gibson’s definition isn’t absurd.
I was more disturbed (and I say this as someone who will vote for McCain) by her inability to discuss the Russia-Georgia NATO issues coherently, since that was, presumably, one of the biggest issues they would have briefed her on. Maybe it has something to do with the incoherence of our policies (supported by Obama and McCain) relating to that issue anyway though.
Also, the McCain campaign should give up on the “close to Russia” meme. And her similarity with Bush on emphasizing “being tough.”
When McCain started considering her seriously, why didn’t they recommend she start studying these issues more closely in case she got picked. Surely it wouldn’t have impossible for her to start getting a couple hours a week in briefings from someone.
— Zak · Sep 12, 09:23 PM · #
Hi Ethan:
Did you read my post?
— Reihan · Sep 12, 10:33 PM · #
The main problem was not her inability to define the Bush Doctrine. It was that she pretty clearly had never heard the phrase before and had no idea what he was talking about. She had not been given talking points regarding the Bush Doctrine and did not know how to respond. “You mean his worldview, Charlie?” No, that’s not what he meant, and anyone who’s been paying attention to foreign policy debates during the last eight years would have known that, even if he or she could not give a good definition of the Bush Doctrine.
— c · Sep 12, 11:54 PM · #
My test for Presidentiality— can you imagine the candidate as guest host on SNL?
Palin looked tiny in that chair compared to Gibson.
Is childlike really a good presidential quality?
— matoko_chan · Sep 13, 12:25 AM · #
I agree with c. Not knowing exactly what the Bush Doctrine says is forgivable. But she didn’t even seem to be familiar with the term “doctrine” as applied to foreign policy. I can’t tell you exactly what the “Truman Doctrine” was either, but I wouldn’t suppose that it was just Truman’s worldview. It shows that Palin has no real interest in foreign policy. (See James Fallows’ blog.)
— ed · Sep 13, 12:36 AM · #
Yes, Reihan. Did you read the Fallows piece?
I see that your post begins with the confession that you “haven’t seen the interview” but, nevertheless, you were “struck” by the unfairness of the media’s reaction.
I then counseled you to read James Fallows, who argues, convincingly, that the frightening thing isn’t that Palin couldn’t come up with a snap answer about her agreement or disagreement with the Bush Doctrine, but that SHE HAD CLEARLY NEVER HEARD OF IT.
Which is to say that media’s negative reaction was, predominantly, about the clear confusion in her reaction and her obvious unfamiliarity with the phrase, not necessarily the words she used in her answer. And that means that watching the interview may have helped you to understand the media’s reaction, something you clearly didn’t feel was necessary before opining.
Moving forward, let’s review Fallow’s nut graf:
“What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the “Bush Doctrine” exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.”
Perhaps you could respond to this argument.
— ethan salto · Sep 13, 12:43 AM · #
It’s a silly, partisan argument ethan. Fallow’s supplies the most unfavorable construction to Palin’s response, and, based on that unfavorable construction, concludes she hasn’t paid ‘any attention to foreign policy discussion whatsoever.’ There are legitimate arguments to be made that
1) There isn’t a clear, widely understood definition of the Bush Doctrine,
2) Palin was therefore right to ask for a clarification,
3) Gibson, rather than asking her to explain his own question, should have provided the definition among the many that he was using.
4) The answer she eventually gave was perfectly sensible once Gibson had defined his terms.
Now, no one who saw the interview will confuse Palin with a foreign policy expert any time soon. She has a lot to learn. But acting like this is some sort of smoking gun proving she can’t attend foreign heads of state’s funerals for four years, or even a year or two (which is really the amount of time Obama’s had in national politic) is simply more overheated, partisan rhetoric.
— kab · Sep 13, 05:02 AM · #
Isn’t the fact that she has so much to learn proof that they’ve picked her from the pack (no pun intended) too soon. And I am saying this as some one who fundamentally disagrees with both her and McCain – and will be voting for Obama… I think a real potential threat is being wasted.
— Kathryn · Sep 13, 05:40 AM · #
Sure, ideally she would have been a second term governor at least before she was picked. However, as the selection of Obama shows, the ideal situation doesn’t often present itself. There are good reasons why Obama chose to run for President in 2008; the future is uncertain, he had to strike while the iron was hot and the fundamentals favor the Democrats this year more than any time in recent memory. That doesn’t change the fact that he may(!) lose the election because of his inexperience.
Both parties have candidates running before they had sufficient experience, although Barack certainly has more than Palin (two weeks after her entrance into national politics). Ideally, both of them would have been groomed more, but politics (and life) doesn’t always cooperate. Either way, it doesn’t disqualify her from being VP or Barack from being President.
— kab · Sep 13, 12:55 PM · #
Ideally, Palin should have been taller.
We arent going to elect a munchkin for president in an American Idol election.
— matoko_chan · Sep 13, 02:50 PM · #
Reihan, this stuff is on ABC’s website. Here is a good portion of the domestic policy stuff:
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5792416
Search around on the site, the FP stuff is in there.
— David · Sep 13, 05:25 PM · #
Also, Reihan, Obama was comfortable talking about this back in January with Gibson:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080001
GIBSON: I’m going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.
OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that.
And so, you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander-in-chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.
— David · Sep 13, 05:28 PM · #
kab, Krauthammer is obviously allowed to attempt to obscure what the Bush Doctrine is and was, but that doesn’t mean you won’t be called on it when you parrot his nonsense.
The Bush Doctrine was, and will always be, the doctrine of preventive war. Full stop.
Arguments to the contrary are purely political.
And, as I wrote above, it’s not that Palin didn’t have a pithy definition of the Bush Doctrine at hand; it’s that she clearly hadn’t heard those words before; she was too ignorant to even feel comfortable asking a followup question.
Again, Fallows: “What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the “Bush Doctrine” exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.”
People are jumping off of the Palin ship, kab — even the steadfast Ross Douthat (reluctantly).
— ethan salto · Sep 13, 05:59 PM · #
Ethan, I’m not sure I entirely disagree with you, but a few thoughts.
1.) I don’t think Reihan entirely disagrees with you either. He said he thought she should better, and that foreign policy is the president’s job. So yeah, read the post.
2.) I thought about it, and was pretty sure that if I were asked what the Bush Doctrine was, I would have said that crudely, it’s “You are for us or against us.” I don’t think I would have given a thought about preemption. So Gibson’s patronizing certitude was inappropriate. Not that that gives Palin a pass on sputtering and stalling like she did.
3.) I read Ross’ comment, and it did not strike me as “jumping ship.” It seems in line with the sober conservative consensus, which is that she “passed” but needs to do better.
— Blar · Sep 13, 07:03 PM · #
look….Palin is simply a ludicrous choice on all fronts.
She is the supposed counter to Obama’s visual appeal in an American Idol election, but she is far too short to appear presidential.
As soon as that becomes apparent, a lot more ppl will jump ship.
We dont elect munchkins.
— matoko_chan · Sep 13, 10:45 PM · #
I approve of your not watching the interview on television. I didn’t either, and now I realize I don’t need to. Reading blogs and comments like those that appear here is a lot more informative (and entertaining, too).
— The Spokesrider · Sep 14, 12:35 AM · #
Crooks refers to her comment as a ‘misstep.’ This completely misses the point. Well, from a political perspective I guess ‘misstep’ is appropriate, but thats not really what is troubling. The term Bush Doctrine was used to define a number of different foreign policy stances during Bush’s presidency. From preemptive strikes, to attacking nations who harbor terrorists and refuse to help us fight them, to the Freedom Agenda. Fair enough. Clearly, Reihan, you might not have know exactly what the Bush doctrine was, but you would have had some reference material to draw from. If Sarah Palin had thought the Bush Doctrine was the Freedom Agenda and Charlie Gibson had corrected her by saying it was in fact about preemptive strikes, I would say fair enough, the term has been used for a bunch of different things. But it was quite clear watching the interview that Palin didn’t have a reference for ANY of these policies. ‘His world view Charlie?’ Was her response. I say this as a citizen of this country and nothing more: she is not ready to be in the position for which she has been chosen, and it scares me. It scares me that McCain could die and she would be forced to take office before she is ready. It scares me that the McCain campaign is blocking the press from doing what would be normal for any candidate: presenting them to the American public. This, in fact, says more than anything. It tells me that THEY—within the McCain campaign—don’t actually think she has the knowledge necessary to be Vice-President right now.
— Dsulz · Sep 14, 03:17 AM · #
You say that Palin “could have” done better in the interview.
Upon what do you reach this conclusion? Why do you think this? Do you know something the rest of us don’t know?
P.S. to Blar. After seeing more, Douthat has indeed jumped ship. Why is it taking everyone else so long??
— William · Sep 14, 05:38 AM · #
I wish you’d let Reihan, or Douthat, speak for themselves. For those who criticize Palin for lack of nuance (I assume by the way you’re all aware that the ABC edits cut from her answers precisely those chunks one might deem more substantive & nuanced), I would hope you’d give him the space to express nuance, complexity, ambivalence, dialectical thinking (on the one hand/on the other hands), without playing that game— one Andrew Sullivan is lately fond of playing— of: gotcha! even you have now conceded your side/hopes/beliefs were deluded and hopelessly mistaken, do you see?! !
I’m a fan of Reihan, and Douthat for that matter (longtime lurker of this site & its previous incarnation), precisely because they’re so willing to expose thinking-in-process, many-sided and undogmatic, hesitations & ambivalences most often precisely about their own “side”. Not so much (or only) taking a stand, as exploring where they stand. It’s a rare thing to see, on any side, especially during an election. Which is why that pinning-down thing, pouncing on remarkably honest writing as if it were a “concession” (abdication) to your “side”… really obnoxious. (I don’t necessarily mean anyone here is obnoxious; I’m thinking more of e.g. Sullivan’s recent use of this rhetorical ploy, so I’m kind of sensitized to it. There’s a lot of it going around, all the more as anxiety re the election rises.)
— tralala · Sep 14, 04:11 PM · #