One Question For Matthew Continetti
The talented Weekly Standard staffer has again written in defense of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
Here’s what I’d like to know:
Do you, Matthew Continetti, think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be President of the United States in 2012?
Update:
Several commenters want to know what I mean by “qualified,” and what exactly qualifies someone to be president by my lights. That information isn’t actually relevant to my query. I’m curious to know whether or not Mr. Continetti thinks she is qualified to be president based on whatever standard he uses to evaluate presidential candidates. I assume his standard is something more than “he or she meets the minimum constitutional requirements.” Put another way, I doubt he’d affirm the statement, “Mike Tyson, Cindy Sheehan and OJ Simpson are all qualified to be President of the United States.” We can all agree that they’re eligible to hold the office… but that none of us would hire them to run a Burger King franchise let alone the United States government.
Why did I pose this question?
I expected I’d find Mr. Continetti’s account of what qualifies someone to be president reasonable, even if I disagreed with it. And something about Mr. Continetti’s carefully worded defenses of former Governor Palin make me think that he doesn’t actually regard her as qualified to be president. I could be wrong! (Hence the question.) But if I’m right, that would be useful to know, right? Surely there are Americans who’d be interested to know that even one of her staunchest defenders and most informed observers finds that she lacks whatever it is one should have before ascending to the highest office in the land.
Someone commented that asking this question of Mr. Continetti is combative. That assumption is itself telling, right? Why should there be anything awkward about an opinion journalist stating for the record whether or not he thinks someone he’s covered exhaustively and pontificated about at length is qualified to be president? If he thinks she is qualified I don’t see why he’d object to saying so. Now, I’m not naive. I understand very well that in the conservative movement, stating that she is not qualified is professionally awkward, particularly for someone whose favorable book gives him better access to Palin than most; and I wish there were some way to ask what I think is a legitimate question without maybe putting someone whose larger body of work I respect in a tough spot.
But there’s a chance that Sarah Palin is going to seek and win the GOP nomination in 2012. By my lights, that would be a disaster for the country, the prospects for sane conservatism in America, and the Republican Party, an organization I care about only insofar as I want it to run a viable alternative to Barack Obama, a president who doesn’t deserve a second term. Given those stakes, I can’t very well stifle a legitimate question just in case asking it turns out to be uncomfortable for a fellow scribe operating inside conservative journalism. Once one starts bowing to its pathologies all is lost.
So I re-submit my question. If even Matthew Continetti doesn’t think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, it would be useful to know that, whether you’re a concerned American, a GOP donor deciding where to send your 2012 money, or a fellow writer trying to assess where exactly the Weekly Standard staffer is coming from when he reports on the potential candidate.
Am I wrong?
I wouldn’t vote for her. But here’s what I’d like top know:
What do you, Conor Friedersdorf, mean by “qualified”?
I think this is an important question, living as we do in what many consider, or would like to consider, a meritocracy.
And to be clear, I think there is an important difference between “I would vote for that person” and “I think that person is qualified.”
What are the qualifications? Seems to me that sometimes the country needs a wonky academic to lead the charge. Other times, you need a charaismatic charmer. Take an issue like leadership in a time of war. Is experience as a military commander the most important qualification? What if that leader has no actual combat experience? Would you prefer a retired provate with a medal of honor or a retired general who never fired a weapon in anger? Is it possible that you might prefer someone with no military expereince at all?
How does this apply to the economy? In an economic crisis, would a degree in economics be a qualification? Or would that be a bad thing? Could it be a bad thing? What if their very studied views on economics led them to conclusions that run counter to yours? What if the person did not study economics but knows some people who have and appoints them to important positions? versus someone who knows a lot but is a terrible judge of bureaucratic and organizational competence?
I think it’s fair to ask if Palin is the right person for the job. But the whole idea of “qualified” seems to miss the mark entirely. Given the state of our economy and how it got there, I think it’s fair for people to say, “I want someone from outside that world to take a crack at this,” in the same way someone might vote for civilian leader in a time of war.
I think just about anyone is qualified for the job of the presidency. In fact, it might require few qualifications than just about any job in the land. A Supreme Court justice needs to be very familiar with the technical aspects of his job. A congressman ought to be at least vaguely familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order. But the president? I see no reason a really charismatic county coucilman couldn’t do the job.
But that’s just me. What do you consider the basic qualifications?
— Sam M · Oct 18, 12:29 PM · #
I don’t think she is qualified, but then neither was Obama, and, to be honest, if the choice is strictly between Obama and Palin, I prefer Palin — no doubt at all. Obama has been an abysmal failure, and he is basically dishonest, misguided and arrogant. I would rather have Palin learning on the job than to suffer another Obama term.
— mike farmer · Oct 18, 04:32 PM · #
To my knowledge, Sarah Palin is a native-born U.S. citizen over the age of 35. What sort of other ‘qualifications’ did you have in mind (that don’t reduce, in effect, to: ‘went through an Ivy League and/or got a law degree’)
Granted, where she comes to the national scene is by means of having been governor of a podunk state. The same exact thing was true of Bill Clinton, 1992. So was he, too, ‘unqualified’? If not, why not? (Ivy League?) And as mentioned above, objectively speaking, any metric by which Palin (and Clinton) are deemed ‘unqualified’ has GOT to snare Barack Obama, ‘community organizer’, non-tenure college lecturer, and one-term, unremarkable Senator.
There is something more than a little disturbing about this new credentialism that has sprung up amongst the sort of people who reactively sneer at Sarah Palin for a supposed lack of ‘qualification’. Disagree with her, disapprove of her, do not trust her, just do not want her to be President – all of that is fine. But to couch this in terms of ‘qualifications’ smacks of an attempt to dress up one’s opinion as some sort of objective finding. Why do you feel the need to do that, is my question to you. Aren’t you confident enough in your own political judgment to just state your opinion about her, let others disagree, and leave it at that?
Or is it indeed just the case now that U.S. President is a position for which no one without a law and/or Ivy League degree need apply?
— Sonic Charmer · Oct 18, 11:17 PM · #
Sonic Charmer beat me to the punch, but I’m going to say it anyway.
1) Palin is minimally qualified, in that as far as I know, she’s a native-born American over the age of 35.
2) Beyond that, qualified is a sliding scale. I would strongly prefer to vote for a candidate with more qualifications and accomplishments. (W and Obama’s thin resumes, IMHO, led to more volatility and a longer ramp-up period then we would have seen with more accomplished candidates).
3) On the other hand, there are candidates who are more qualified on paper who I would like less than Palin. (To pick some extreme examples: Elliot Spitzer, Donald Rumsfeld, Nancy Pelosi). If presented with a choice between Palin and one of those candidates, I would pick them.
4) My guess is that Continetti thinks that Palin’s ideas are largely congruent with those he thinks would be good for the country, and that she would be an effective communicator and salesperson for those ideas, and would pick qualified advisors with a congruent worldview. (The cases for Obama and W are similar.) I don’t think Palin’s the best choice to back, but Continetti’s opinion isn’t irrational, assuming I have guessed it correctly, just (imho) mistaken).
5) Of course, even if she isn’t qualified, mythbusting is still worthwhile, as I’m sure Conor would agree.
— J Mann · Oct 19, 12:53 PM · #
Whoops, for #3, I meant that if I had a choice between Sarah Palin and Eliot Spitzer, Donald Rumsfeld, or Nancy Pelosi, I would pick Palin, even though the other candidates are more “qualified” on paper.
— J Mann · Oct 19, 01:05 PM · #
I would be interested to see Conor’s response. If he would like a simple “yes or no” answer from Continetti, perhaps he could provide a simple answer of his own: How are you defining qualified?
I am guessing that no matter how you define it, someone could name someone who does not meet the qualifications who you would nevertheless vote for. Unless you define “qualifications” is such a mamby-pamby way as to be useless. (Intellectual curiosity! Integrity! Epistemic openness!) Is an advanced degree a requirement? In what field? Is a bachelors degree necessary? Legislative experience? If executive experience is a qualification, how many years of it? Does private sector leadership count?
I don’t think it’s fair to ask Continetti to say yea or nay unless you are willing to put your own definition of “qualified” to the test.
— Sam M · Oct 19, 01:36 PM · #
While the issue of qualification and credentialism is a valid one, this thread is another example of conservatives rejecting common sense because they care more about power and dogma that reality and logic.
For Sam M to argue that “just about anyone is qualified for the job of the Presidency”, while technically accurate, is profoundly foolish.
Rachel Maddow is not qualified to be President.
Glenn Greenwald is not qualified to be President.
Jonah Goldberg is not qualified to be President.
Mark Levin is not qualified to be President.
And the list could go on and on and on.
Saying anyone is qualified to be President is like saying anyone is qualified to run Microsoft or Ford or Harvard, except that being President is even more complicated and challenging a job than any of those.
Whether you’re a Bush-hater or an Obama-hater, I would hope the last decade would have demonstrated to you that being U.S. President is an extraordinarily difficult thing and not just any shmoe can do it.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 19, 03:36 PM · #
I thought this thread was interesting, particularly my own qualified answer.
Unless I miss my guess, everyone has said more or less the same thing, which is that:
(1) a binary value like “qualified” isn’t all that helpful in this situation;
(2) they would prefer someone with more qualifying qualities that Palin; but
(3) sometimes you choose the lesser evil; and
(4) we should be particularly careful not to reduce qualifications solely to credentials. (Not that Conor was doing so).
That all seems reasonable to me. Speaking for myself, I strongly hope Palin doesn’t run — I like her well enough as a gadfly, but (a) I don’t think she’ll win and (b) I don’t think she’ll be a good president if she wins.
— J Mann · Oct 19, 04:14 PM · #
MBunge,
Well then name the qualifications. There are qualifications to be a doctor and a lawyer. You say there are qualifications for the presidency. Go ahead. Name them. If it’s stupid to say anyone is qualified, you ought to be able to delineate the qualifications.
All you are doing is saying who’s not qualified. That’s not the question. What are the qualifications? You being not profoundly foolish, please commence with the list.
Me, I am profoundly foolish. So I think it’s a BS question in the first place. Because someone like, say, the chairman of a major corporation would seem to be qualified despite no foreign policy experience. But someone like a secretary of state could be qualified, even if she never ran a major corporation or had other business experience. So I would argue that neither “foreign policy expereince” nor “business experience” are actual qualifications. If there’s a war on, does experience as a general count as good experience or as experience that will get in the way? Depends on whether you agree with the guy about the war, I suppose.
But you obviously have some qualification in mind. So please, enlighten us. We are foolish.
— Sam M · Oct 19, 04:15 PM · #
“Well then name the qualifications.”
Sorry, I’m not going to play your bullshit game. You’re not challenging the idea of credentialism or an overemphasis on certain qualifications like experience over others like ability. You’re simply trying to undermine the concept of qualifications because a potential conservative candidate for President is clearly NOT qualified for the job based on her experience, accomplishments or demonstrated ability.
It’s like your girlfriend looks bad in the color red, so you’re denying red even exists as a color. No one should have to bother with such childish nonsense.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 19, 04:58 PM · #
Lord knows, we wouldn’t want one of those elites to be president of the most powerful country in the history of the world.
— Freddie · Oct 19, 05:35 PM · #
I thought about this some more, and I’m starting to like Sam’s quibble.
- IMHO, Sam is right that US President has exceptionally broad qualifications. You don’t necessarily need: (1) federal government experience; (2) executive government experience; (3) business leadership experience; (4) a law degree; (5) an IQ over 150; (6) legislative experience; (7) foreign policy experience. Now, it’s generally true that the more of those you have the better, and most credible candidates have more than one.
- Then I went the other way and tried to think of things that you absolutely needed in order to be qualified to be president. I started low: The ability to read English? Not being a paranoid schizophrenic? Not being a member of the KKK, or Al Quaeda?
- At the end of the day, maybe qualified is a pragmatic question: if you can’t get on the primary or electoral ballot for my state or credibly mount a write-in, you are not qualified in that I can’t vote for you. If there is a realistic chance that you might win, then I’m going to vote for the best candidate on my list, based on my priorities, or the least-bad. It’s hard to imagine what would make me vote for a member of Al Qaida, but I guess if the alternative were Hannibal Lector, I would have a tough choice on my hands.
— J Mann · Oct 19, 06:51 PM · #
I think the legal question is open and shut. She is qualified under the Constitution to run for the office (unless there is some strand of Palin-birtherism out there I am unaware of)
But I think we are using the term qualification somewhat more artfully here to describe the intersection of intelligence (with which I do not conflate pedantry), temperment (by which I do not mean to indicate that there is one particular perfect temperment that is always and everywhere best, but that folks can usually tell the more important thing: when someone is completely unsuitable) and ability (under which there is a common sense floor).
While I admit that Mr. Friedersdorf has stated the question in a somewhat combative way, I do think that the substance of the question ought to be something open for debate in a republic. Elections are a kind of aristocratic element in a democratic society: they allow eligible citizens to exercise their own individual choice in selecting a candidate for office. It does seem to me that to exercise choice you must have SOME BASIS upon which you are choosing.
For example: if the basis on which you decide to vote for a candidate is that you believe that said candidate, while themselves not ideal, would select good advisors, then implicit within that claim is a leap of faith you are taking (because even with a lengthy election cycle, one may not be able to KNOW perfectly) with regard to the persons character. You believe that they will exercise sound judgment in choosing people who in turn will advise them well. You may therefore note that this person possesses a discriminating mind (able to know who would make a good advisor), courage (the willingness to appoint those advisors and stick by them), and prudence (the ability to match general principles to particular situations, say).
Now, those reasons for choosing sound an awful lot to me like a criterion. And a criterion for selecting sounds an awful lot like the more colloquial meaning of the term “qualifications”. I don’t think we need to look for some “checklist” of skills or previous jobs that entitle one to earn the trust of one’s citizens and the duty of holding the highest executive position (after all, the literal meaning of the term office is duty) in the country. But just because there is no checklist doesn’t mean that there isn’t some minimum standard that most folks have in mind when they go to the polls.
After all, if there is no minimum basis for choosing, then any citizen ought to be able to exercise the office with equal skill. Which begs the question: why conduct an election at all? Why not select our officials by lot, as a pure democracy would?
— Charles Secondati · Oct 19, 07:15 PM · #
^ |
That’s very well put.
— J Mann · Oct 19, 07:35 PM · #
I also think Charles Secondati has got it mostly right.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 19, 07:47 PM · #
“It’s like your girlfriend looks bad in the color red, so you’re denying red even exists as a color.”
What in the world does that even mean? And wow, did you miss the mark regarding my preference for conservative candidates. Guess again. If you’re qualified.
Conor asked a simple question: Whether someone is qualified to be president of the United States. This presupposes a minimum slate of qualifications. You seem to think such a slate exists, but you refuse to expound on what that list includes. I can’t force you to do so. So don’t. But don’t prattle on about how anyone with the temerity to exlore this little challenge is “profoundly foolish.”
Quick: I have a job opening. I will pay $1 million a month to anyone who’s qualified.
You might want to know if you are qualified for the job. In which case a pretty reasonable question would be, “Um… what are the qualifications you are looking for?”
If I refuse to respond to that question, perhaps you might think that the original offer was BS?
— Sam M · Oct 19, 08:10 PM · #
I would think that the qualifications that Connor refers to are pretty obvious. You could rephrase that question as “Do you, Matthew Continetti, think that Sarah Palin has the intelligence, knowledge, and experience to be President of the United States in 2012?”
— Noah A. · Oct 19, 10:06 PM · #
“Quick: I have a job opening. I will pay $1 million a month to anyone who’s qualified.
You might want to know if you are qualified for the job. In which case a pretty reasonable question would be, “Um… what are the qualifications you are looking for?””
Wrong. I’m pretty sure the first question anyone would ask in that siutation is not “What qualifications are you looking for?”. It would be “What kind of job is it?” or “What do I have to do?” It’s the employer who worries about qualifications, not the job seeker. People apply all the time for jobs they’re not technically qualified for, hoping for the best.
As for you denying the existence of red, it’s another way of emphasizing that this is all about a desire to promote a potential candidate for President that even you tacitly admit can’t be promoted on the basis of her experience, accomplishment, demonstrated talent or any of the other criteria or qualifications candidates have traditionally been expected to meet.
To get back to your silly example, if the employer asked “Why do you think you’re qualified for this job?” and your response was “What do you mean by qualified?”, it’s fairly certain you wouldn’t be getting that job.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 19, 10:35 PM · #
“You could rephrase that question as “Do you, Matthew Continetti, think that Sarah Palin has the intelligence, knowledge, and experience to be President of the United States in 2012?”
But even this formulation is so vague as to be entirey worthless. What knowledge? Ulysses S. Grant and Abraham Lincoln knew different kinds of things. Harry Truman and Richard Nixon had different kinds of intelligence. Experience? What KIND of experience?
If you are going to argue that Palin is not intelligent to be president, on what basis? Do you know her IQ? Do you know the IQ of the presidents you like? If you ranked all the presidents in order of their effectiveness as leaders, then measured their IQs and chated them out, do you think you’d see a strong corrlation? Given someone with an IQ of 126 and someone with an IQ of 132, would you vote for the person with 132? Is there any chance an IQ can be too high? I agree that there is some minimal level of intelligence that’s probably necessary to do the job. But I think that someone of average intellect could be up to it.
The same could be said of the other criteria. Experience is such an open-ended phrase that it’s useless. Someone might have done something you admired, of course. PA Senate Joe Sestak was an admiral while his opponent was an investment banker. I think the former is more impressive, but I am not sure that means I would vote for him. Maybe the investment banking experience is a good thing. Where does that stand in comparison to Palin’s experience? Can you rank them for me? I don’t see how its possible.
A while ago some senator died and they appointed his wife to do the job. Was she the worst senator in history? I don’t think so. Do I think Oprah Winfrey could be an effective senator? Sure. Why not? President? I might want her to be a senator for a few years first, just to get her feet wet. But why not? In addition to being a TV host, she’s a savvy business person. Or doesn;t that count as a qualification?
Again, in the end, the original question is BS. Asking if Palin is qualified doesn;t really mean anything. Unless of course you have a specific set of qualification in mind, and which you apply to candidates across the board.
So… does Palin’s experience as a governor qualify her to be president? I suspect everyone’s answer will track very closely as to whether they agree with her about their pet issues.
— Sam M · Oct 20, 02:54 AM · #
“Asking if Palin is qualified doesn;t really mean anything.”
Let me repeat something. I would think that anyone, Bush-hater or Obama-hater, would have come through the last decade and figured out that not just anybody can be President. It’s an incredibly difficult and often awful job and it requires somebody with a bare minimum of skill, aptitude and good character.
That Sam M can’t even bring himself to argue that his pet candidate meets those minimal requirements is kind of amazing. I mean, if you were to ask a supporter of Lyndon Larouche if he were qualified to be President, they’d be able to say something in his favor other than adolescent sophistry.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 20, 02:37 PM · #
“That Sam M can’t even bring himself to argue that his pet candidate meets those minimal requirements is kind of amazing. “
Dear Mike. Please do your best to keep up. I suggest that you scroll to the beginning of the comments. What is the first sentence in the comments? Who posted it?
Now that you are where everyone else was two days ago, please try again. And now without the false claim that I am suffering from an undue appreciation for Palin’s charms.
What part of “I wouldn’t vote for her” don’t you understand? It’s not a complex claim. It’s not a complex sentence. But if you continue to be incapable of understanding it… I am kind of at a loss.
— Sam M · Oct 20, 04:07 PM · #
“What part of “I wouldn’t vote for her” don’t you understand?”
Oh, I understand it. I just don’t believe. I think you’re lying. At least that’s the only explanation I can come up for you offering such a plainly ludicrous and almost anti-rational argument.
Perhaps I’m wrong. If so, please explain why you contend that NO ONE can determine, for example, whether Barbara Streisand or Hillary Clinton would be more qualified to be President of the United States.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 20, 04:43 PM · #
Mike,
You are inventing arguments again. I have never said anything about arguing whether one person is more qualified than another.Seriously, you made that up. The question here is about a MINIMUM slate of qualifications, which Conor seems to think exists. Fair enough. I just want to know what those qualifications are. You agree that such a slate exists. You have said so. You just refuse, for some reason, to say what they are. Perhaps you are just secretive. Fine by me.
As for you straight-up calling me a liar, well, people can judge the both of us in that regard, for what it’s worth. I am not quite sure I know how to PROVE I would not vote for Palin. Let me know and I will get right on it. Would it matter if I told you my family situation? Where I have worked in the past? My previous voting record? I will do any of these things if you ask me to. And yet… you still won’t cough up the minimum qualifications.
As to my “antirational” arguments, I don’t really know what you mean. Could you possible be so obtuse as to think arguing that someone is qualified to be president means I should be willing to vote for that person? No. You couldn’t be.
But here goes: I think the whole argument about qualifications is as full of bunkum as the question about “experience.” If you agree with someone about policy, odds are you will overlook most questions about experience and qualifications. I would be the first in line to do this. If I heard of a candidate who agreed with me about taxes, foreign policy, drug policy, and a host of other issues I care about, and that candidate had been governor of Alaska for a short period of time before seizing control of a major political party, I would argue that person was qualified to be president and I would vote for him or her. I would vote for someone with Obama’s qualifications. I would vote for someone with Bush’s. Although I voted for neither.
In Palin’s case, I disagree with her about almost everything, so I wouldn’t vote for her. But I don’t cop out and say it’s because she’s not “qualified.” I won’t vote for her because I think she’s wrong.
Now let’s say there were someone with less expereince and fewer qualifications than Palin, but I agreed with that candidate about lots and lots of things. Know how I would get around the experience and qualifications canard? Like everyone else, I’d argue that the candidate’s “outsider mentality” is the most important qualification. Someone to shake up the powers that be! Someone to rattle the cage of the entrenched interests! Magically, the lack of experience is a VIRTUE!
Let’s do a thought experiment. Conor, let’s say that Palin doesn’t run. Instead, over the next 20 years she becomes governor of New York state. She serves as Secretary of State. Later, she runs a fortune 500 company, then wirtes a column for the New York Times, an teaches a foriegn policy class at Harvard. Then serves as ambassador to Israel.
After all that, after gaining all those qualifications, her views on all the policy questions of the day remain exactly the same.
Would you vote for her then?
That is, does her lack of experience or qualifications really have anything to do with whether or not you’d support her as a candidate?
— Sam M · Oct 20, 05:52 PM · #
It seems like Sam and Mike are arguing past each other.
Let’s suppose that Palin’s name were being raised to replace Brian Kelly as head coach of the Notre Dame men’s football team.
1) Conor asks: “Does anyone think Palin is qualified to be a head football coach at a Division I school?”
2) Sam says “ ‘Qualified’ is too binary. As a loyal ND fan, I want the best head coach we could get. I don’t think Palin would be a good coach, and I don’t want her, but there aren’t any specific check-boxes. I don’t necessarily care if the head coach has played college football, has prior coaching experience, has a Notre Dame connection, etc. – the position is special enough that you have to judge each candidate on their own. The only reason I don’t want her is that I think that there are other candidates I like better.”
3) Mike: Seriously? You’re not even going to set a low qualification like “must have prior coaching experience” for a position this important?
4) Sam: Yes.
— J Mann · Oct 20, 06:20 PM · #
J Mann,
Interesting analogy, and useful to some extent. But of course we are not talking about hiring someone out of one field to work in another. We are, in this actual case, asking if a politician is qualified to hold a political office. She does have political experience. She has run for office. Etc.
Her level of “qualification” seems like it’s entirely beside the point. I suspect people like or dislike her in direct proportion to the extent they agree with her about policies that matter to them, or identify with her as a person, or any of the other reasons someone votes for somebody. Know who got all worked up about Bush’s lack of qualifications? Liberals. Know who got worked up about Obama’s lack of qualifications? Conservatives. Know who completely ignored questions about qualifications about their own candidate? Most people.
Quick, who had more “qualifications” to be president of the United States: John McCain or Barack Obama? Who did you vote for?
I am telling you that I thin that there are actual criteia for being a doctor or a lawyer. For a football coach, even. I can lay out what I think those might be if you want. Pick one and I will do so.
Here, Conor and Mike are arguing that a similar list exists for being president of the United States. All I did was to ask them to lay them out, and they have refused to do so. I am not sure why.
This all started with a simple challenge to Continetti: Is she qualified? TO answer the question, I presume Contineeti would have to lay out the qualifications and say yes she meets them or no she doesn’t. Is it all that unreasonable to ask Conor to do the same?
— Sam M · Oct 20, 06:37 PM · #
So here’s what’s going on: You think Continetti is being disingenuous about his defense of Palin. Or at least “careful.” So you asked this question to put him in a bind. Which seems to confirm my suspicion that is was an exercise in BS in the first place.
You see how this works, right? You bait someone into offering a set of qualifications, then pick away at their preferred candidates for the “gothca” moment. So maybe Continetti says, “I think someone ought to have at least X years of experience doing Y,” and we do some research and Palin doesn’t have that. Ha ha! Or he’s forced to present his qualification in such a broad way as to reveal that really, he just wants to support (gasp!) the most conservative person they can convince to run. Or the Republican most likely to win. (For shame!)
But turnabout is fair play. Only Conor is refusing to get on the field and lay out his qualifications, depite inventing the game in the first place. Maybe he would say “I think someone should have strong legislative experience,” or “I think someone should have an advanced degree,” or “I thin ksomeone should have foreign policy expeiment,” but then the next thing you know, the guy he wants to vote for was never a legislator, doesn’t have an advanced degree, or doesn’t have foreign policy experience. Bingo. Ha ha. Hypocrite!
In general, the qualification most people have in mind for their presidential vote is, “The most likely person on my team to win.” I would find it neither distressing nor distasteful to learn Continetti holds such a view.
So again, I throw two questions back to Conor: What are the minimum qualifications? If Palin does not hold them currently, but spent the next 2 years gaining the credientials you have in mind without changing her worldview, would you vote for her?
— Sam M · Oct 20, 06:56 PM · #
What Sam said.
But also, there seems to be a conflation here between ‘qualified’ and ‘someone I would vote for’. Charles Secondati makes this conflation above when he suggests that because we all have reasons for choosing whom to vote for, we must all therefore believe in ‘qualifications’ and it’s unfair of us not to admit it. But this is false. Suppose I like a candidate because I believe they would raise taxes. This doesn’t mean that I believe ‘would raise taxes’ is a ‘qualification’ for being President, or that someone who would lower taxes would be ‘unqualified’ to be President by virtue of disagreeing with me.
The question is whether the people who assert Palin is ‘unqualified’ have any objective basis for saying so other than their personal opinions that they don’t like her and/or don’t want her to be President. Certainly, they want us to think so. That much is crystal clear. They want us to think it is an objective, measurable, unarguable finding that Palin is ‘unqualified’, for the obvious reason that that would give their opinions more weight (indeed, they wouldn’t even have to put forth their opinions or argue for them).
But surely there is a difference between political opinion about a candidate, and whether that candidate is qualified. One can either tell the difference, or can’t, or pretends not to. I’m not sure into which of the latter two categories Conor falls, and wish he would say.
Finally, I see in his update he says essentially that he’s just asking a straightforward question, one to which the answer should be interesting for Palin supporters. To the latter point, I’m not at all sure why Palin supporters should care much either way what this Matthew Continetti in particular (whoever he is) thinks re: Palin’s qualifications, or why it should have any influence on their views whatsoever.
And as for the innocence-plea that this is just a normal question. I call BS. Did Conor ask this question of Obama. Did he ask it of Bill Clinton 1992. I don’t see how either of those candidates had observably more ‘qualifications’ than does Sarah Palin. If Conor, or anyone else does, feel free to state exactly how – but I have brought this up and nobody has dared put any sort of argument out there.
So the fact that Conor chooses specifically to raise the question re: Palin is an editorial choice on Conor’s part that betrays the obvious fact that, in Conor’s opinion, Palin is ‘not qualified’. Whatever that means. Now again, it’s fine for Conor not to approve of Palin. Why doesn’t he just say so and then back that up with something resembling an argument. Or, it’s fine for him to think she’s ‘unqualified’. But then one could reasonably expect him to clarify what exactly he thinks he means by that, and (again) put forth actual arguments.
Here, Conor is doing neither, preferring instead to pursue this backhanded sleight of hand that lets him implicitly call Palin ‘unqualified’ yet maintain deniability that’s what he’s doing, thus giving supposed weight to his (apparent) personal opinion about Palin, without having to say anything of substance to back anything up.
What I now wonder is, what exactly is it about Palin that brings forth this sort of dishonest, passive-aggressive argumentation approaches in her critics?
— Sonic Charmer · Oct 20, 11:08 PM · #
P.S.
MBunge to Sam:
“You’re not challenging the idea of credentialism…”
Dunno about him, but I most certainly am. This is a republic and we are meant to be self-governed, not ruled by a credentialed mandarinate. Part and parcel of this is the idea that any citizen (at least above a certain minimal level of intelligence and so on) should be able to participate in public life. Obviously there has arisen an attitude to the contrary – one that looks up to ‘elites’, however defined – and it offends me, as it should every American, and I am specifically rejecting it, yes.
Freddie:
“Lord knows, we wouldn’t want one of those elites to be president of the most powerful country in the history of the world.”
Oh yes, because ‘elites’ have such an unblemished track record that merits and commands our adulation. Not only elites such as Ivy League graduates George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but all those elites in high finance whose eliteness has worked wonders, and of course you could always go back to the elites who performed so swimmingly in efforts such as the Vietnam War. The best and the brightest, only a moron wouldn’t want them in charge of everything all the time.
Noah A.:
“You could rephrase that question as “Do you, Matthew Continetti, think that Sarah Palin has the intelligence, knowledge, and experience to be President of the United States in 2012?””
He could, but didn’t. Anyway, as has already been pointed out, these criteria are hopelessly vague. People who favor Palin will say ‘yes’ and people who don’t favor Palin will say ‘no’. Now what?
The basic play here boils down to those who don’t favor Palin grasping for a shortcut that will enable their opinion to gain traction without having to actually argue for it. They realize that simply saying ‘I don’t like Palin and disagree with her about stuff’ won’t win arguments against those who think the opposite, so they’re want to win on a technicality, i.e. ‘prove’ that she’s ‘unqualified’ so that Palin supporters will (supposedly) be forced to relent sans argument. It is very transparent. And, not likely to work.
— Sonic Charmer · Oct 20, 11:31 PM · #
It’s a gas to listen to Palin supporters or apologists play word games when it comes time to defend her. Instead of saying why they feel she is qualified, they act as if the question is ambiguous.
One thing I like about Palin is that she makes it pretty plain which conservatives are honest, and which conservatives are dishonest.
There are many reasons why Palin isn’t qualified to be President, but the most urgent reason is the one that everyone knows is true: she’s stupid.
It was Jonah Goldberg who revealed, in a rare moment of honesty, what’s really going on here: he said he loves Palin for her enemies.
And there you have it.
— Socrates · Oct 21, 01:19 PM · #
I don’t know if I’ve ever answered the question. Here’s my take:
Being qualified to be President is like a little like being qualified to date J Mann. There are definitely some qualities that I look for, but high marks in another area might cause me to forgive low marks in another area, and a lot depends on who else wants the job. (One key difference is that I have the option of not dating, but if I don’t vote for President, I’m still going to get somebody). So maybe it’s accurate to say that I want the most qualified person for the job, but it’s hard to draw a black line, below which someone isn’t qualified.
The qualifications I look for are probably good priorities and outlook, good judgment, leadership ability, intelligence, and work ethic. From what I know of Palin, she doesn’t excite me, so I would probably say “not qualified” if I had to answer the question.
But as I said earlier, I would prefer Palin if the only realistic alternatives were Elliot Spitzer, Donald Rumsfeld, and/or Nancy Pelosi, notwithstanding that those individuals are probably more “qualified” by my mushy personal definition. Once I say that, what does it mean that Palin’s not qualified?
— J Mann · Oct 21, 01:40 PM · #
Socrates: Nobody is playing word games. I wouldn’t vote for her. But I think she’s qualified. I don’t know how to put it more clearly. What is it you don’t understand? It’s interesting that you are not the first person to say arguing that someone is qualiified means you’d vote for them.
But now that you have entered the fray, perhaps we can ask a THIRD person who thinks she’s not qualified to please define what the qualifications are, so we can see if it’s really YOU who’s playing word games.
So, please, what are the qualifications? If you whiff on it too, wow. Perhaps it’s the Palin haters whose honesty should be brought into question.
Conors spell it out quite nicely, I think, so I think I will paraphrase him: There is something about Mr. Friedersdorf’s carefully worded attacks on Ms. Palin that makes me think he doesn’t really object to her candidacy based on “qualifications.” I could be wrong! Hence the question. But if I am right, that would be interesting to know, correct? Surely there are Americans who would be interested to know that one of her most persistent critics is using a stalking horse like “qualifications” to attack her, when his objection to her candidacy is based on something else entirely. If Conor bases his support on qualifications, I am interested to know what definitiion of qualified HE uses to evaluate presidential candidates. Put another way, I doubt he’d affirm the statement, “Nobody on the list of Bill Clinton, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, Ed Rendell, Barack Obama, George W. Bush was qualified to be president of the United States when their candidacy first became a possibility.” It’s not like we relegated them to running Burger Kings for a lack of long-standing political experience at the national level.
So anyone willing to tell me what the qualification are? I mean… what’s the secret? Why the reluctance?
— Sam M · Oct 21, 01:55 PM · #
It’s the people saying she is qualified that are whiffing.
I think she’s not qualified because she’s stupid. I don’t know how to say it more clearly. There are many other reasons (for example, she’s a theocrat) but after the stupid part, I don’t think the other reasons matter all that much.
— Socrates · Oct 21, 06:45 PM · #
Socrates,
Thanks for the insight. COngratulations! This give you an easy out. Stupid is neither quantifiable or measurable in any other way. Just your opinion of her. You says she is. Her supporters say she isn’t. Nyah nyah! Rubber. Glue. You get the picture.
But let’s use that as the measure. If not being stupid qualifies you to be president, then yes, I believe she is qualified. I assume here IQ is at least average. Maybe even higher than yours! But I still wouldn’t vote for her.
So how about it, Conor? Is that the kind of standard you were looking for? A completely nonsensical, completely subjective assessment of someone’s stupidity, or lack thereof? Or something else? Because I think that the quest for qualifications boils down to exactly that. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to name a qualification like, “held a national office” or “has a degree in foreign relations,” because it would close off their options in future elections. Instead, we get stupid people talking about whether other people are stupid.
I am not sure that’s what “the American people” really want from you, from Continetti, or from anyone else for that matter.
But maybe I am wrong. Maybe you have some qualificatios in mind that would be a good measure of someone’s potential as president. I guess we’ll never know. For some reason.
— Sam M · Oct 21, 08:50 PM · #
Well at least I’m smart enough to know that I’m not qualified to be president.
— Socrates · Oct 21, 11:03 PM · #
You don’t need to be smart to know if you are qualified. You just need a list of qualifications to judge yourself against it. Even an idiot can do it. Unless the people who are rambling on about qualifications refuse to reveal what the qualifications are. Which is nice for them, because then instead of arguing against someone’s ideas or character or anything else, they can just say, “not qualified.” See Obama, Barack, candidacy of.
Socrates, quick; can you name someone who’s qualified to be president, but for whom you would not vote?
— Sam M · Oct 21, 11:54 PM · #
“can you name someone who’s qualified to be president, but for whom you would not vote?”
Dick Cheney.
See how easy that is. No one, not even the most wild-eyed liberal, would quibble over Cheney’s qualifications to be President. But a great many people would say Cheney’s performance in office and proven judgment and thinking would prevent them from ever voting for him.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 22, 06:29 PM · #
Mike:
Yes! It was easy! Nice job. Now we have someplace to start. I see here that you have this separated into qualifications, which you again leave unnamed. These are qualifications Cheney has in spades! But his performance in office and proven judgement are other things entirely. So… performance in office and proven judgement are not qualifications. they are something else.
So I guess Palin’s poor performance in office and record of bad judgement would not be considered disqualifications. They are just reasons not to vote for her. Because… those things are different.
OK. So if it’s not poor judgement or lack of performance in office, what exactly are the attributes she has that make her not qualified?
— Sam M · Oct 22, 10:00 PM · #
“OK. So if it’s not poor judgement or lack of performance in office, what exactly are the attributes she has that make her not qualified?”
Do you seriously think this childish bullshit is persuading even a single person to see your point of view? Are you that disconnected from reality? I mean, you’re getting into flat-Earther terrority with your willful refusal to understand the basic concept of “qualifications”. The reason why nobody wants to provide you a list is because we can all tell it would be like trying to explain the concept of “red” to someone who’s pretending to be colorblind.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 24, 03:45 PM · #
“You don’t need to be smart to know if you are qualified. You just need a list of qualifications to judge yourself against it. Even an idiot can do it.”
Well, since Palin apparently can’t do it, she must be something less than an idiot.
Finally, we can agree on something!
— Socrates · Oct 24, 07:28 PM · #
“The reason why nobody wants to provide you a list…”
Thanks. But I think it’s pretty clear by now why you won’t provide the list. You could prove me wrong, though. It would take five seconds. Yet you won’t do it. And you are smart to not do so. Because it’s abulshit question in the first place. A rhetorical trap. You know you are screwed as soon as you provide the list. You know you are trapped.
And Continetti is smart enough to know that the original question is a bullshit rhetorical trap, too.
I have a lot of respect for Conor’s work. But this entire exercise has been BS from the get go. And the fact that you, Continetti, Conor and everyone else refuses to play along is all the evidence we need.
An honest discussion about rhe role that “qualifications” play in peoples’ actual decisions can be seen here and there in this comment thread, when people discuss how it’s a complex interplay of ideology, other choices available, the political playing field, etc.
People will vote for people who agree with them more often than not. If that person is a one-term senator from Chicago? The outsiderness is actually good, because he can promise “change.” And if it’s a half-term governor from Alaska? Well, she’ll “rile things up” and “tweak the powers that be.”
If this were not true, we would be talking right now about President Gore and ex-president Cheney. But we aren’t. Are we?
“Qualifications” doesn’t mean anything. It might for a doctor or a lawyer ot a secretary of state. But “the job of the president” is enough of a moving target that the question is nonsense. Sometimes you need a leader of a political party. Sometimes you need a wonk. Sometimes you need a general. Sometimes you need a cheerleader. What we need at any given moment is matter of some dispute, of course. And rightly so.
Conor basically admits that the question is a rhetorical device. I am surprised you disagree with him.
— Sam M · Oct 25, 01:26 AM · #
“You could prove me wrong, though.”
No, I couldn’t. Well, not to you because you’re a crank on this subject. I think everybody else is quite aware of how wrong you are.
You see, asking about a specific Presidental candidate’s qualifications isn’t a rhetorical trap…UNLESS YOU CAN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. If you asked Obama supporters in 2008 what his qualifications for President were, they’d have given you an answer. You might not have liked or agreed with what they said, but you’d get a response. If you asked Romney supporters for his qualifications, you’d get an answer. If you asked Huckabee supporters for his qualifcations, you’d get an answer. If you asked Pawlenty supporters for his qualifications, you’d get an answer. And as I mentioned before, even a supporter of Lyndon Larouche for President could have told you what they think his qualifications for office are.
The fact that every candidate doesn’t have every qualification or that some qualifications may be more important to some voters than others or more relevant in some situations than others, does not invalidate the concept.
For a guy who’s arguing that a schizophrenic homeless man is as qualified to be President as Jeb Bush, it’s sort of amusing to see how you think you’re smarter about this than everyone else.
And again, the question is only a rhetorical trap in the case of Sarah Palin because her own supporters (such as yourself) refuse to answer it. The question is a way of demonstrating how unusual and problematic she is as a candidate for President. Challenging the premise of the question doesn’t disprove the point it’s trying to make. Refusing to answer a question that every other supporter of every other candidate could easily handle only emphasizes the point. Far from delegitimizing Conor’s query, you buffoonish attempts to deflect it only prove how important and insightful a question it is.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 25, 02:40 PM · #
“If you asked Obama supporters in 2008 what his qualifications for President were, they’d have given you an answer.”
Reading comprehension, Mike. Reading comprehension is key.
Conor did not ask for her qualifications. He asked if she was qualified. That’s a different question.
You want a list of her qualifications? That’s easy. She was governor of a large state. Some experience with energy issues, however cursory. Solid support from important sectors of the party. A speaking style that appeals to certain people. A strong ability to raise money. Etc. Etc. Etc. I am sure you could find her resume online. But governing experience of some sort and political viability are certainly qualifications, I am sure you would agree.
Are these compelling qualifications? Not for me. I’m not a big fan. But that depends who’s reviewing them. It depends on who’s running against her. For instance, if the person running against her has more years as governor and more experience dealing with energy issues, that diffuses her appeal in those regards. If the person is more of an “outsider,” the same is true. If the person has a personal narrative that is more compelling to the base, ditto.
But clearly, Conor was not asking for a list of her qualifications. He knows what those are and has judged her accordingly. She’s basically at the bottom of his list of possible candidates, so it hardly matter who’s running against her from either party.
Clearly, if I am hiring a coach to lead Notre Dame’s football program, people who have coached other college teams “have qualifications.” People who have worked for the NCAA “have qualifications.” People who won a Heismann Trophy as a player for Notre Dame “have qualifications.” But whether that person “is qualified” to coach depends on the state of the program. Maybe a guy is a terrible recruiter but an excellent tactician, or vice versa. Maybe some guy is brilliant in all facets but has a personal bio that causes the alumni to bristle. So given the circumstances, and given who else is available and who you are lobbying for, you can’t just come out and say this person or that person is obviously qualified or unqualified. Is Joe Paterno qualified for the job? Obviously yes, given his experience. Obviously no, given his age. Do you need someone to make a final run for a championship, or do you want someone to run the program for 30 years. That matters, right?
Like I said 100 times, I don’t like her. But is she qualified? Sure. I could even imagine a scenario in which I could be covinced to vote for her. Let’s say the Dems ran Ralph Nader. I’d probably vote third party. But if I felt compelled to vote for one of them, I’d seriously consider Palin.
Palin versus Pelosi? Barney Frank? Al Gore? The head of the AFL-CIO? I’d have to give it a hard look. But probably them, not her.
So again, yes, I think she’s qualified, although I don’t like her. But that’s just me, answering a loaded question. Which you don’t have the nerve to do. Even though you think it’s not a loaded question. Your choice, though. But it sure seems like it would be easy enough to do. I did it. But I get it. You don’t want to paint yourself into a corner. That’s fine. But don’t expect Continetti to do it either.
— Sam M · Oct 25, 04:27 PM · #
And of course, you inadvertently make my point when you say:
“If you asked Obama supporters in 2008 what his qualifications for President were, they’d have given you an answer.”
But the campaign didn’t start in 2008 on election day. I remember. I was living in a very pro-union area at the time, and everyone was very strong, very early for Hilary Clinton. You know what their knock on Obama was? Inexperienced! Unqualified? Not up to the task? And they said so. In fact, Clinton said so. Because she was trying to beat him in an election.
Which is of course why she ended up voting for Gerogre W. Bush. Wait! No she didn’t! She threw her support behind Barack Obama, who all of a sudden had what it took! An outsider! Hope and change were clearly more important than four years of on-the-job training.
So the circumstances changed. And so did the definition of qualified that animated all those union guys and Hilary Clinton.
Weird, eh?
— Sam M · Oct 25, 04:35 PM · #
Hey Mike, how’s this fit your thesis about Obama supporters being able to name his qualifications:
Here’s politacl operative Howard Wolfson calling Obama unqualified to be VICE PRESIDENT in March 2008:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_spokesman_declares_oba.html
Here is Wolfson in September 2008 writing an op-ed for the Washington Post, calling him qualified to be president:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/31/AR2008083101620.html
Huh. Weird. It’s almost as if the fact that Wolfson worked for Hilary Clinton had something to do with this. Wow!
— Sam M · Oct 25, 04:44 PM · #
Here’s a clue, Sam M. When you feel compelled to make three separate posts in response to one post, it’s a pretty good sign that even you know you’re losing the argument.
I mean, this is just pathetic…
“Conor did not ask for her qualifications. He asked if she was qualified. That’s a different question.”
I’m not sure I’ve even seen a sillier attempt at obfuscation in my entire life, especially when it’s followed by plainly admitting that you’ve been wrong and just peddling bullshit this entire time. Palin has certain qualifications to be President and people can evaluate them and whether they’re enough to meet the minimal requirements they have for a candidate. That’s not at all the same as your initial, laughable argument that there’s no way to distinguish between the Presidential qualifications of a schizophrenic homeless man and Jeb Bush.
Thanks for conceding the debate.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 25, 05:22 PM · #
No. Thank you for proving your total lack of reading comprehension skills yet again. I never mentioned Jeb Bush. Nor anyone who is mentally challenged in any way. But at least your imagination skills are up to snuff.
I am not sure what has you so mystifed and angry. All I did was ask you a simple question and you refuse to answer it. Despite admitting that it’s not a ridiculous question. Your motives will have to remain a mystery.
I guess I might ask even more questions, like what it is Barack Obama might have accomplished between March and September 2008 to magically make him qualified to be president, given the fact that all he did during that time was campaign to be president. I might also ask if you think Clinton’s sudden change of heart should come as a surprise. I might ask if it ever occured to you is that what’s happening here is, people who attack non-preferred candidates on the basis of mysterious, ever-changing definitions of “qualified” might be engaging in disingenous hackery in order to rally support for other candidates.
I wouldn’t want to stress you out, though.
“When you feel compelled to make three separate posts in response to one post, it’s a pretty good sign that even you know you’re losing the argument.”
Or it’s a sign that the post to which I was responding was so absurd that its complete lack of coherence crashed upon me in waves. And your complete failure to respond to the any of the substance of the posts is instructive yet again.
About half of Democrats spent a good portion of 2008 saying Obama was not qualified to president of the United States. And then he was, despite doing nothing to become more qualified. The same exact dynamic played out for the GOP when Bush beat McCain. You don’t find this interesting or relevant to the conversation about whether people are serious when they talk about who’s qualified. But I guess that makes sense, becuase this whole exercise gives you an opportunity to prove that you hate Sarah Palin more than other people do. Because she’s “stupid.” Brilliant stuff.
Reading comprehension AND rhetorical virtuosity all wrapped up into one. Impressive.
— Sam M · Oct 25, 06:10 PM · #
“No. Thank you for proving your total lack of reading comprehension skills yet again. I never mentioned Jeb Bush.”
Are you really this stupid? Seriously? Have you taken one of those online IQ tests, ‘cause I think the result might be surprising to you.
I mean, I would think anyone with even half a brain could have recognized, especially the 2nd time I used it, that the Jeb Bush analogy wasn’t a direct quote but a way of illustrating the absurdity of your original position. Did you honestly not get that, or are you continuing your amusinging lame efforts to confuse things?
And by the way, YOU’RE the one who refused to answer a simple question and instead offered up nothing but bullshit sophistry.
Now, I will take pity on you because you truly don’t seem to be all that bright and respond to your sad little pleadings about the question of people saying a candidate is not qualified one day but qualified the next. Everybody else understands it perfectly well, but you clearly need some remedial help.
First, when people support one candidate they say bad things about the other candidate. Frequently those bad things aren’t accurate and sometimes they don’t even reflect what the person really believes. I’m sorry if that’s shattered your infantile illusions about the democratic process.
Secondly, such claims are almost always made in a comparitive sense. They claim candidate A is less qualified than candidate B, for example. However, that does not mean they have to believe that candidate A is less qualified than candidate C. There’s nothing unusual, unreasonable or wrong with thinking candiate A is less qualified than candidate B but more qualified than candidate C.
And in a probably futile attempt to get through your thick skull, I can’t respond to the substance of your posts because there’s no substance to them. It’s just bullshit sophistry that doesn’t hold up to a moment’s thought.
Asking the supporter of a candidate about that candidate’s qualifications for office is about as basic and straight forward a question as you can ask. It’s like asking the candidate him or herself why they want to be President. It’s only an inability or foolish refusal to answer such an easy question that makes it anything out of the ordinary.
But again, thanks for conceding the debate. We can keep going if you want to pretend otherwise. There’s nothing quite as entertaining as a crank continuing to defend his obsession long after he has any leg to stand on.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 25, 06:44 PM · #
When you feel compelled to make three separate posts in response to one post, it’s a pretty good sign that even you know you’re losing the argument.
I question whether there are data to support this assertion. I even question whether there are reasons to think it is true.
— The Reticulator · Oct 26, 04:01 AM · #
“I question whether there are data to support this assertion. I even question whether there are reasons to think it is true.”
It was true enough to force Sam M to feel like he needed to explain it. I consider it a victory any time you can get through in any way to someone arguing nonsense.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 26, 02:20 PM · #