The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

More on the Conservative Shake-Up

I'm not at all convinced that Obama's lead is safe, and I think that the positive poll numbers of late could result in liberal complacency on Election Day. But what's indisputable is that Obama's apparent advantage, and the Palin pick, are creating fissures in the Republican Party. Whether these fissures lead to a healthy shake-up, or a crack-up, has yet to be seen. Jed Lewison has a list of the "Republicans and conservatives jumping ship, pointing fingers, or otherwise abandoning the McCain campaign." It includes some of the names we've brought up recently, including Heather Mac Donald, Christopher Buckley, and David Frum, plus some others we hadn't noted.

Conservatives Should Not Cast Out Their Own

Melinda,

I'm so glad you posted on Christopher Buckley leaving the National Review. I was saddened to read his column in the Daily Beast saying he'd left. Also, I had just been conjuring up a post in response to your post and Ellen's from earlier today, in our ongoing discussion about intellectualism and what it is and why it's become a smear, and I think the Buckley story fits in. I especially appreciated Ellen for both calling me out on making intellectual a dirty word and for bringing me into the ranks of great thinkers (even though I spend far more time curled up with Sports Illustrated than with The New Yorker).

It was unwise and unfair of me to group intellectuals as a whole in with the condescending elites that bug me so much, and I admit I was probably thinking of someone like the gentleman Melinda worked for, who constantly reminded others of his genius. Haughtiness drives me batty, and so does what I perceive as intolerance. Which brings me back to Christopher Buckley. It's annoying when smarty-pants liberals say, "Why I don't know anyone who would vote for that imbecile George Bush/John McCain," and it's just as annoying when it comes from the opposite direction, when an angry mob takes on an individual who arrived at a different conclusion from them after much thought. (I've seen Rich Lowry's response, and I find it hard to believe that a great magazine like the National Review doesn't have room for both Christopher Buckley and Mark Steyn, who recently earned a huge victory for free speech in Canada.)

What made me especially sad was Buckley's assertion that the Republican Party was more "yurt" than big tent. The rest of you might laugh at me for thinking so, but I have always felt that GOP was a bigger tent than most outsiders gave it credit for. I know more pro-choice Republicans than I do pro-life Democrats. I know Republicans who are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and some who are not religious at all. Some of us can't get too worked up about global warming, but that doesn't stop us from recycling and setting the thermostat at 68 in the winter. I've written a lot on this blog about how dismayed I am with our national discourse, about how divisive and bitter some have become. It hurts even more when those within my own party resorts to petty tactics and cruel words against one another.

Rich Lowry, What Is You Thinking?

Bush, Palin, What’s the Difference? Part II

Anne, Marjorie, and Hanna:

Thanks to you all for your considered responses to the question I posed earlier—about whether there's any discernible difference between Palin's ability to lead the country and Bush's. Initially, I argued that there isn't, and that's why it's perplexing that so many conservatives are denouncing McCain's veep pick when they didn't say boo about Bush.

You've all mentioned, in one way or another, the fact that Bush belongs to a political family, whereas Palin does not. The logic is that Bush must've picked up something or other at the dinner table, and then at Andover, Yale, and Harvard—that he was assigned important books, even if he never read them, and that makes all the difference. All Palin's done is run a tiny little town and then govern a state that's so oil rich it doesn't need much governing. She's never heard of the books that Bush didn't bother to read.

So here's my follow-up: Bush may have a better, more reassuring pedigree, but he panders to the same contingent as Palin. And, in my opinion, you are who you pander to. Bush, inauthentically, cast himself as a dude from the heartland unspoiled by D.C. like the tree-hugging Al Gore or the French-speaking Kerry. He sold himself to America as an anti-intellectual who governs from the gut. Palin is doing the exact same thing, only authentically.

Hanna, you say the difference in authenticity is what's freaking out the conservative press corp—that Christopher Buckley, et al., could tolerate fake anti-elitism, but not real anti-elitism. You may be right, but that doesn't make complete sense to me. Bush pandered to people who dismiss book-readers as eggheads, and so he governed like a person who dismisses book-readers as eggheads. Shiite, Sunni, what's the difference? Who cares? Let's just get in there! The military can muddle through. Stem-cell research? Fuhget about it. Torture? I'll let my veep figure that one out.

I give credit to the conservatives who are speaking out against the worrisome anti-intellectual trend in the GOP—but I think they should've said something eight years ago.

IQ Challenge

I hate to be in the position of defending President Bush, especially when it comes to his level of intelligence, but I have to say I disagree that he and Sarah Palin are cut from the same aptitude cloth. As you noted, Bush does have more executive experience, (He actually came into office after having been governor of Texas for two consecutive four-year terms.) but beyond experience I think the two have other fundamental differences. Despite his narrow-mindedness, his inability to admit mistakes, his mangling of the English language, and his not always being able to communicate effectively to the public, Bush can on occasion string together coherent sentences. I also get the sense that he does understand complex policy issues even if he's not good at articulating or managing them. I know he was a C student (and so was John McCain, by the way), but the man did go to Harvard and Yale, even if it was by way of a legacy acceptance. And even if he spent most of his time in college boozing and cheerleading, he had to have learned something at these institutions even if it was through osmosis/diffusion by being around all those great minds.

Bush also comes from a political family and understands politics on a much more sophisticated level than Palin. Judging from news reports about Palin's administration, she is clearly a lightweight with a very small town mentality who, instead of surrounding herself with people smarter than herself (which would have been the intelligent thing to do), surrounded herself with friends who are--how shall we say it delicately?--just as dumb as her. (Think of Palin's agriculture secretary who said her love of cows qualified her for the job.) Bush's team was dangerously ideological, wrongheaded on so many issues, and not good for the country, but no one can argue that they weren't smart and well-educated. I don't get the sense that Palin can grasp complex policy issues. I think Bush understands full well what's happening with the economy; I don't think Palin does.

Though I may disagree with Bush's worldview, at least he has a worldview. He understood immigration coming into the White House, he knew a bit about Latino culture, he tried to learn a little Spanish. He knows a handful of people of color and even put some of them in his Cabinet. What gives me pause about Palin is not her limited executive experience, it's her limited education (six colleges before she finally got a degree), her almost absent worldview, the fact that she has not traveled anywhere (gassing up in Ireland notwithstanding), and has not been around a whole lot of people different from herself. For god sakes last weekend she spoke of "our neighboring country of Afghanistan." And just because she can deliver prepared zingers at debates and rallies like a pro, I don't believe for a minute that her dismal interview performances were isolated events. What's worse is that she believes the Republican hype about herself and that is the ultimate example her lack of self-awareness. I think part of being intelligent is knowing your shortcomings and limitations, and being able to admit what you don't know, and what you're not qualified to do. Palin doesn't have a clue.

We in the "liberal media" are always accused of condescending to the conservatives and smearing them for being all of one mind, I'm actually glad to see that some of them have not drank the Kool-Aid and are thinking out of the box and, dare we say it, acting on principle instead of politics.

But Is Palin Really Worse Than Bush?

First it was David Frum; then George Will followed by David Brooks; then Frum's colleague at the National Review, Kathleen Parker; today, William F. Buckley's son, Christopher jumped on the band wagon. Conservatives everywhere are denouncing McCain's veep pick because, essentially, they think she isn't smart enough to lead the country. True, they focus on the experience or rather the inexperience question, but it's transparent enough that what's sent conservatives into a tizzy is that Palin can't speak let alone process complex ideas. As Parker put it, she's just "Clearly Out Of Her League." I couldn't agree more. But here's what I don't get—since when do conservatives care about smarts? Or, rather, why didn't they care about smarts in 2000 and 2004?

Watching Sarah Palin talk to Katie Couric, and then watching her at the debate (where, admittedly, she did better than expected) gave me déjà vu. She's really very similar to Bush, and it's not at all obvious to me that she's any worse than he is, or was in 2000 and 2004. Maybe Bush isn't stupid, exactly, just lazy. And Palin's not stupid, exactly, either—just supremely uninformed. But ultimately, what's the difference? Either of these qualities should disqualify someone from running the country.

As Leopold Bloom put it (or thought it), "a defect is 10 times worse in a woman." He meant physical defects, but I wonder if this charming bit of sexism applies to mental defects, too. Why is Sarah Palin pushing Christopher Buckley over the edge—he's voting for Obama!—when Bush didn't?