Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Stanley Fish praises Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. (A must-read article!)

Is Sarah Palin being set up to fail?

It’s hard to avoid that impression after hearing Palin’s disastrous December 3 appearance on Rusty Humphries’ nationally syndicated radio show. Palin, who delivered above-average performances last month on the Fox News Channel programs hosted by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity but failed to acquit herself well on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, bombed spectacularly on Humphries’ broadcast, incoherently discussing the alleged controversy for President Obama’s place of birth and relying on already-stale catchphrases like “common-sense conservatism” and “faith, family and freedom.” Nothing against common sense, conservatism, faith, family or freedom, but Palin needs to understand that as an unofficial representative of the conservative movement, she cannot afford to come across as unfocused or unintelligent in any media appearance: as veteran radio executive Randall Bloomquist once put it, she needs to be great on a good day and good on a bad day.

Even if Palin remains inconsistent in terms of the quality of her media appearances, it’s hard to envision her fanbase—which also happens to be the base of the Republican Party—turning against her. That fanbase is down on the GOP these days, regarding the party’s leaders as elitists who are scornful of movement conservatives and more tolerant of moderates such as failed 2008 GOP nominee John McCain. If Republican Party leaders recognize that Palin cannot win a general election, but cannot induce the party’s base to consider alternatives, one wonders if those leaders will, in effect, try to teach the base a lesson.

Let’s say the economy recovers in 2011-2012, and President Obama avoids any major foreign-policy screwups heading into his re-election bid. It’s still possible that Obama could be defeated, but only by a candidate who could appeal to folks beyond the GOP’s base, a candidate who is consistently strong in his media appearances, a candidate who never comes across as cognitively compromised. Let’s also say that this candidate is seen by a majority of the GOP base as an untrustworthy moderate, and that this candidate ultimately fails to get past Palin in the 2012 primaries. If Palin becomes the GOP nominee, would it really be too far-fetched to envision the party’s leaders damning her with strong praise, outwardly declaring their firm support while privately expecting, and possibly even hoping, that she fails miserably?

I wouldn’t put it past GOP leaders to effectively go rogue on Palin in 2012, quietly rooting for her failure as a means of sending a message to the GOP base that the most conservative candidate in a Republican Party primary is not necessarily the best candidate. Presumably, the party’s leaders understand why Palin is so strongly admired by the base, but they also understand that the base alone cannot bring about a Presidential victory.

Think back to the 2000 primary. George W. Bush was not the most conservative combatant in that particular battle royale: former Reagan administration officials Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer were the ones with the unimpeachable conservative credentials regarding fiscal, social and defense issues. Of course, Al Gore would have slaughtered either Keyes or Bauer in the general election; by the time election day rolled around, over 50 percent of the country would have been led to believe that the GOP contender was a Bible-banging wingnut.

The base loves Palin because they see her as the real deal—humble in her background, strong in her Christian faith, traditionalist in her worldview. However, the party’s shot-callers surely understand that what endears Palin to her supporters may also repel those who aren’t already on board. GOP bigwigs must be horrified by how inconsistent Palin has been in her recent media appearances, but they also must know that the love the party’s base has for her is just as strong as the love Ronnie had for Nancy.

If Palin comes up short against Obama in 2012, it will effectively slap the rose-colored glasses off the faces of her supporters. It isn’t that odd to imagine GOP leaders secretly hoping that this happens. If Palin is defeated resoundingly, it will force the party’s base to confront the unpleasant reality that the country, while not far-left, is not nearly as resolutely conservative as it was decades ago. The average voter will not vote for someone they see as either a left-wing or a right-wing “extremist.” Yes, Reagan was demonized for years as a right-wing extremist prior to his historic 1980 victory; however, it was only President Carter’s catastrophic failure as Commander-in-Chief that compelled voters to take a second look as Reagan’s vision. If the economy has been reasonably strong in 1980, and if Carter had been able to liberate the hostages during Operation Eagle Claw, would Reagan have won that election?

Palin seems to recognize that she has enemies within the Republican Party. Does she realize how many enemies there might actually be?

Rod Dreher on the Sarah Palin phenomenon.

David Frum asks: Can Sarah Palin overcome her problems with female voters?

Rob Bernstein on the comparisons between Sarah Palin and President Reagan.

Can Sarah Palin emerge victorious in a general election?

Palin’s appeal to the Republican Party’s conservative base is unbelievably strong, but it’s still unclear as to whether she can capture the imagination of enough independent voters to win in 2012 (assuming, of course, that she runs). In order to defeat President Obama, Palin will have to figure out a way to be in, but not of, the conservative world.

The GOP’s base is, as Sam Tanenhaus notes in The Death of Conservatism, “revanchist”—that is to say, committed to reversing the political and cultural gains the American left made over the last four decades. Members of the party base are at war with what they see as a corrosive counterculture—a counterculture comprised of progressive judges and professors, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, and Republicans who are not committed to conservative philosophy. These men and women embraced Barry Goldwater in 1964 because they viewed him as, for lack of a better phrase, the ultimate anti-counterculture warrior.

Even since the 1964 Presidential campaign, Republican candidates for the Oval Office have tried to satisfy these voters while simultaneously appealing to voters who were not as hostile to the progressive-influenced culture. In his 1968 and 1972 Presidential campaigns, Richard Nixon exploited the conservative base’s anger at cultural liberalism while also reaching out to those who merely desired competent government. While Nixon’s tactics were certainly controversial, they were also quite successful.

Ronald Reagan demonstrated similar skill in 1980 and 1984. Reagan knew how to appeal to conservatives angered by domestic secularism while not driving away those who disagreed with his traditionalist take on cultural matters. Reagan would not have been able to win forty-nine states twenty-five years ago if his appeal did not extend beyond social-conservative borders.

George H. W. Bush had a reputation as a “moderate,” so by definition he did not scare off those concerned about perceived extremism in the GOP. However, since the 1980s, the Republican Party has seemingly lost the ability to appeal to voters who consider themselves culturally tolerant.

Despite his “compassionate conservative” rhetoric, George W. Bush ultimately could not reach far beyond the GOP’s base in 2000, possibly because Bush’s appeal was directly connected to the culture war (i.e., Bush was embraced by those who saw President Clinton as fundamentally amoral). In addition, it’s not that far-fetched to imagine Bush losing his 2004 re-election bid if the War on Terror had not been ongoing. The less said about the breadth of the GOP’s appeal in 2008, the better.

In order to win in 2012, Palin must position herself as someone who respects the cultural right, but is not beholden to that faction of the conservative movement. Newly elected Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell demonstrated this skill in his campaign. Can Palin do the same?

She must. The knock on Palin is that she is the embodiment of right-wing resentment politics—the Statue of Anti-Liberal Liberty. To her detractors, Palin gives voice to the complaints of the Angry Right—the Tea Partiers, the pro-Second Amendment activists, the evangelical Christians, the Club for Growth/Leave Us Alone Coalition crowd. While her supporters see Reagan reincarnated, her critics see Louise Day Hicks back from the dead.

Palin must follow the example of the former and eschew that of the latter. To be sure, Reagan was at war with liberalism, but he always made clear that his grievance was with the ideology itself, not the adherents thereof. It’s not enough for Palin to suggest that progressivism should be consigned to the dustbin of history. She must explain, in clear and concise language, how conservative principles will work for the average American.

Palin’s supporters see her as an iconic figure who could do to liberalism what a pesticide does to insects. However, those supporters must understand that in the battle against the left, diplomacy is sometimes the best weapon. Palin will not always be able to use bellicose language in describing her political opponents. She will not always be the right’s UFC combatant, forcing progressives to tap out within seconds. Sometimes, her strong spirit will be represented by gentle words, her ideological fervor constrained by a calm manner. She can’t be Mark Levin on the campaign trail—but if they just let Sarah be herself, she’ll succeed and not fail.

Napoleon Linardatos on Sarah Palin’s supporters.

Sometimes you have to strike while the iron is hot.

Barack Obama understood this. After he captured the imagination of progressives with his dynamic 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention, he realized that the momentum he had generated would only last for a short period of time. He capitalized on that momentum well in advance of its cutoff date, releasing a bestselling book, The Audacity of Hope, in the fall of 2006 and launching his Presidential bid shortly thereafter. Fortune favors the bold, and fortune certainly blessed Obama’s boldness a year ago this week.

Now, Sarah Palin has to follow that path. She must take advantage of this unique moment. After her tour to promote Going Rogue: An American Life concludes, and after she does her part to help conservative Republicans secure House and Senate victories in the 2010 midterms, she must commit to a 2012 Presidential run.

Palin will shatter the hearts of her supporters if she declares, a la Colin Powell, that a bid for the White House is a calling she does not yet hear. Millions of Americans now see her as the only person that can turn around the turmoil, the only political figure who can bring limited-government conservatism back to its rightful place in the US. To pass up this opportunity with so much momentum behind her is to act stupidly.

Palin will never have another real chance to run if she forfeits a 2012 bid. Pro-Palin sentiment is intense on the American right, but it cannot, and will not, last forever. If she fails to seize this moment, she will drive her devotees into doubt. Yes, her admirers can look past her July 2009 decision to resign as governor of Alaska, but if she says no to a 2012 bid, her supporters will naturally start to wonder if she’s all hype with no hope.

Can Palin actually defeat President Obama? In the eyes of her strongest supporters, she has to. If Palin runs, she will have scores of volunteers who will go without sleep or comfort to ensure that she becomes the 45th President. To many conservatives, libertarians and independents, Palin is the literal embodiment of truth, justice and the American way—and they will do whatever it takes to support their superhero.

Palin cannot disappoint these people. She must know that they view her as the epitome of what makes America great—and, more importantly, as the ultimate repudiation of American liberalism. In Palin, they see a woman who rejects in toto progressive elitism and secular humanism. The more the left looks down upon her, the more these supporters will lift her up.

In Palin, they see hope—hope that Washington’s mistakes will finally be corrected, hope that the American progressive establishment will finally get its comeuppance, hope that the average man and woman will finally have someone in power who will represent their interests and concerns. In their eyes, Palin is the ultimate patriot—the symbol of something better, something greater, something purer.

The strength of the bond that has formed between Palin and her supporters cannot be overstated. Palin is the ordinary person who just happens to be extraordinary—the person who had big dreams and the courage to purse those dreams until they became real. In their view, America was created so that people like Palin could rise to prominence; in her, they see evidence that America has no caste system, no guaranteed privileges due to birth or station. Anybody can be somebody in this country, and she’s living proof.

Palin’s rise is a testament to her sheer force of will, her determination to make her mark upon this land. Palin’s supporters live vicariously through her—and why not? Don’t Obama’s supporters live vicariously through him?

Palin cannot disappoint the people who have made such a great emotional and intellectual investment in her. She must bring this dream to reality.

Millions of Americans want to see Sarah Palin take that oath on January 20, 2013. They want to be there for that moment—that moment when any dream can come true, when any goal can be accomplished, when any medal can be won. Across America, people are calling on Palin to run. She must answer “Yes”—or, even better, “You betcha!”