Spinning Palin: On the Bush Doctrine
A number of conservative intellectuals (e.g. Richard Starr and Andy McCarthy) are trying to quash the big story out of last night’s Sarah Palin interview, namely her unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine. To aid this quashing, they’re engaging in a clever bit of legerdemain, arguing that, well, no one really knows exactly what the Bush Doctrine is, because it’s gone through so many iterations and versions.
Which is true. And completely beside the point.
The problem was not that Palin couldn’t decide among competing interpretations of the Bush Doctrine,* it’s that she appeared to have never heard the phrase in her life, as evidenced by the following exchange:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
No one who had heard the phrase in context before–or who wasn’t sure which iteration of it was meant–would ever respond with “His world view.” And even someone who didn’t know there was a Bush Doctrine but who was aware of the Monroe or Truman Doctrines would know enough not to say “His world view.” He or she would also probably know that it had something specific to do with using force to achieve geopolitical strategic objectives, and might even be quick-witted enough to ask which version of the Bush Doctrine Gibson was talking about, to draw out some help. But “His world view?” That part just sounded ridiculous.
Nor did things get any better for Palin when Gibson tried to help her out with a date:
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
James Fallows at The Atlantic has more on why this matters here.
+++
*NB: I edited this sentence for clarity, which is why it no longer matches the version Ben Smith quoted.
4 Comments
Palin’s interview comports with the facts described in Rutenberg & Davey’s NY Times story 9/11/08. Palin’s aides report that preparing for the debates she “ask[s] few questions” and “generally prefers light prepatory materials to heavy briefing books”…. She is an actress who is a “quick study” parroting back responses. She doesn’t know and doesn’t care …. Is this the end of western civilization?
Sep 12th, 2008
D. Harris,
Yes, true! I quoted those very passages, in fact, in an earlier post.
As for western civilization, well, I think it will creep along just fine–God knows it’s seen worse than Sarah Palin…
Sep 12th, 2008
lol good point there, way to go Jennifer !
Sep 13th, 2008
The Art of the Possible » Blog Archive » What Puzzling Palin Does Not Know
[...] So a person who by some fluke had never heard the specific expression “Bush Doctrine” before, but had a minimally competent grasp of US history, would have no trouble winnowing the potential answers to Gibson down to a relatively narrow field. Yet after Gibson’s second mention of the Bush Doctrine, complete with the dead give-away description “enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war [my emphasis],” all Palin could manage was to ask Gibson whether he was asking her to comment on Bush’s “worldview.” Repeat: “his worldview.” That is an insensible response. She might as well have just said that colorless green ideas sleep furiously and walked off; she could scarcely have embarrassed herself any less that way. (Tip of the cap to Robert P. Baird for first picking up on this.) [...]
Sep 14th, 2008
Reply to “Spinning Palin: On the Bush Doctrine”