In the latest print edition of NEWSWEEK, atheist author Sam Harris and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson duke it out over the question of whether Sarah Palin is experienced enough to be president. I weighed in on the topic earlier this month, writing that "when it comes to
the length and atypicality of their resumes, Palin and Obama are pretty
similar...
Where they differ is in what kind of experience they have--and
how that experience resonates with the people already inclined to
support them." As a way of advancing and expanding the debate, I thought it'd be worthwhile to post key excerpts from the Harris and Gerson essays, which are among the best I've read on Palin. Let me know what you think; the comments are all yours.
HARRIS: The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside
Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface
(she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a
foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the
second most important job in the world, without any intellectual
training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await
her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful
analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to
deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin
managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a
straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia
gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a
perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American
success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled
into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling
into, or upon, world history.
The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that
half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual
qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of
mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is
the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists
have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it
once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.
We
have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked
by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah
because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such
sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American)
detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration
must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global
climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of
China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct
United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of
energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and
Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order
of importance, much less address any one of them.
GERSON: The
response in some quarters to the selection of Palin was sneering. An
Obama spokesman immediately called her the "former mayor of a town of
9,000 with zero foreign-policy experience." But claims about the
importance of experience are inherently complicated for both parties in
this election. If Palin's governing résumé is thin, Barack Obama's is thinner. If Palin's lack of experience is meaningless, Obama's case to be commander in chief is strengthened.
But the accusation here is not really that Palin lacks experience; it is that she lacks the right
experience. She attended the University of Idaho, entered a beauty
contest, joined the NRA and a church where people speak in tongues and
was elected to govern a state with few Starbucks. Obama rose quickly
from Columbia to Harvard Law, taught constitutional law at the
University of Chicago and joined the most exclusive club in America,
the Senate. Even with no governing experience, he can claim what might
be called "elite experience." And this is enough for elitists...
Presidential historians count experience as one possible
contributing element to presidential success—but there are others.
"Experience matters," historian Robert Dallek has said, "but its
importance is terribly overstated." Predicting the ideal combination of
background, skills and values in a successful president—or VP—is no
easy task. And it cannot be argued that elite experience is somehow the key.
Americans
who support Palin are not fools, peasants or theocrats. They have
reasons, which elites may not agree with, but cannot dismiss. Many are
attracted to her because she embodies the values of the American West,
which they find superior to the values of coastal elites. This was part
of the appeal of Goldwater and Reagan—a log-splitting, range-riding
conservatism that emphasizes freedom. (Palin adds moose hunting to the
list.) It's not irrational or simplistic for voters to prefer
candidates who reflect their deepest values.
To others Palin represents a different kind of feminism—feminism
without liberalism. Many women seem enthusiastic about supporting a
woman leader who struggles with the balance of work and family, takes
on the old-boy network and yet rejects the agenda of the National
Organization for Women. And Palin appeals to many voters as a pro-life
symbol, with a family—including a son with Down syndrome—that
exemplifies a culture of life. Elites may dismiss this as trivial or
backward. But there's no deeper question of political philosophy than
this: whom do we count as a member of the human family and protect as
our own? Palin welcomed a disabled child—the kind of child often
targeted for elimination through eugenic abortion. It's not irrational
for Americans to support a candidate who is willing to protect the weak.
