A Pitbull by Any Other Name

Surprisingly, the most compelling performance at the Republican National Convention two weeks ago came not from the presidential nominee, but rather from his running mate, the bright new star of the Republican party: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. As most of the international media has either enthusiastically or begrudgingly remarked, Palin did remarkably well that Wednesday night. Demonstrating her dexterity both on stage and on the attack, Madame Barracuda’s speech catapulted her onto the national conservative stage with great gusto, ensuring her place on it for years to come.

Given the inherently cheerleading nature of convention speeches, trying to glean her executive qualifications from those forty minutes proves a dubious enterprise. More importantly, the whole issue of whether a candidate has the “experience” to be President seems tricky. After all, what, exactly, qualifies one to serve as commander-in-chief? Community organizing in Chicago? A difficult and admirable task, but probably not. Over the past four years, Senator Obama seems to have become sufficiently familiar with the most pressing issues that will face the president come January 20. But at the end of the day, it’s hard to make the case that he has had compelling experience making executive decisions analogous to those of war and peace, because, of course, he has not.

However, this is not to say that either McCain or Palin has had such experience. The key point is that there are few experiences that can genuinely prepare one for—much less replicate—the complex strategic tradeoffs faced by the commander-in-chief of a nation at war. A good counterexample might be commanding a wartime squadron during combat. However, as former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark recently pointed out, none of the current candidates can claim that experience. While valiant, Clark insisted on CBS’s Face the Nation, John McCain’s action in Vietnam did not demand the same type of “executive responsibility” that commanding a wartime squadron would have engendered. This is not to take anything away from McCain’s heroism; it is simply to say that experience is not the most pressing issue at stake when assessing the two tickets.

Given this relatively even playing field, the primary problem with Palin is not her gross lack of qualifications to inherit our two-front war. Rather, it has to do with what was showcased so brilliantly in St. Paul: her pitbull brand of politics. In particular, the content of the RNC speech—along with her pitch-perfect delivery—was dominated by a combination of massive oversimplification and a dash of jingoism on the side, peppered with arguments that appeal to visceral reactions at the expense of a nuanced stance on the most important issues facing Americans. This is nothing new. Though simple, this recipe has proven highly seductive—indeed, it has served to make the recent Republican party one of the most effective electoral agents in American history.

For example, Palin’s boiling down tax policy to “How can you possibly be better off if you’re paying more taxes?” is not only an inaccurate and irresponsible portrayal of the issue, but also an insult to the intelligence of the voting populace. Furthermore, to frame all those who supported the war in Iraq as “pro-victory” and those opposing the war as “pro-forfeit” is exactly the type of polarizing and impossibly simplistic dichotomy that allowed President Bush to maneuver the nation into Iraq in the first place. Between 2001 and 2003, Bush had a golden opportunity to unite and lead our country—not to mention the broader international community—towards a common goal with a shared purpose. Instead, Bush chose to pander to his base with divisive rhetoric and action. Judging from her convention speech, one can only conclude that a Palin administration would follow a disconcertingly similar path.

If Governor Palin is indeed the pitbull that she has so proudly proclaimed herself, she is a feisty and a likable one, who I am sure will prove a valuable asset for the Republicans. However, apart from her uncanny ability to galvanize the conservative base, it was her speech’s heavy reliance on pitbull politics that was most troubling.

For all of his flaws, Senator Obama at least understands that there isn’t always a gut-felt answer in decisions of state, and he is honest with his voters about the complexities of policymaking. That insight and candor alone are more valuable than any number of years experience making decisions simply by sticking to the guns and guts of oversimplistic dogma.


Audrey J. Kim ’09, a Crimson photography editor, is a history concentrator in Adams House.