Strata-Sphere quotes an interesting liberal critique of Gov. Sarah Palin:
I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.(Emphasis added.) The whole liberal motif that Sarah Palin is not qualified because she has no foreign policy experience is exposed in this quote. By inference, the same motif suggests Sen. Obama's supposed qualification on foreign policy with the same or less experience (e.g., Palin's involvement with natural gas pipeline through Canada; fishing ground issues with Russia, Korea, Japan, etc. as a commercial fishing family if not at a policy level) because he has been editing and reading policy papers on the subjects for 18 months.
Look at what she stands for:
* Small town values — a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
* Ignorance of world affairs — a repudiation of the need to repair America’s image abroad.
Frankly, we see in this quote that "ignorance of world affairs" is defined as a "need to repair America's image abroad." By this definition, a foreign policy that is based on treating America as in the wrong is indicative of knowledge in world affairs. Rejecting this premise is by definition ignorant. The logical consequence of this definition and its application is that any assertion of American propriety and power, regardless how long its proponent has studied the issue, will leave the proponent ignorant and unqualified in foreign affairs.
Further, any person willing to kowtow to foreign powers to raise "America's image" is intellectually enlightened. No study. No writing. No reflection. This person is intellectually adept. Add a Columbia undergraduate degree and a Harvard Law degree to the mix and the proponent is absolutely infallible in foreign policy.
I have looked for stories on Palin's interaction with other countries on these issues and have little to nothing.
Let us extrapolate for a moment, though. Suppose you live near the border of another country or two. Suppose you are involved in an industry that often is affected by international treaties. Suppose that industry is heavily regulated as result of those treaties and other domestic laws. Suppose that those treaties deal with those neighboring countries. As a result, coffee shop conversation between you and your compatriots in that industry are going to have a higher dose of international relations discussions than in my home state of Indiana. Does that qualify you as a stateman? No.
In the shadow of William F. Buckley, I would suggest, though, that you might be more qualified than a few of the names in the State Department's phone directory. I would also hazard a guess that you are going to learn issues related to those countries with interest if you are playing in politics, even at the state level. Does the state's National Guard have a role in Northern Command's defense of the homeland? I should hope. The governor, by her own Commandant's interview with Greta van Sustern, has been active in pushing legislation through the Alaska legislature to address troop and support concerns. She has been involved in budgeting for the Guard. I presume that part of the governor's training in transition into the office involves some orientation from the Guard and the Pentagon. This does not make her a strategic or tactical genius, but it is experience.
So poor definitions of what constitutes experience does not take into account both passive and active sources of information about international issues and command decisions.
Historically, our best presidents have had gubernatorial experience. Admittedly some of our worst were also governors (Carter, for instance).
For that I would merely turn to a lesson that I learned in a sales training class a few years back. The lesson focused on the salesman that had 10 years experience and his fellow salesman in the next cubicle with 2 years experience. If the veteran has bad results because he is using poor technique with no system for self-improvement and attempts to address new challenges, is he truly more experienced than the young whipper-snapper? Does your answer change if the younger salesman routinely studies is efforts and adapts his methods to increase his chances for success? What if the younger salesman keeps seeking different experiences: first with young clients, then older ones, then sales to groups of people, then to businesses directed by boards of directors?
The moral of the lesson: if you keep doing things the same old way, you don't have 10 years experience; you have one year's experience 10 times.
Studying Biden v. Palin, Obama v. McCain, or even Obama v. Palin, I keep hearing this thought in the back of my head that Biden has zero years of executive experience and zero years of real involvement in international affairs (albeit with 100.000 pages of briefing books). Obama has zero years of executive experience and 10,000 pages of briefing books. McCain, well, does 5 years in a foreign country as an adult and officer of the United States count as foreign policy experience, when you are negotiating with your own bones, skin, and blood?
Palin, no documented negotiation experience, but 2 years of supervision of negotiations with international oil companies, several Canadian provinces, and the Canadian federal government. What briefings has she receive from the US State Department on this matter? She has served in a legislative capacity at the most personal and brutal level, where the players can know your kids and see them at a basketball game or a restaurant. No threats suggested, but the politics of the personal is pretty tough. Ask any middle school girl.
Palin does not have the ideal resume. I like it far better than the entire Democrat ticket.
No comments:
Post a Comment