Published on November 23, 2009
It is hard to believe that Newsweek would have gone after a prominent liberal political figure—say, Nancy Pelosi—the way they have gone after Palin. The title for their cover could not be more blunt in their hostility towards her: “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah? She’s Bad News for the GOP—and for Everyone Else, Too.” (I don’t think we will ever see Newsweek produce a cover that states, “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Nancy Pelosi? She’s Bad News for the Democrats—and for Everyone Else, Too.”) Now to be fair to Newsweek, their columns on Palin were not as harsh as the cover. Although the tone of the analyses by writers Jon Meacham, Evan Thomas and Christopher Hitchens were certainly critical of her, they were not below the belt. But this was not the first time Newsweek has used a bold, controversial cover to sell magazines and then pull back somewhat inside its pages. A similar situation occurred with the “We are All Socialists Now” cover, in which Meacham and Thomas’s cover story expressed that the country’s move left was most likely not going to be permanent and that America, being a “center-right” nation (their words), wouldn’t allow socialism to take over anyway.
However, just because Newsweek didn’t hit Palin and conservatives below the belt in this edition does not mean that they haven’t done it before and won’t do it again. As Bill O’Reilly pointed out last July, Newsweek contributor Rick Perlstein performed a “nasty hatchet job” on Palin and conservatives that the magazine tried to pass off as a hard news story. What was not made clear to its readers, however, was that Perlstein is a committed left-winger that wants to witness “conservative failure.” Had Perlstein’s column been labeled as commentary—and balanced with an opposing point of view—Newsweek could have protected its journalistic integrity. Instead, they continue to prove that their publication lacks it and this certainly helps explain why their sales numbers continue to decline.
As for Sarah Palin, there is no doubt that the Newsweek publicity will generate more sympathy for her from the Right and might even help drive her book sales, although Going Rogue was already destined to be a runaway bestseller months before its release, with tens of thousands of preorders. (HarperCollins Publishers expects to sell 1.5 million copies of the memoir, an extraordinary figure.) All of this proves that Palin has a firm grip on a significant portion of the American electorate and that when she talks, people listen. She is currently a TV ratings phenomenon, giving Oprah Winfrey her most watched show in two years and her interviews with Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity on Fox each drew over 4 million viewers. Even more significant is that her political influence has remained strong, as was evident in her endorsement of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over Republican-endorsed Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd congressional district. Hoffman, relatively unknown before the endorsement, lost to Democrat Bill Owens by roughly 3,000 votes after the liberal Republican Scozzafava, due to lack of support, dropped out of the race and endorsed Owens.
Palin’s influence and popularity with conservatives, however, seriously baffles most of the Left, and even some on the Right. Many of them just don’t understand why Palin is so popular with her fan base. Part of it lies in the fact that her base views her as a genuine person and as someone they can relate to. They see Palin as “one of them,” a leader that is fighting on behalf of the conservative ideals that they share together. Outsiders may not get it, but they do and this has created an intimate bond between them. Because of this, her supporters are fiercely loyal and are quick to defend her, sometimes even to the point of absurdity. (Many Obama supporters are the same way.)
I actually witnessed this loyalty firsthand this past July after I wrote that Palin was not a legitimate presidential candidate. Before I knew it I had received numerous e-mails from Palin supporters who took exception to what I had said. However, despite possibly earning their wrath once again, I have to say that I strongly stand by my original analysis. Simply put, compared to other possible 2012 GOP contenders, Palin does not have the experience or resume yet to be seen as a viable presidential candidate. If she wanted to build her credibility she should have remained governor of Alaska for at least one full term—if not two—since many of our previous presidents have been two-term governors. But with that now thrown out the window, it seems her only realistic option is to run for an Alaskan Senate seat. This would probably be very beneficial for Palin, since one of the biggest criticisms about her—and a fair one I should add—is that she lacks political experience, especially on matters of foreign policy. Being a senator would provide her the opportunity to prove her leadership abilities on a national level and help her gain the needed experience that the majority of Americans want to see in their presidential candidates.
In regards to 2012, however, it just doesn’t make any good sense to support a 45-year-old for president whose top government position was a short stint (just under three years) as governor of Alaska. After all, book sales, television ratings, and running for vice president doesn’t give someone the legitimacy to be the president of the most powerful nation on earth. Americans have already taken a chance on a candidate based on things like celebrity appeal and so far it has not worked out well for the country. President Obama, elected at age 47 and a Senator for just four years, is proving that youth and inexperience in the executive office can be fateful for the direction of the country.
To be fair to President Obama and Sarah Palin, there have been exceptions to this rule and perhaps they will prove people like me wrong.* Two of the best examples of great presidents who had rather lackluster resumes were Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman. Moreover, a few with great resumes, such as James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover ended up as two of our worst presidents. But while Obama deserves to have his first term completed before we start to analyze his place in presidential history, he is certainly not getting off to a good start.
At a time in our nation’s history when we face serious challenges, including tough economic conditions, out-of-control debt, worldwide terrorism and the nuclear ambitions of state-sponsors of terrorism, it is essential that we have proven and experienced executive leadership. And regardless of what their most staunch supporters might think, neither Obama nor Palin can offer that right now.
* (On the age and experience issue, most presidents have been 50 years and older. The three youngest presidents in history have been Theodore Roosevelt, 42, John F. Kennedy, 43, and Bill Clinton, 46. Before becoming president, Roosevelt had been assistant secretary of the Navy, governor of New York and vice president; Kennedy had been a Massachusetts Congressman for six years and a Senator for eight years; and Bill Clinton had been governor of Arkansas for a total of twelve years.)