Listen to Sarah Palin

In response to an interview question from CBS' Bob Schieffer about whether what Sarah Palin says is important or not, Barack Obama answered: "I think it is important. And I think that I'm more concerned about the fact that she doesn't seem to have any differences with President Bush when it comes to foreign policy and would continue, as John McCain would, the same policies that we've seen over the last eight years that have, I believe, weakened our position in the world."

Indeed. While watching and evaluating Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin's debate performance, it will be important not to focus exclusively on what she doesn't know about critical foreign policy issues. More useful, I believe, will be filtering out what she does know.

Here's why:

It is fair to say that Palin began this process with largely a blank slate. One can dismiss her claims of having learned about foreign affairs by living, as she does, between two foreign countries. The geography is undeniable; but living across the Bering Strait from the frozen wastelands of Russia's Siberia, or across a land border from Canada's Yukon, provides more a sense of isolation than it does foreign policy experience. Similarly, Palin's sole foreign trip, last year, to U.S. military installations in Germany and Kuwait (and stepping one quarter mile into Iraq) to visit with members of Alaska's National Guard may have helped the Governor better understand her constituents deployed abroad, but would not have left her better informed about Kuwait or Iraq. And it is questionable how much useful information she culled from her speed-dating exercise with world leaders in Manhattan (other than the sorry fact that some of them could be fawning or downright embarrassingly sexist).

In selecting Palin, McCain's operatives understood her obvious assets: solid "Christian" conservative credentials, unlimited ambition, effective stage presence and, yes, the fact that she is a woman. But, recognizing her equally obvious weaknesses (primarily a lack of policy, especially foreign policy, credentials), the McCain team sequestered their number two in an effort to give her a crash course in world affairs. Led by arch neo-conservative and foreign agent lobbyist Randy Scheunemann (who was an ever-present chaperone during Palin's New York adventure), the team drilled their "quick study" in the ways of the world.

In the interviews that marked brief breaks in Palin's sequestration, the fruits of their labor have been on display. From her three major and, I would add, "soft," interviews (with ABC's Charles Gibson, FOX's Sean Hannity and CBS's Katie Couric), much can be learned.

Some of her answers are nearly unintelligible, to be sure. But sifting through the jumbled syntax and incoherent babble, her "talking points" emerge. And it is these answers that deserve scrutiny, since they provide a guide to the world view that Palin's handlers seek to project.

Having no independently developed experience-based knowledge of her own through which to sift this "received knowledge," Palin's recitation of her lessons reveals a raw and unfiltered neo-conservative view of the world. It is, at times, banal and oversimplified; but it is also, in many ways, perfectly clear.

It is absolutist and Manichean. There is good ("us") and evil ("them"). "We" stand for democracy and the "spirit of freedom that is found in every human heart." Since the clash between good and evil is both desirable and inevitable, "our" role is to bring "our values" to a waiting world and defeat evil. And, in this conflict, "our" victory is preordained. Compromise with evil is unthinkable and so traditional forms of diplomacy are to be rejected as a sign of weakness and surrender. In this world view, diplomacy means working with those who agree with us, not finding ways to bridge differences with those with whom we disagree.

Simple? Yes, but also dangerous. This is the world-view embraced by the current Administration, especially during its first term. (It is the consequences of this disastrous course that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has worked diligently, if unsuccessfully, to correct.) And this is, it appears, the course also embraced by Palin's running mate and his advisors.

Now, Palin is no mere pawn. In many ways her Christian fundamentalism has prepared her for her role - since neo-conservatism is but a secularized version of her new faith's absolutism. But while the theology provides a fit - it is the language and its application to complex world affairs that is new. And so, while the basic framework (good vs. evil, etc.) makes sense in Palin's mind, she is not yet comfortable with the new phrases that have been written on the previously near-blank slate.

This is why I say that it is important to listen to what she does say, not how badly she says it. And don't make fun: be afraid.

Comments

[wingman1]

Very, very well said

[outnow]

The "agents of intolerance" now "own" John McCain. 'Nuf said.

My reading of the Bible indicates that Jesus was concerned that money would over-shadow charity and justice. Just as bin Laden hijacked the Muslim religion, the "evangelicals" and especially their politicall­y-motivate­d "pastors" have hijacked the teachings of Jesus.

Christianity has been altered by St. Paul, and taken over by Constantine. "under this sign we shall conquer" is another example of the state using religion. Where did Jesus say that the emperors of Rome should conquer?

Religion is the opiate of the masses said Karl Marx. The ethics and morals of Christ have been perverted into a pseudo - religion. So long as "talking snakes" are believed in and an rapture-ready majority inhabit "fly-over America" we will have perpetual war and poverty - contrary to the true teachings of Christ.

[pons1595]

You must read this--if you haven't yet!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/evangelicalrepublican-rac_b_130200.html

[Shaker29]

To be sure, listen for what is not being said by her as well. Rather than just focus on the answers she gives, try to see if she did understand the gravity of the questions and what kind of reaction she has. Hitting Biden hard will not go over well either - whcih she will do so see if she can throw him off his path. This debate is as much about seeing her reactions, parsing through her responses and watching her to see what impact the questions have on her. If she smiles when a serious quesion is being asked - then you know she does not understand the gravity of the question.

She scares me to no end. Good God, what do we have here - a potential President of my beloved nation? We should all be really worried.

[martymartymarty]

Yep, she's just parroting back what they have schooled her to say. It is an indicator that she is following the example set by McCain, listening to advisors instead of having her own ideas. And that is exactly how a McCain presidency or a Palin coming into the presidency would be run. Be very afraid, indeed.

[Lon]

You have it right. What the Palin interviews show, when one filters out the babble, is what her handlers want her to project. That does seem the accurate way of understanding the charade.

[mommadona]

It is called Dominionism.
No different than the Taliban mindset - just set in a different civilization paradigm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology