against their more experienced one. She may be a heartbeat away from an
old heart, but there is an 85% chance that that heart survives 4 years.
The odds that she can be trained to take over before he even catches a
cold are much better.
Democrats need to stay on message. McCain represents a third term of
Bush's failed policies. Americans have lost access to jobs, money,
education, and health care under these policies. We need a change.
From: myron dowell [mailto:mddowell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:46 AM
Subject: honesty from the right
NY Times
September 16, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Why Experience Matters
By DAVID BROOKS
Philosophical debates arise at the oddest times, and in the heat of this
election season, one is now rising in Republican ranks. The narrow
question is this: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be vice president? Most
conservatives say yes, on the grounds that something that feels so good
could not possibly be wrong. But a few commentators, like George Will,
Charles Krauthammer, David Frum and Ross Douthat demur, suggesting in
different ways that she is unready.
The issue starts with an evaluation of Palin, but does not end there.
This argument also is over what qualities the country needs in a leader
and what are the ultimate sources of wisdom.
There was a time when conservatives did not argue about this.
Conservatism was once a frankly elitist movement. Conservatives stood
against radical egalitarianism and the destruction of rigorous
standards. They stood up for classical education, hard-earned knowledge,
experience and prudence. Wisdom was acquired through immersion in the
best that has been thought and said.
But, especially in America, there has always been a separate, populist,
strain. For those in this school, book knowledge is suspect but
practical knowledge is respected. The city is corrupting and the
universities are kindergartens for overeducated fools.
The elitists favor sophistication, but the common-sense folk favor
simplicity. The elitists favor deliberation, but the populists favor
instinct.
This populist tendency produced the term-limits movement based on the
belief that time in government destroys character but contact with
grass-roots America gives one grounding in real life. And now it has
produced Sarah Palin.
Palin is the ultimate small-town renegade rising from the frontier to do
battle with the corrupt establishment. Her followers take pride in the
way she has aroused fear, hatred and panic in the minds of the liberal
elite. The feminists declare that she's not a real woman because she
doesn't hew to their rigid categories. People who've never been in a
Wal-Mart think she is parochial because she has never summered in
Tuscany.
Look at the condescension and snobbery oozing from elite quarters, her
backers say. Look at the endless string of vicious, one-sided attacks in
the news media. This is what elites produce. This is why regular people
need to take control.
And there's a serious argument here. In the current Weekly Standard,
Steven Hayward argues that the nation's founders wanted uncertified
citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe
in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and
rooted people like Palin.
I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn't just lived through
the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it
was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.
And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first
term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance,
the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired
skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.
What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a
specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of
information and still discern the essential current of events - the
things that go together and the things that will never go together. It
is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which
arguments have the most weight.
How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader
possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the
study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to
judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who
can't, what has worked and what hasn't.
Experienced leaders can certainly blunder if their minds have rigidified
(see: Rumsfeld, Donald), but the records of leaders without long
experience and prudence is not good. As George Will pointed out, the
founders used the word "experience" 91 times in the Federalist Papers.
Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average
people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.
Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt
establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of
governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national
issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like
President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with
brashness and excessive decisiveness.
The idea that "the people" will take on and destroy "the establishment"
is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the
right. Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to
throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders
who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so
marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place.
Comments