Well, that depends on who you ask, of course.
Palin redeemed herself enough from the Couric interviews for the base to breathe a sigh of relief. On PBS’s after debate commentary, David Brooks was so excited that he actually thought she did well, and wrote as much in his Op-Ed today. Mark Shields said that we’d seen a first in American debate history, the most liberal use of “colloquial language” in any debate to date.
That, Mark, would be an understatement.
Of the many precedents Ms. Palin set during her performance, perhaps none was more onerous as her “folksy” vernacular and massacre of the English language. A friend e-mailed me during the debate and wrote, “She says nu-cu-lar just like Bush.” But it was her inability to completely articulate the present participle of an active verb which wore thin in less than thirty minutes. A gentle use of the informal can be inviting. A disregard for language’s conventions is another animal entirely. But that is the point. As the Times’ editors aptly noted, it was the language of class warfare. While some may see this informality as charming, think that it shows that the rules don’t matter, and that America really is a land of equal opportunity, I found it annoying to the point of numbing. Yes, only in America. There is a time and a place for folksy charm: skillfully moving through language’s registers, formal, informal, vulgar, street, demonstrates curiosity and language acumen, and I am anarchist enough to appreciate a well timed, iconoclastic use of “ain’t.” But the slaughter of English was at moments almost unbearable. Coupled to the cute winking and excessive confidence when being out of one’s depth, for this viewer, it belied a lack of restraint required for the office. It intimated the same excess characterizing the past eight years of Bush and Co. Palin’s informality is presumably a form of empathy, allows her to connect with everyday working folks, makes her accessible. But as Doris Kearns Goodwin commented on Charlie Rose after the debate, “FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy didn’t touch people because they lived the same as the people they served, but because they were able to connect empathetically with them” (loose translation). We don’t need leaders who live like we do, we need them to understand the challenges of our lives and then skillfully lead and implement policies which benefit “We the People.”
I suppose charm must succeed when substance fails, and though Ms. Palin spoke in full paragraphs, a requirement Mr. Brooks stated that she would have to meet before the debate, those paragraphs were too often long and winding roads punctuated with Bridges to Nowhere. It pained me to return to some of my first and most difficult college courses, when I was expected to say something of substance, had nothing to say because I was scared to the point of loosing bladder control, and I talked in circles to fill up empty space. Yes, Sarah, I connected with you. Been there, done that.
But I wasn’t running for a position which would put me a heartbeat away from the U. S. presidency. I was a young undergraduate and trying to avoid looking foolish and busting my backside for a good grade. That is not an option for the Vice President, Ms. Palin.
I wrote elsewhere awhile ago that McCain’s choice of Palin was beyond cynical, it was flat out reckless and dangerous. She said or did nothing last night to convince me otherwise. Today’s Times editorial expresses the same sentiment and echoes my own observation that she did little other than repeat the Republican tax cut mantra, folded in a rhetorical nod to Reagan, and even used a George Bush tactic, identifying the other as “evil.”
I thought they had thoroughly coached her to “look ahead.”
Full paragraphs and mantras notwithstanding, she offered little more than she has previously. She may be charming, likable, and truly has a rare, foolhardy courage, which is admirable in many ways. But not for this job at this moment in history. We’re not a fledgling frontier needing bold courage to pave new roads: we’re a very ill Republic with overwhelming problems needing wisdom and steadiness. I try to imagine the moment when McCain called her and asked her to join him: “Why sure, John! I’d be happy to help ya out on that one! Just thinkin’ about it gets me real excited that we can do, I guess ya might say, some things that, well, could probably be real, real positive, like them tax cuts we Republicans are so cravin’.”
Yes, America is cravin’ alot these days. Most importantly and decidedly, economic recovery.
Joe Biden gets a special award from me, for having the courage to bring up Darfur during the debate. He is the only player so far to do so, to the best of my knowledge. His brief statements against genocide, during the only Vice Presidential debate, spoke loudly for a people who have no voice, and demonstrated what our national values should encompass in both word and deed.
His concern for those 2.5 million displaced in Darfur, and the brutal massacre of at least 300,000 humans, which had nothing to do with the voter’s self interest, showed a true depth of courage, transcending political posturing.
Thank you, Senator Biden.
