Great Observations RE: Palin's ABC Interview

This James Fallows piece is dead-on:

* * * Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A.

Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.

Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.

People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture, the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (blush) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion. So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years. * * *

The rest of Fallows' article is definitely worth reading.

Another thing the ABC interview revealed is that whomever was prepping Palin with regard to foreign policy matters didn't bother to explain the Bush Doctrine to her because he or she must have assumed that Palin already had at least a minimal understanding of it. She is, after all, an American politician, right?

To use an example in music, if I signed up for guitar lessons and told my teacher (1) that I really needed to learn it fast, but (2) I had a couple years of lessons already under my belt, then my teacher may not feel the pressing need to start off by teaching me the basic C chord. The teacher, knowing that time was short, would assume that I had some working knowledge already.

Of course, my example is a bit lame because if I was truly clueless with regard to the guitar, it wouldn't take long for my teacher to realize that I didn't know shit. But Palin was clearly able to fool her foreign policy handlers into thinking that she had at least a basic understanding of current issues. I find that both humorous and terrifying.

It'll be interesting to see whether she'll be able to wing her way through the rest of the campaign. Who knows -- maybe her handlers will learn from the interview and realize that they need to go back to the drawing board with her.

There still may be time to get her ready for the debate. The idiocy of George W. Bush is now stuff of legend, but even he was able to successfully muddle his way through his first presidential debates -- and was thus able to move forward and ultimately get enough votes to steal the 2000 election.

If Bush could do it, then perhaps Palin can as well. We may be witnessing the emergence of a new George W. Bush.