George Will: Sarah Palin and the Mutual Loathing Society – RealClearPolitics

The Republican presidential nominee, an Arizona senator, was a maverick, which was part of his charm. He spoke and acted impulsively, which was part of his problem. Voters thought his entertaining dimensions might be incompatible with presidential responsibilities. For example, he selected a running mate most Americans had never heard of and who had negligible experience pertinent to the presidency. This was 1964.

Barry Goldwater, whose seat John McCain occupies, chose to run with Bill Miller, a congressman from Lockport, N.Y., near Buffalo. Miller, Goldwater cheerfully explained, annoyed Lyndon Johnson. After the Goldwater-Miller ticket lost 44 states, Miller retired to Lockport where he practiced law and lived in dignified anonymity until his death in 1983. Although he had served as an assistant prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, and seven terms in Congress, no one suggested he should be considered for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.

via RealClearPolitics – Mutual Loathing Society.

  • KuhnKat

    Since the parallels are few and thin, what exactly is your point??

    • Bruce

      Will thinks Palin lacks sufficient "gravitas" to be elected president and that her nomination will insure a resounding defeat for the GOP. Read the linked article.

  • Bob Meyer

    Will is right about Palin so far. She has not shown any ability to lead.

    Her philosophy is a muddled combination of several strains of populism: "Liberals are out of touch eggheads", "the government is too intrusive", "taxes are too high" etc. All of these are true but she lacks a unifying theme. Faith and family just won't do it, they never have for any candidate and, barring the complete collapse of civilization, they never will.

    She needs to give examples and show how they integrate into a principle. Reagan was outstanding at this. Read, or better yet listen to Reagan's 1964 speech for Goldwater "A Time for Choosing" and see how it is supposed to be done. "Reagan In His Own Hand" shows a profundity of thought few politicians ever achieve. Read Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" and you will quickly see the difference between someone who understands principles and someone who mouths slogans.

    Her campaigning for McCain out of loyalty to him shows just how little she understands or appreciates the importance of political principles. You can't really believe in limited government and then campaign for the author of "Campaign Finance Reform".

    Palin appeals to a group that knows that they don't like what's happening but also don't understand why it's happening or know what to do about it. She gives voice to their frustration but that won't help much if she doesn't understand how slashing government power will solve the problems. Nothing in her speeches suggest that she has any real understanding of these ideas, she is simply mouthing words intended attract votes.

    Palin has been a great disappointment to me. I like her guts and that she doesn't sound like the focus-group tested sound-bite mannequins like Romney we see on the tube every day. I loved the way her mastery of all those "lower class" things like hunting and preparing moose and raising five children without a nanny drove the snobbish literati insane like it did Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens.

    I hoped that she would become able to articulate a view of liberty and individual rights in the wonderfully natural off-hand manner that she has. In eighteen months, she hasn't achieved that. She'd make a great neighbor, but that's not enough to make a great president.