×
My reaction to Jane Mayer's essay on the selection of Sarah Palin is pretty much the same as Dan Drezner's:
Mayer’s article is a damning indictment, but not of Sarah Palin. It’s the DC conservative cocktail circuit and John McCain who come off worse for wear. Fred Barnes, William Kristol, Jay Nordlinger and Dick Morris come off as besotted teenagers suffering from Rich Lowry’s Syndrome. They’re the ones who believed her to be ready to lead, and are now blaming McCain’s handlers and a hostile media for her crash and burn on the national stage.In the abstract, it's true enough that Sarah Palin could have simply turned down McCain's offer, or more plausibly sent signals that she wasn't interested. In reality, I think that the number of ambitious young politicians who would turn down a VP offer can be counted on the fingers of no hands. The real issue, therefore, becomes the selection. In this case, the selection reveals a conservative commentariat that is, on its own terms, hopelessly inept. Kristol et al were trying to find a candidate who would appeal to what they imagined the electorate to be, and (shockingly) would up with someone who appeals to middle aged conservative white dudes, and not anyone else. I think that the PUMAs deserve an assist, but unlike the conservative commentariat no one pays them for the crazy; they supply it all on spec.
I'm still wondering whether we're going to see the knives come out for the contemporary conservative commentariat when this is all over. I suspect not; Kristol et al are too embedded in movement conservatism to be excised. If it produced Sarah Palin, however, then the survival of this commentariat can't really be something that progressives should be unhappy about...
--Robert Farley
