The Palin Pick

I'll post about Australian politics some time (major changes in WA & NSW which I'm still digesting), but for the next 58 days, its the US election show.


In some ways, I'm starting to be impressed by the pick of Sarah Palin as an electoral exercise. (In terms of governing its an abuse of the institution and gross insult to the system established by the US founding father). But as a political act, its shows a clear understanding of how a representative democracy works.

The age old debate within this form of democracy is do you want representatives who are experts, highly skilled and hopefully more aware and sensible in their analysis and response to the problems of society(with the potential to fall into elitism or authoritarianism); or do you want representatives who are more faithful to the democratic creed, who vote according to the wants of the people, maintain touch with what the people hold as important and will ensure the community reflects the true nature of the people (with the chance to fall into incompetence and shallow mob rule).

Appealing to this latter interest is how how G.W.Bush won in 2000, he was more the person people felt they could share a beer with than Gore, and so had enough appeal to fall across the line. Palin likewise (who i had wrongly thought was picked to pick up Clinton voting women, but instead is aimed at Christian conservative men as much as their likewise fundamentalist wives) is someone who claims to be able to lead because she understands the people, has lived their experience and their life.

America, with its obsession over its own identity, and grudging acceptance of government has always come down on the latter side of the equation. Smarts and experience (implicitly expertise) remain popular in recent years, but generally that person has to first and foremost represent the people. The real riddle, is why the USA has run so far towards this populist interpretation of democratic rule?

Whilst we can point to the rise of the evangelical movement, the demon-ization of government and elites, and the failure of government to deal with the problems internal to America, I think the answer lies instead in its Foreign Policy. Since its outward turn, cemented with entering WW2 under FDR, the USA has had massive commitments overseas, massive spending, massive social disruption and heart ache as once more its sons, daughters, husbands, wives and friends are sent overseas to defend people who neither look, sound or act like Americans do. And instead of a grateful world, international opinion has demonstrated the cynicism, exploitation and moral failures that have affected and sometimes driven US policy abroad. The most common response to the invasion of Iraq and its claimed promotion of democracy was not to simply disagree with US policy, but instead to question why it wasn't doing the same in other places, or why it hadn't done so in the past?

And so it seems a siege mentality has been built up in the USA, each act of foreign assistance is rejected, yet the cost and impact from New York to Texas is the same, if not building and affecting more and more families. Why in such a dangerous and complex world would you then want to pick someone like Sarah Palin ? Simple - she understands the burden and concern. The smart guys in the room all know that the US can't turn back to isolationism, cant give up its involvement in world affairs and sacrificing some of its youth and treasure for peace and prosperity in the world. Its path is clear. And whilst Sarah Palin, like G.W.Bush before her (if elected) will continue the exact same path as the smart guys (perhaps less competently) she at least will do so with a heavier heart and more understanding.

That's why she is appealing, if Americans at home are going to keep suffering for their foreign policy, they want someone in the white house to suffer along with them. Palin like Bush probably will end up failing that test, government is always too remote, and success breeds resilience far more than another's compassion when you are feeling run down, but as an indulgence here and now, it simply feels good to choose her.

(Of course because she is such an awful governing choice, -should she ever take power- the burden on these same Americans who chose her will only get heavier and harder to bear.)

Opponents of America acting as the worlds policeman have long been worried this approach would end up killing or enslaving the rest of the world. They're wrong, the real victim is America itself. It's killing itself and the Sarah Palin's are the indulgent, but ultimately unhelpful balms to its wounds.

In my next post: Can the world do anything over the next 20 years to fix this problem. Thoughts and suggestions from an Australian perspective.