clambake
09-30-2008, 06:07 PM
October 06, 2008 Issue
Copyright © 2008 The American Conservative
An Open Letter to Sarah Palin PDF
By TAC Editors
To: Gov. Sarah Palin
From: TAC Editors
Re: What Your Tutors Aren’t Telling You
Congratulations on being chosen as John McCain’s
running mate. It’s an honor, if a dubious one. As you
know, conservatives have reservations about McCain.
To your credit, they have few such concerns about you.
You’ve given new life to a party whose brand was
bankrupt. You’ve energized a campaign that was
embarrassing its own partisans. Across America,
crowds flock to see you—not that old man who
barely wheezed his way through the primaries.
If John McCain wins, he will owe you, as the guy
in the undisclosed location says, “Big time.”
Wonder why Middle America finds you irresistible?
Maybe they’re big Tina Fey fans. More likely, you
remind them of the conservative values they
feared lost: faith, family, independence. This
impression owes more to who you are than what
you’ve done. But at least you keep Obama from
cornering the market on hope. Conservatives have
faith in you. Don’t fail them as George W. Bush has.
You see what happened: the president’s entire
domestic agenda collapsed under the weight of
his failed foreign policy. Social Security reform
stalled. Pro-lifers became political orphans. And
whatever gains Bush’s tax cuts secured were
wiped out by record spending. Everything was
subordinated to the war on terror.
Conservatives grasping for something to commend
give the president points for his judicial picks. But
he would have much preferred justices like Alberto
Gonzales and Harriet Miers—toadies whose top
qualification was their willingness to give the
executive more power.
The party that championed the things you prize
—individual liberty, fiscal restraint, and a strong
defense—has trampled civil rights, pushed us to
the brink of insolvency, and broken our Armed Forces.
After eight years of Bush, even diehard Republicans
are glad to see him go. You might have noticed the
elephant not in the room in St. Paul.
There’s a better way. In fact, you figured it out in
the 1996 presidential primary when you sported the
flair of the leading pro-life candidate. (Your minders
would prefer that we not mention his name. It triggers
their Tourette’s.) As you surely know, even beyond
social issues, he represents a strain of conservatism
that offers a consistent ethic of life and philosophy
of limited government. It was not a coincidence that
the most pro-life candidate in ’96 was also passionately
noninterventionist.
It’s also no coincidence that those who want you
to heed the siren call of global democratization
care little for traditionalist causes. Recall that
second night of the Republican Convention when
you were told to blow off a reception in your honor
hosted by Phyllis Schlafly so Joe Lieberman could
chaperone your debut before the directors of AIPAC.
Neoconservatives pay lip service to life, but, as their
enthusiasm for Lieberman shows, they have higher
priorities. Now they plan to make them yours.
You’ll find the new friends conducting your
foreign-policy crash course pleasant enough,
if a little dogmatic and a lot condescending.
They call you “Project Sarah.” We saw that
one staffer at AEI—that mystery monogram on all
your briefing books—said you’re “a blank slate.”
He added, “She’s going places, and it’s worth
going there with her.” That’s how they operate.
They don’t implement their agenda themselves.
Rather, they impose it on rising star. If things
don’t work out, it’s because the Project wasn’t
sufficiently committed. (Just ask President Bush.)
Now you’re the latest object of their attention,
and you’re probably finding the program a bit
confusing. They tell you that the U.S. is fighting
“World War IV,” a struggle against “Islamofascism.”
We can win, they say, as long as we’re prepared
to bomb Iran and build up the national-security
establishment at home, just like Reagan did.
Trouble is, your tutors also believe we’re still
engaged in “World War III,” the Cold War with
Russia. So maybe the Gipper didn’t win that one
after all. In fact, neoconservatives like Norman
Podhoretz chided Reagan for appeasing Moscow.
And when terrorists struck the Marine barracks in
Lebanon in 1983, Reagan, instead of “staying the
course,” withdrew our troops. Your Beltway suitors
prescribe the opposite of Reagan’s strategy.
And as they would have it, we’re not only waging
World Wars III and IV, we’re still fighting World
War II. At least, that’s the way it sounds when
Robert Kagan opens a Washington Post op-ed
by likening Russia’s conflict with Georgia to Hitler’s
invasion of Czechoslovakia.
But Russia is not Germany, Georgia is no innocent
Czechoslovakia, and Vladimir Putin is not Adolf Hitler—
no matter what your guru Randy Scheunemann says.
(He probably forgot to tell you that he used to lobby
for the government of Georgia.)
Here’s a hint: don’t believe everything you read in
the papers, especially if the byline is Kristol or Krauthammer.
Russia is not an expansionist, ideological empire. It’s a
traditional, semi-authoritarian great power intent on
preserving its influence in its own backyard and its prestige
on the world stage. That’s why Russia intercedes in the
domestic disputes of unruly states on its periphery. Putin
balks at Poland hosting our antimissile systems for the
same reason we would bristle at Cuba or Mexico receiving
Chinese antitank missiles.
With more validity, some of the people whispering in
your ear tell you that Moscow wants to corner the
European markets for oil and natural gas. And what
nefarious end does Putin have in mind? Raising prices
and reinforcing Moscow’s political clout, not with nuclear
blackmail but with good, old-fashioned economic power.
We have plenty of that ourselves (or at least we used to).
Putin, far from being a totalitarian ideologue, is an economic
nationalist, as the leaders of great powers traditionally have
been.
Then there’s the Middle East, where only American arms
(and lives) can prevent little Israel from being swept
into the sea by Muslim hordes. Surely that’s what AIPAC
told you that night you left Phyllis cooling her heels.
But again, it isn’t true. Israel has nuclear weapons,
for one thing, and can outfight her neighbors even
without resort to atom bombs. Israel’s problem isn’t
external threat so much as internal security and
demographics. When the Jewish state was founded,
tens of thousands of Palestinians—Christians as well
as Muslims—lost their homes. Palestine was no wide-open
Alaskan frontier: when the newcomers moved in, Arabs
were moved out, often by force. Terrorism didn’t come
to the region with Hamas or Hezbollah; decades earlier
groups like the Stern Gang and Irgun used violence to
clear the way for Israel’s creation. Nor was Palestinian
Authority leader Yassar Arafat the first terrorist to lead
a state in the Holy Land. Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem
Begin and Yitzhak Shamir had unclean hands as well.
While your minders probably don’t put much stock
in his work, University of Chicago political scientist
Robert Pape has shown that suicide terrorism develops
almost always among occupied peoples. The task
before the Israelis is not to defend themselves against
aggressive neighbors but to give justice to the Palestinians
already in their midst—to suppress terrorism without
suppressing civil liberties and human rights, which
only leads to more bloodshed. The most helpful role
the United States can play is that of impartial mediator
in the conflict. There is injustice and suffering on both sides.
No doubt you’ve been told (again and again) that
Iran wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” Here’s
something to keep in mind: Iran does not have
nuclear weapons and is far from attaining them.
Ironically, the Bush Doctrine’s pledge that “America
is committed to keeping the world’s most dangerous
weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous
regimes” makes rogue states like Iran more likely
to seek nuclear devices, as a deterrent against
pre-emptive U.S. strikes. This is a vicious circle.
Instead of boxing Iran into a corner, we should
engage with Ahmadinejad, unsavory fellow though
he is. Even with nuclear weapons, Iran would not
pose an existential threat to Israel, let alone America.
Since you had some difficulties in your oral exam
with Charlie Gibson, your new friends will no doubt
ramp up their lessons. (For the record, you can scarcely
be blamed for fumbling the answer about the Bush Doctrine.
Your tutors were clearly reluctant to bring it up, even
though the whole scheme was theirs, not Project George’s.)
They may even start assigning you book reports. It
will feel like the third grade, except the subjects won’t
be charming orphans. Now it’s rogue states against
America the Benevolent. Near the top of the list will
be An End to Evil by Richard Perle and David Frum.
They’d have you think that Muslims will impose Islamic
law on America if we don’t go to war with 18 different
countries. But you know that a bunch of Muslims can’t
make red-blooded, moose-hunting Americans wear
burqas. Think what happens if you try to get a book
pulled out of the library.
That’s only the beginning of the curriculum.
You’ll be handed titles like Present Dangers and
The Return of History. Thankfully, just like third
grade, you don’t really have to read them. If they
ask, just say, “The enemies of freedom won’t be
appeased. We must stand firm, like Churchill.”
Meanwhile, we suggest sneaking a look at The
Limits of Power by Andrew Bacevich. It’s stern stuff,
but he gets to the point: America can’t spend money
it doesn’t have, beat everyone up, and expect to stay
healthy, wealthy, and wise. If you want a good book
on how America screwed up in Iraq, there is Fiasco by
Thomas Ricks. You said some nice things about Ron Paul
during the primary. He gave Giuliani a list of books that
might be worth your time.
You’ll have to keep your extracurriculars quiet. We know
how these things work. Since he helped you break into
the big leagues, you have to toe McCain’s line. But the
outgoing administration has shown us how powerful a
veep can be. If you go all the way, President McCain will
be in your debt. (If he forgets, ask him how many rallies
he held while you were home in Alaska. He wisely opted
not to deliver speeches in phone booths.) Don’t leave your
maverick spirit on the campaign trail.
Despite all the briefing books being thrown at you, you
know your own mind—and you realize that the
neoconservative agenda doesn’t square with your
worldview. You prize localism, their vision is grandiose.
You value fiscal discipline, neocons will ruin the country
to finance endless war. You honor life, and they think
nothing of killing hundreds of thousands in the service
of ideology. But they’ll tell you this alien vision—imported
from the Left—is coherent and conservative.
It is neither, but your supporters are both. They’ve
turned against this war and definitely don’t want
another. Yet your running mate does. Perhaps you’ve
noticed that his interest in domestic policy pales
alongside his foreign-policy ambitions. Or maybe you
caught his virtuoso performance of “Bomb, bomb, bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran.”
You surely see that the Bush policies have come
to a dead end. If the millions poised to vote for you
wanted four more years, the president’s approval
rating wouldn’t be 25 percent. This isn’t because
Republicans dislike Bush personally or disagree with
his positions on energy and taxes. It’s because they
know that his main legacy—the Iraq War—is a disaster.
Thankfully, they don’t think you’re like him. They see
in you someone like themselves—a patriot and a mother.
The Middle Americans waiting hours to hear you speak
don’t want the United States to be defeated, and they
don’t want Iraq to be a haven for al-Qaeda—something it
never was before the invasion. They are pleased that the
surge has made it more possible to leave because
they don’t want to send their boys back for a third or
fourth tour. They want America to come home—not because
she’s weak but because she’s wise. They hope that you are, too.
The American Conservative welcomes letters to the editor.
Send letters to: [email protected][size4]
Copyright © 2008 The American Conservative
An Open Letter to Sarah Palin PDF
By TAC Editors
To: Gov. Sarah Palin
From: TAC Editors
Re: What Your Tutors Aren’t Telling You
Congratulations on being chosen as John McCain’s
running mate. It’s an honor, if a dubious one. As you
know, conservatives have reservations about McCain.
To your credit, they have few such concerns about you.
You’ve given new life to a party whose brand was
bankrupt. You’ve energized a campaign that was
embarrassing its own partisans. Across America,
crowds flock to see you—not that old man who
barely wheezed his way through the primaries.
If John McCain wins, he will owe you, as the guy
in the undisclosed location says, “Big time.”
Wonder why Middle America finds you irresistible?
Maybe they’re big Tina Fey fans. More likely, you
remind them of the conservative values they
feared lost: faith, family, independence. This
impression owes more to who you are than what
you’ve done. But at least you keep Obama from
cornering the market on hope. Conservatives have
faith in you. Don’t fail them as George W. Bush has.
You see what happened: the president’s entire
domestic agenda collapsed under the weight of
his failed foreign policy. Social Security reform
stalled. Pro-lifers became political orphans. And
whatever gains Bush’s tax cuts secured were
wiped out by record spending. Everything was
subordinated to the war on terror.
Conservatives grasping for something to commend
give the president points for his judicial picks. But
he would have much preferred justices like Alberto
Gonzales and Harriet Miers—toadies whose top
qualification was their willingness to give the
executive more power.
The party that championed the things you prize
—individual liberty, fiscal restraint, and a strong
defense—has trampled civil rights, pushed us to
the brink of insolvency, and broken our Armed Forces.
After eight years of Bush, even diehard Republicans
are glad to see him go. You might have noticed the
elephant not in the room in St. Paul.
There’s a better way. In fact, you figured it out in
the 1996 presidential primary when you sported the
flair of the leading pro-life candidate. (Your minders
would prefer that we not mention his name. It triggers
their Tourette’s.) As you surely know, even beyond
social issues, he represents a strain of conservatism
that offers a consistent ethic of life and philosophy
of limited government. It was not a coincidence that
the most pro-life candidate in ’96 was also passionately
noninterventionist.
It’s also no coincidence that those who want you
to heed the siren call of global democratization
care little for traditionalist causes. Recall that
second night of the Republican Convention when
you were told to blow off a reception in your honor
hosted by Phyllis Schlafly so Joe Lieberman could
chaperone your debut before the directors of AIPAC.
Neoconservatives pay lip service to life, but, as their
enthusiasm for Lieberman shows, they have higher
priorities. Now they plan to make them yours.
You’ll find the new friends conducting your
foreign-policy crash course pleasant enough,
if a little dogmatic and a lot condescending.
They call you “Project Sarah.” We saw that
one staffer at AEI—that mystery monogram on all
your briefing books—said you’re “a blank slate.”
He added, “She’s going places, and it’s worth
going there with her.” That’s how they operate.
They don’t implement their agenda themselves.
Rather, they impose it on rising star. If things
don’t work out, it’s because the Project wasn’t
sufficiently committed. (Just ask President Bush.)
Now you’re the latest object of their attention,
and you’re probably finding the program a bit
confusing. They tell you that the U.S. is fighting
“World War IV,” a struggle against “Islamofascism.”
We can win, they say, as long as we’re prepared
to bomb Iran and build up the national-security
establishment at home, just like Reagan did.
Trouble is, your tutors also believe we’re still
engaged in “World War III,” the Cold War with
Russia. So maybe the Gipper didn’t win that one
after all. In fact, neoconservatives like Norman
Podhoretz chided Reagan for appeasing Moscow.
And when terrorists struck the Marine barracks in
Lebanon in 1983, Reagan, instead of “staying the
course,” withdrew our troops. Your Beltway suitors
prescribe the opposite of Reagan’s strategy.
And as they would have it, we’re not only waging
World Wars III and IV, we’re still fighting World
War II. At least, that’s the way it sounds when
Robert Kagan opens a Washington Post op-ed
by likening Russia’s conflict with Georgia to Hitler’s
invasion of Czechoslovakia.
But Russia is not Germany, Georgia is no innocent
Czechoslovakia, and Vladimir Putin is not Adolf Hitler—
no matter what your guru Randy Scheunemann says.
(He probably forgot to tell you that he used to lobby
for the government of Georgia.)
Here’s a hint: don’t believe everything you read in
the papers, especially if the byline is Kristol or Krauthammer.
Russia is not an expansionist, ideological empire. It’s a
traditional, semi-authoritarian great power intent on
preserving its influence in its own backyard and its prestige
on the world stage. That’s why Russia intercedes in the
domestic disputes of unruly states on its periphery. Putin
balks at Poland hosting our antimissile systems for the
same reason we would bristle at Cuba or Mexico receiving
Chinese antitank missiles.
With more validity, some of the people whispering in
your ear tell you that Moscow wants to corner the
European markets for oil and natural gas. And what
nefarious end does Putin have in mind? Raising prices
and reinforcing Moscow’s political clout, not with nuclear
blackmail but with good, old-fashioned economic power.
We have plenty of that ourselves (or at least we used to).
Putin, far from being a totalitarian ideologue, is an economic
nationalist, as the leaders of great powers traditionally have
been.
Then there’s the Middle East, where only American arms
(and lives) can prevent little Israel from being swept
into the sea by Muslim hordes. Surely that’s what AIPAC
told you that night you left Phyllis cooling her heels.
But again, it isn’t true. Israel has nuclear weapons,
for one thing, and can outfight her neighbors even
without resort to atom bombs. Israel’s problem isn’t
external threat so much as internal security and
demographics. When the Jewish state was founded,
tens of thousands of Palestinians—Christians as well
as Muslims—lost their homes. Palestine was no wide-open
Alaskan frontier: when the newcomers moved in, Arabs
were moved out, often by force. Terrorism didn’t come
to the region with Hamas or Hezbollah; decades earlier
groups like the Stern Gang and Irgun used violence to
clear the way for Israel’s creation. Nor was Palestinian
Authority leader Yassar Arafat the first terrorist to lead
a state in the Holy Land. Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem
Begin and Yitzhak Shamir had unclean hands as well.
While your minders probably don’t put much stock
in his work, University of Chicago political scientist
Robert Pape has shown that suicide terrorism develops
almost always among occupied peoples. The task
before the Israelis is not to defend themselves against
aggressive neighbors but to give justice to the Palestinians
already in their midst—to suppress terrorism without
suppressing civil liberties and human rights, which
only leads to more bloodshed. The most helpful role
the United States can play is that of impartial mediator
in the conflict. There is injustice and suffering on both sides.
No doubt you’ve been told (again and again) that
Iran wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” Here’s
something to keep in mind: Iran does not have
nuclear weapons and is far from attaining them.
Ironically, the Bush Doctrine’s pledge that “America
is committed to keeping the world’s most dangerous
weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous
regimes” makes rogue states like Iran more likely
to seek nuclear devices, as a deterrent against
pre-emptive U.S. strikes. This is a vicious circle.
Instead of boxing Iran into a corner, we should
engage with Ahmadinejad, unsavory fellow though
he is. Even with nuclear weapons, Iran would not
pose an existential threat to Israel, let alone America.
Since you had some difficulties in your oral exam
with Charlie Gibson, your new friends will no doubt
ramp up their lessons. (For the record, you can scarcely
be blamed for fumbling the answer about the Bush Doctrine.
Your tutors were clearly reluctant to bring it up, even
though the whole scheme was theirs, not Project George’s.)
They may even start assigning you book reports. It
will feel like the third grade, except the subjects won’t
be charming orphans. Now it’s rogue states against
America the Benevolent. Near the top of the list will
be An End to Evil by Richard Perle and David Frum.
They’d have you think that Muslims will impose Islamic
law on America if we don’t go to war with 18 different
countries. But you know that a bunch of Muslims can’t
make red-blooded, moose-hunting Americans wear
burqas. Think what happens if you try to get a book
pulled out of the library.
That’s only the beginning of the curriculum.
You’ll be handed titles like Present Dangers and
The Return of History. Thankfully, just like third
grade, you don’t really have to read them. If they
ask, just say, “The enemies of freedom won’t be
appeased. We must stand firm, like Churchill.”
Meanwhile, we suggest sneaking a look at The
Limits of Power by Andrew Bacevich. It’s stern stuff,
but he gets to the point: America can’t spend money
it doesn’t have, beat everyone up, and expect to stay
healthy, wealthy, and wise. If you want a good book
on how America screwed up in Iraq, there is Fiasco by
Thomas Ricks. You said some nice things about Ron Paul
during the primary. He gave Giuliani a list of books that
might be worth your time.
You’ll have to keep your extracurriculars quiet. We know
how these things work. Since he helped you break into
the big leagues, you have to toe McCain’s line. But the
outgoing administration has shown us how powerful a
veep can be. If you go all the way, President McCain will
be in your debt. (If he forgets, ask him how many rallies
he held while you were home in Alaska. He wisely opted
not to deliver speeches in phone booths.) Don’t leave your
maverick spirit on the campaign trail.
Despite all the briefing books being thrown at you, you
know your own mind—and you realize that the
neoconservative agenda doesn’t square with your
worldview. You prize localism, their vision is grandiose.
You value fiscal discipline, neocons will ruin the country
to finance endless war. You honor life, and they think
nothing of killing hundreds of thousands in the service
of ideology. But they’ll tell you this alien vision—imported
from the Left—is coherent and conservative.
It is neither, but your supporters are both. They’ve
turned against this war and definitely don’t want
another. Yet your running mate does. Perhaps you’ve
noticed that his interest in domestic policy pales
alongside his foreign-policy ambitions. Or maybe you
caught his virtuoso performance of “Bomb, bomb, bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran.”
You surely see that the Bush policies have come
to a dead end. If the millions poised to vote for you
wanted four more years, the president’s approval
rating wouldn’t be 25 percent. This isn’t because
Republicans dislike Bush personally or disagree with
his positions on energy and taxes. It’s because they
know that his main legacy—the Iraq War—is a disaster.
Thankfully, they don’t think you’re like him. They see
in you someone like themselves—a patriot and a mother.
The Middle Americans waiting hours to hear you speak
don’t want the United States to be defeated, and they
don’t want Iraq to be a haven for al-Qaeda—something it
never was before the invasion. They are pleased that the
surge has made it more possible to leave because
they don’t want to send their boys back for a third or
fourth tour. They want America to come home—not because
she’s weak but because she’s wise. They hope that you are, too.
The American Conservative welcomes letters to the editor.
Send letters to: [email protected][size4]