Charles Krauthammer goes to bat for Sarah Palin. Or, maybe, he's just bragging. The column is such a jumble you can't really tell.
The point seems to be that, in one of Palin's supposed worst moments during her "sessions" with Charles Gibson, the chief executive of Alaska was actually justified in her confusion about the meaning of "the Bush Doctrine." That is because it refers to four different things. He should know, since he was the first to use the term, and no one is better qualified to take us on a four-stop tour of Bushland. To start, there was the unilateral withdrawal from international agreements. Then, after 9/11, there was the with-us-or-against-us Manichaeism. And, later, as a justification for the invasion of Iraq, the doctrine of pre-emptive attack. Finally, "the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine," is the notion that "the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world."
So, when Gibson sprung the Bush Doctrine question on the tireless Alaskan reformer, she "quite sensibly" asked, "In what respect, Charlie?" The back-and-forth went like this:
Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Gibson: The Bush--well, what do you--what do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His world view.
Gibson: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid the world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
Are we seriously to believe that the Governor of Alaska was confused about which of four formulations of the Bush Doctrine Gibson might be referring to? Plainly she was canoeing on the Bering Sea. It's not that the term meant more than one thing to her; it's that it meant nothing to her. Consequently she had no choice but to go for the big, blurry picture, which she did in a pathetic half question--"His world view?"--before launching into the speech she had prepared for any question concerning the current occupant.
Turns out that we aren't seriously to believe it. Here is the last paragraph of Krauthammer's column:
Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.
Having opened with the suggestion that Palin was "sensibly" confused by an ambiguous question, Krauthammer at the end quietly withdraws his first argument and allows that "Palin didn't know what it is." Happily, it doesn't really matter. Gibson is a journalist, so he should be familiar with all the flavors of the Bush Doctrine, but Palin is a phenom running for vice-president of the United States. Only a condescending snob would expect her to know stuff.
Comments