The two (very problematic ) women who define American politics
Here’s a fascinating thing: In 2010, the most polarizing, complicated and powerful figures in American politics are women who happen to have losing track records.
They are former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi was dethroned earlier this month when her party lost sixty seats in the House.
Palin was walloped in the 2008 presidential race, when she ran as John McCain’s veep. She later quit as governor of the state of Alaska.
But in the aftermath of their political setbacks, both women have declined (thank you very much) to fade away.
Palin has emerged as a dominant figure in the Republican Party, having mastered the media landscape from the lofty perch of her Fox News post to the frequent Twitter barbs that she launches at opponents.
After backing a far-right slate of candidates in the 2010 midterms, Palin says that she’s exploring the possibility of running for president in 2012.
While Palin has mastered the reality-TV textures of modern American politics, however, her grasp on policy and government remain suspect at best.
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski — a Palin rival — summed her up this way in an interview with CBS’ Katie Couric:
“I just do not think that she has those leadership qualities, that intellectual curiosity that allows for building good and great policies.”
Q: Regardless of whether or not you’d vote for her, do you think Palin is or is not qualified to serve as president?
Is Is not No qualified qualified opinion Registered voters 27 67 6 Democrats 14 82 3 Republicans 47 46 7 Independents 23 70 7
Your home team, the San Francisco Giants, won the World Series this month. Have you ever thrown out the first pitch at a Giants game?
Let me say that one of the things as a politician I do not wish to do is to get attention at a sports event. My husband and I have season tickets to the Giants games, and we go there as fans to enjoy it.
You should try tossing out the first pitch next spring. It’s a populist gesture, and it could help improve your image.
I don’t even know how far I could throw the ball, to tell you the truth.
Pelosi seems almost eager to miss the point, which is that she has more sharp edges than a box of broken china. The idea of adapting, of burnishing her public appeal, seems distinctly unappetizing to her.
Yet she will continue to be the most public face of the Democratic House caucus. Surely, her unwillingness to change and grow is every bit as limiting as Palin’s.
My guess is that as we slouch into 2011, both these women will remain as symbols of what is wrong with our two big political parties.
The one is robustly populist and vibrant, but so thin on actual policy ideas that many of her pronouncements verge on self-parody.
The other brims with legislative goals and wonky ideas, but remains about as appealing as — well, about as appealing as Nancy Pelosi.
It’s not hard to imagine that, in the end both, might do their causes far more harm than good.
Tags: politics
Actually, I saw a brief interview with Lisa Murkowski on PBS last week – and was quite impressed with how much more thoughtful and well spoken she is than Sarah Palin. Although I haven’t agreed with her policies on many occasions, I think Lisa would make a much better presidential candidate for president for the Republican Party than Sarah.
“In a post-election interview with the New York Times magazine, Palin had this exchange with reporter Deborah Solomon:”
Obviously you meant Pelosi.
Brian says,
“Palin was walloped in the 2008 presidential race”
That makes about as much sense as saying “Edwards got walloped in the 2004 presidential race.”
The fact that you even remember who was the VP running mate for 2008 is testimony that it was someone exceptional.
Pelosi’s legacy is the 60+ seat turnover in the House following her tenure as speaker.
JDM –
Yes, Edwards got walloped in the 2004 presidential race.
Brian
I don’t know that Palin would make a good President, I don’t know that I would vote for her. But, I would vote for someone similar to her in some ways- I don’t want another perfectly polished, plastic haired, Masters in Poli-Sci/Attorney, career politician with all the character of Daffy Duck. I’ll take the rough around the edges person, of any sex/race/persuasion that believes in the things I do who displays the character to lead and stick to their guns. Sadly, most people look for the “politician” with the most polish and “gravitas” and the one that promises the most handouts to their special interest. That hasn’t worked out so good IMO.
“Yes, Edwards got walloped in the 2004 presidential race. ”
Actually, it was somewhat afterward that he got walloped.
“Here’s a fascinating thing: In 2010, the most polarizing, complicated and powerful figures in American politics are women who happen to have losing track records.”
Wow, I didn’t think Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would sink into obscurity so fast. Seriously, isn’t she one of the most powerful women in US politics? And one of the most polarizing? And, interestingly, one who has done very well after a bitter electoral loss?
TomL –
Your point is interesting. Even before taking the SOS post, Clinton had reinvented herself in interesting ways, as a US Senator, then as a presidential candidate. Perhaps Palin and Pelosi could do worse than studying her example.
Brian, NCPR
I believe we’ve had some experience with a “rough around the edges”, “principled” President. I don’t think that these are qualities sufficient to recommend one for the Presidency. A grasp of the complex domestic and international issues (Twitter is just the most recent manifestation of vapid, bumper sticker communication) should certainly be an essential (albeit not sufficient) qualification. I don’t see these qualifications in either Palin or Pelosi. Palin has done nothing to enhance her credibility on major issues since being exposed as an amateur during the 2008 campaign. Pelosi may have demonstrated that she can marshall House votes and raise money, but she is the poster child of Democratic cluelessness. Her rapid, outright rejection of the Bowles-Simpson recommendations is evidence that she is unable to rise above the level of the ward politician. But, you know what? At the end of the day we get the politicians we deserve. If the public doesn’t come to grips with the hard decisions that face the nation, divisive hacks like these who feed into the delusion that we can solve our problems without having to make painful decisions will play a prominent role in our politics.
What Bill G said…..
Hillary is not done yet, at least I hope not.
I like Hillary just fine but please don’t let her run for President again. What about Chelsea?
Oooh! Chelsea against the Bush twins!
Hillary has not run for President as the candidate yet, she should have been the candidate in 2008, we would be much better off today.
Hillary. Really? Gads, the very thought makes me sick to my stomach. Might as well run Al Franken with Dennis Kucinich as VP.
Bill, if you meant Bush, he’s not a good example of what I mean. I’m willing to take ” rough around the edges” but I also want someone with some brains. I think it’s unreasonable to expect a candidate to be intimately familiar with EVERYTHING. They can’t be, so they have pat answers that don’t really answer the question, ie- hope and change. William Weld was extremely intelligent, experienced, well spoken and polished. He went nowhere. Bill Richardson had experience, a good track record, is well spoken, fairly well polished, he went nowhere. Fred Thompson had scads of experience, character, intelligence, knowledge, persona. He went nowhere. John Kerry is an absolute empty suit with a history that makes your skin crawl and is only exceeded in the dull and boring area by Bill Bradley and Albert Gore. He almost became President. Obama had no experience, can’t string words together any better than Bush without a telepromter, doens’t appear any too bright, but sure does polish up nice. Doesn’t make much sense does it?
Bret,
To clarify: I agree that it is unreasonable for a candidate or incumbent to be knowledgeable about “everything” but I do expect a presidential candidate to have a fundamnetal understanding of the major issues. I saw little evidence of this with Palin.
Also, I noted that this is a necessary but not sufficient qualification. “Polish” is helpful but I have no issue with an otherwise capable candidate who is rough around the edges.
A number of the individuals you note probably make my larger point, though. The fact that some of them went nowhere or fell short may say more about the voting public than about the candidates themselves. Bradley was boring and Gore was smug-bordering-on-obnxious, but that says more to me about their ability to campaign and voter focus on superficiality than their potential for governing. An electorate that is more interested in Prince William and Snookie than in the issues that affect them and their offspring is a extremely scary one indeed. (A recent poll indicated that 40% of the American public didn’t know who John Boehner was. That’s pretty telling.)
I believe that there is an inherent risk in looking for a candidate that is “more like me” or a regular guy or gal, if it is at the expense of an understanding of policy. I’m not presuming that this is your position but the last election (and 2000) seemed to provide evidence that significant segments of the voting public felt that way.
Okay, we’re mostly in agreement, although I don’t have a clue who “Snookie” is. I think many of us that look for the mythical “someone more like me” mean someone that isn’t plastic, an android with a PC answer for every question. Nancy Pelosis famous, “…my favorite word is The Word…” for instance. I’d much rather see someone there who wasn’t a lawyer, wasn’t a career politician, wasn’t some Washington insider with a Christmas card list made up of lobbyists and corporate bigwigs. For instance, despite the fact he kind of gives me the creeps when I look at him, I really liked Steve Forbes platform.
I guess I’m just tired of having two choices that are different sides of the same coin so to speak.
Personally, I like Pelosi. She was an early and consistent opponent to the disastrous Iraq War. Many of her “sharp edges” come from the fact she says what she thinks and thinks what she says. People talk about her legacy of losing the House, but in reality she regained control of the House after many people had assumed the GOP would stay in power for at least a generation.