The savants at ABC edited their Palin-Gibson interviews so many different ways, the various incarnations of them now (on two "World News Tonight" broadcasts, "Nightline" and "20/20") that it's impossible for me to sort out which parts I've seen once and which three or four times.

 

     If I haven't made it clear before, let me frankly admit that Gibson stumped me too the second he delivered the "Bush Doctrine" question.  Obviously, no matter what you once understood that term to mean, it's inoperable today, unless you're counting the Surge as Doctrine, and I don't think anyone's ever made that attribution (though it might be reasonable enough at this stage).

 

     Personally, my mind was leaning towards the "states that harbor terrorists [who attack us] will be treated the same as the terrorists themselves" interpretation.  Then you have to put the brackets in, because obviously we weren't going to bomb Ireland to take out the remnants of the IRA, though the times I remember the Administration going through its talking points you might have thought we were going to attack Hamas, Hezbollah, and maybe the occasional Maoist guerilla group in the Himalayas.

 

     I think enough analysis has been given of Gibson's literal-minded notion that there has been one and only one inviolable "Bush Doctrine" for me to need to rehash it further.  What I lean to thinking about now is this:  for those of us who, say, have never been diplomats or statesmen, but who are interested in world affairs in a serious way, what constitutes the exact level of knowledge and skills necessary to traverse a challenge like the Gibson interview?

 

     What I mean is this:  if you read the A-section of "The Wall Street Journal" every morning, how well would you do?  Some people are implying that Gov. Palin simply is someone who has not, in her prior life, ever taken a real interest in these things.  That may after all be true, though obviously she is the first person who knows that, if so,  now that changes.

 

     But then, Obama has a purported major in International Relations in his background, and Bill Clinton apparently had always been an impressive savant on any governmental topic long before he made it to the White House.  Yet Obama has made his (less fretted over in the MSM) gaffes through this campaign (remember how his Detroit speech flubbed fuel efficiency standards?), and James Fallows took him to task for his "crude" views on China and the roteness of his AIPAC speech on US-Israeli relations.  I don't think it's fair to imply that Palin lives in some cocoon, never having once given a thought to the world outside of Alaska, just because she had to manuever around in the vacuum of Gibson's questions.  What, really, was he looking for?  Some staggering recital of data like the devil-child in "Damien:  Omen II"?  For Palin to whip out her photo book from last year's family trip to South Ossettia?  Or should she name-drop an editorial writer from "The Economist" magazine?  If she had done any of these things, she might have appeared 'smart'-- and then gotten raked over the coals for sounding pretentious, or being too fact-driven, or some kind of robot.  Even Secretaries of State don't sit down with the press and talk like they're reading aloud from a foreign policy review.

 

     What occurs to me in reviewing the Gibson-Palin interviews is that Gov. Palin suffered the same problem anyone gets when the teacher calls on them with a question that is both a)obviously open-ended, or else capable of multiple interpretations; and b) has only one 'correct' answer for the instructor's purposes.  As, for instance:  "Now, Kaisersculture, what was the one thing Socrates had to say to avoid being put to death by the Athenians?"  Ah, gee:  you mean during his trial?  or just saying 'Yeah, get me outta here!' to Crito?  or standing up after the premiere of Aristophanes' The Clouds and yelling, 'Lies, all lies!'  Are we talking about something honest, or are you suggesting Socrates use a 'noble lie'?  Or is it a trick question, since Socrates was obviously content-- and Plato leaves us content-- that every just means of persuasion was exhausted and thus Socrates had to nobly submit to his unjust fate?  Which answer are you looking for?

 

     This reminds us how very well Palin handled the "social issues" questions, upon which she has given a good deal of theological and moral reflection.  On fiscal issues, Palin was bound, just as she was on foreign policy, by the need to do no damage to the ticket, particularly when trying to anticipate what kind of budget McCain will try to force upon Congress.  Obviously most of us supporting McCain-Palin are looking towards major "reform" on national spending, and Gibson was wrong to flick his hand at the issue of reforming bureaucracy.  If I parse Palin's comments correctly, she seems clearly open to the Defense Department's need for a firmer hand on its own internal waste; even without chopping major weapons programs, there are clearly plenty of quarters lost in the Pentagon that can be shaken out and returned to the taxpayers.  Ditto with all the other agencies.  Indeed, if anyone can roll back some of our superfluous enlargements of the Cabinet over the years, it should be these guys.  This is why I'm especially miffed at Gibson for not taking Gov. Palin's  work in taking down Murkowski from office and dealing with corruption in the state's energy commision seriously.  It makes all the difference whether you run a tight ship or not; the tragedy of George W. Bush, I think it can be agreed, is that, for all the initial outward veneer of competence in his administration, that quality wasn't there or else it eroded rapidly. 

 

     Palin declined to offer to tone-up Bush's domestic ideas on the economy, which of course have some superficial resemblance to the McCain ideas.  I think Gibson wanted to catch her on this--i.e. imply, aren't all Republican economic packages the same?  Well, no, Charlie.  But selling the ticket's economic package is not Job Description No. 1 for Palin right now.  Right now, she's the Attack Dog, and the way she handled that Hilary question shows how darned good she is at it.  She made Obama seem arrogant and out-of-it, all the while pitching to the PUMAs.  Job well done.

On the first installment of the Gibson-Palin "conversation":

 

     This is not Palin's finest moment, and plenty of liberal gawkers are going to jump all over it, but it's no kind of irretrievable disaster either.  Let's consider . . .

 

     Gov. Palin, in the first installment opening the 6:30 broadcast, was clearly in the opening moments of the first of what will be (win or lose in November) very many such conversations.  If we can find the footage for Obama, Biden, or John McCain's first stabs at "Meet the Idiots" (as a gentleman-professor of mine calls it!) or "Face the Nation" I'm sure we can find similar bouts of awkwardness.  Come to think of it, Sen. Obama has taken plenty of sweet time getting around to a lot of the "hurdles" expected to be run by a national figure.

 

     Now, Charles Gibson didn't condescend to ask nakedly "gotcha" questions at the reductio ad absurdum level ("Can you name the capital of Uzbekistan?"), but then-- when was the last time the Bush Administration invoked the "Bush Doctrine" by name?  Was Palin paling in the headlights?  well, so was I.  If Gibson wants to talk about preemptive war, pro or con?  why not simply ask, "Do you support the current President's doctrine of preemptive war?"  And does anyone doubt the answer to that?  You don't have to pick up the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs to know that McCain is going to uphold the idea that preemptive war can be justified on actionable intelligence about imminent threats to the United States.  And I don't think anyone seriously wonders that Sarah Palin disagrees on that one either.  At any rate, I'm sure she's gotten the memo about upholding her running-mate's policies.  And finally, when McCain's in office it's not going to be the "Bush Doctrine" any longer (did George H. W. Bush invoke the "Carter Doctrine" when Saddam invaded Kuwait, hum?).

 

     In short, asking about "the Bush Doctrine" is being rather pretentious in 2008-- and it's playing "Gotcha!"

 

     On the NATO front, Gibson seemed to be wondering if Palin understood the obligations of the treaty.  Again, I don't think anyone can imagine she doesn't understand the single thing that EVERYONE understands about the NATO treaty.  And since Ukraine and Georgia's entrance into NATO has been an idea long under discussion (Thatcher in her 2002 book "Statecraft" weighs in con-- which  personally I agree with, but that's negotiable!).  Certainly Palin showed her awareness of their membership-track status, and there's nothing inherently controversial about supporting their admission, as the Bush Administration and a goodly majority of the foreign policy establishment back that idea.  And the way she affirmed "Ukraine-- and Georgia" demonstrates some awarness of Ukraine's greater geographic proximity to the European heartland and its priority as a potential power and allie.  And I think she warmed into the question by insinuating (though she would have won the engagement had she quietly and overtly insisted upon the point) that one of the perks of Georgia's membership would be stability-- Russia can't mess with them precisely because we WOULD go to war for them.

 

     Insofar as she equivocated on whether we really would go to war for Georgia-- well, that's an equivocation that's patently more and more warranted as NATO expands.  Implicitely, I would argue, that's already become the case as the prospect of fighting World War III becomes increasingly less urgent the further removed the conflict would be from the English Channel.

 

     On the veepstakes question itself, right off the bat:  very strong, appropriate message about "not batting an eye."  Gov. Palin sends the signal of readiness, willingness, and a sense of moral clarity about the "mission."  All of which is clearly spontaneous and felt, and will make a connection with her viewers.  Also, it's exactly the kind of thing that bodes so well for her incumbency and her power to learn and wield authority on the national and international stage. 

 

     In the interview's 2nd installment, I think Palin handled very well the potentially much-more inflamatory question about her providential beliefs.  Now, philosophically and theologically speaking, many people, both today and among the great thinkers of the past, have held some version of a providential theory of history.  I think Palin made clear enough that her version does not deny man's free will, nor does it assure us of the confidence that we can act "with God on our side."  She avoided that kind of hubris staunchly, and made her case forcefully that the goal is for us to act "on God's side" and also to hope that our actions (in Iraq, specifically) work toward the end of achieving the Greater Good.  What she said, in fact, would have resonated quite well with the deistic philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers as well as with the views of evangelical Christians today.  Everyone's going to be tearing into this segment of the interview, and I think it was both potentially much more damaging for Palin, and much more successful for her.  Also, she had clearly warmed into the interview surroundings and was speaking more naturally and begining to find her thrust in the conversation. 

 

     And since Gibson was assuming the grim manner of an MIT prof on doctoral examination duty, it's not like his own "performance" will be free of criticism, and caricature.  If Palin sounded too academically insistant upon her allusion to Abraham Lincoln, well,  I assume she knows her Lincoln.  In a pinch, that sure works better for me than knowing your JFK!

 

     --Also, she was effectively insistent in her comments about her son's deployment to Iraq with his Stryker brigade.  And that underscores, too, that this is a very emotional and difficult day for her!  She can fairly respond to criticism by humanizing this little mini-ordeal, as is only fair, and underline the points she wants to come back to from her on-air responses.