What is very troubling about what she doesn’t know is that her lack of knowledge does not translate into an unwillingness to engage in bluster and bellicose rhetoric, but instead seems to be a cause of that kind of rhetoric because she has been coached to exude “toughness.” Underlying this seems to be a presumption that America has the right to do whatever it wants. Her response to a question on sanctions on Iran that I quote elsewhere is revealing:

“We need to pursue those [sanctions] and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.”

She speaks as if Iran were our vassal or colony, and her attitude is one of total inflexibility. Is that enough of an imperialistic disposition for you? Overconfidence and ignorance do not make for the kind of combination I want in the executive branch.

If Palin were to become President because of something happening to John McCain, she would have *no choice* but to make decisions about whether and how to apply U.S. force in the world. That is part of the job. What’s more, there would be numerous voices telling her that applying force in some situation is necessary to keep America safe. This is especially true because she would be surrounded by McCain’s national security team, which is unlikely to be filled with non-interventionists.

In such an environment, saying “no” to those people recommending the application of military force requires more than just having, in your words, “Psalms, guns and kids on her mind”. It requires some amount of knowledge to tell when an adviser is wrong. It requires some amount of self-confidence to say “no”. And, it requires that one lacks, as you put it, an “imperialistic disposition”. I see no evidence at all that Palin has the required knowledge and confidence. When she talks at all about foreign policy, it’s Bush-ian platitudes and following the usual Republican script. As for her disposition towards foreign interventions, who knows? That she hasn’t thought about foreign affairs in depth doesn’t say anything about what she’d be inclined to do as President.

Would it merely confirm me as a blind, pro-Palin fanatic in your view if I said that Mrs. Palin’s lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine did not particularly bother me? I actually do not want another president who lies awake at night thinking of creative ways to apply U.S. force around the world. I actually prefer a president who has Psalms, guns and her kids on her mind, instead—who has that frontier mentality.

Now, please do not misunderstand me. Mrs. Palin’s lack of expertise in foreign affairs is not in itself actually a good thing. But one would also prefer a president who understood the principles of civil, structural and mechanical engineering, given the vast sums of money the federal government spends on highways and military hardware. In the present election, however, such knowledge is not crucial. I am far more concerned—as one would think that you would be, too—that the next vice president lack an imperialistic disposition, yet it is precisely such a disposition that would have brought a depth of foreign-affairs knowledge with it.

Mitt Romney (whom I also like) would not be fumbling these questions right now. Think about that.

The fact that sister Sarah is fumbling the McCain party line, which—evidently—-she is hurriedly learning as though it were an undergraduate homework assignment, is rather encouraging as seen from one point of view.

So, yes, I’ll admit it. I’m “in the tank” for sister Sarah. She’s one of us.

Howard