Conor Friedersdorf soldiers on in his thankless (futile?) effort to persuade Palinites that they are missing something important.  He is responding to the criticisms of one Mike Hall, who made this claim among others:

Palin is a patriot who understands the threats we face, is self-confident, and has a “firm reliance on the hand of divine providence.”

No one will say that Palin is not a patriot; she is.  To say that she understands the threats we face is, to put it generously, a gross exaggeration.  She is opposed to Al Qaeda, as are we all, but beyond knowing that there are terrorists what exactly does she understand about the threats they or any other group pose to American security?  She imagines that Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime as a whole represent a grave threat, which is not so much evidence of understanding as it is of ideological programming.  Understanding is a product of reflection.  Who among her defenders truly believes that she has reflected on any of the problems on which she now holds forth so confidently?  More to the point, what proof do we have that she is reflective and thoughtful and not, like her running mate, prone to letting visceral and emotional reactions shape her views?  Lack of reflection, lack of understanding and self-confidence do not make for a good combination.    

Relying on Providence is good and proper.  Where Palin’s fans seem to go off the rails is in assuming that having this faith, which I think most of her conservative critics share, substitutes for wisdom and prudence in secular affairs.  Faith and trust in God can strengthen and deepen those virtues in a leader, but they cannot make up for them if they are lacking.  Mr. Bush claims to have the same faith, and I would not say otherwise, but this can confirm a politician in holding unwise and dangerous views when it is combined with the boundless self-confidence that both he and Gov. Palin seem to possess.  When a lack of understanding of the world as it is is added to the mix, as it was with Mr. Bush, the consequences for all of us are dire.  We have seen how a faithful, self-confident, even reasonably intelligent but largely uninformed man in a position of great power has succumbed to hubris for years with calamitous results for this country and several other parts of the world, and we have seen his self-confidence descend into pride and a stubborn refusal to face reality. 

There are simply too many similarities between the traits that her admirers praise in Gov. Palin and the traits that they once praised (still praise?) in Mr. Bush, and I don’t see how anyone who looks back on the practical consequences of Mr. Bush’s time in office can look at Gov. Palin and her thin record and not see that by cheering her on so enthusiastically they are repeating the same blunder they made before.  The claim that Gov. Palin’s character shows that she will be a good leader and would, if the occasion demanded, be capable of serving successfully as President seems to depend heavily on an assumption that Mr. Bush has also been a successful President, which at this point must appear even to his previous supporters to be an indefensible proposition. 

All of the clues that Mr. Bush was the incurious, uninformed governor with few accomplishments to his name are presented before us yet again, and once more we are treated to strained apologetics on behalf of anti-intellectualism, down-home folksiness and the candidate’s way of life as superior or at least sufficient qualifications.  We are seeing a repeat of Mr. Bush’s mangled syntax, trite talking point-laden statements and numerous blunders in interviews and public remarks, and we have been seeing the same aversion to talking to the press to avoid making more blunders, so how is it unreasonable or unfair to conclude from what little we have heard from Palin that she will prove to be an equally underwhelming leader once in office?