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?

Perhaps I have underestimated Michael Gerson.  Maybe he isn’t the horrifyingly sycophantic Bush lackey we have all believed him to be, but a Stephen Colbert-like parodist who is so deliberately excessive in his love for Mr. Bush that it can only be part of an elaborate comic performance.  All along we have been thinking that he is a shameless panegyrist for the emperor, but maybe he is actually the court jester satirizing the master’s flaws.  Except for madness, satire seems the most reasonable explanation for his last column. 

Then again, there really isn’t anything funny about this:

But the largest figure revealed in the light of the financial crisis has been President Bush. 

If by “largest figure,” he means largest failure, he’ll get no argument here.  Otherwise, it is hard to know what to make of his celebration of President MIA.  He continues: 

Americans may be tired of strategic boldness, but Bush clearly is not. When Paulson and Bernanke came to the president in mid-September, warning of an imminent financial meltdown, Bush’s reaction was typical. He told Paulson not to worry about the politics and to propose whatever was economically necessary. It would have been easier for the administration to produce symbolic, easily passable legislation. Bush chose to go to the root of the problem — toxic debt in the financial system. The plan was not perfect and was later improved. But charges that it is somehow timid or irrelevant are absurd. Seven hundred billion dollars amounts to about 5 percent of all mortgage debt in America — about one-third of all subprime debt.

Obviously, Gerson’s reaction to Bush’s typical reaction is very typical.  Boldness, daring, action–these are the things that Gerson finds admirable in political leaders, particularly when they are unfettered by anything so pedestrian and small as prudence, intelligence or practicality.  Strategic boldness, not coherence or rationality, is what matters.  This is the same kind of boldness that removed the main counterweight to Iranian influence in the Near East, turned Lebanon into a ruin, and led to the trampling of Georgia, the loss of American reputation and significant damage to national interests.  Virtually everything Mr. Bush has touched has turned to ash, but no one can deny that he has been boldly setting fire to things.  

Why worry that the President and his officials approached an explosive political situation with all the finesse of a sledgehammer?  Who cares that he essentially abdicated his leadership role and watched as his over-eager Treasury Secretary twisted in the winds of Congressional scorn and public outrage?  Throwing subordinates to the wolves or using them as shields to deflect criticism from himself has become something of a common remedy for Mr. Bush’s magnificent failures of leadership, of which there have been so many that virtually everyone recognizes that he possesses no moral or political authority worth mentioning, but rarely have we seen such an impressive ballet of political malpractice from this crowd.

But his instincts are good, you see:   

Bush’s ambition, bias toward action and indifference to political pressure are sometimes criticized. But his greatest failures — such as the Katrina response and the initial strategy of the Iraq counterinsurgency campaign — have come when he ignored those instincts.

This is clearly nonsense.  His indifference to political pressure was central to his bungling in the wake of Katrina, just as it had been at the root of his cronyist appointments that contributed directly to the problems with the federal response.  His obsession with loyalty and rewarding loyalists, which has trumped questions of competence so many times that we have lost count, was at the heart of the Katrina debacle.  His indifference to political pressure ensured that he resisted the dramatic changes in public opinion following his re-election, as he insisted on pressing ahead and expressing his full confidence in Rumsfeld and the tactics being used throughout 2005-06 just as he had ignored pleas for change in the two years before that.  Gerson is not only delusional about Bush’s role in the last few weeks, but he has invented an entirely new past to justify this latest delusion, which resembles neocon complaints that the problems in Iraq were a function of insufficient aggressiveness and a refusal to widen the war to the entire region. 

More hallucinations follow: 

The troop surge resulted when he followed them. And Bush’s economic ideology — a belief in markets, combined with a recognition that intervention is sometimes necessary to make markets work — seems well suited to the current crisis.

The “surge” was a concession to political reality.  It was not the concession that the establishment or the public wanted–in this way Bush’s stubbornness reasserted itself yet again–but it was an acknowledgement that his previous indifference to public opinion had been misguided.  Of course, the Paulson plan represented a belief in state capitalism that government policy should serve financial interests at public expense, which I suppose is consistent with Mr. Bush’s preferences for cronyism and serving corporate interests.  It is, of course, exactly the wrong thing for the country at this time, which goes to the heart of why the bailout is so pernicious.

I am not interested in bashing the original Crunchy-Con; what I would like to make clear is that trying to “get” Berry via a critique of Dreher makes probably less sense than, say, claiming to have discredited Russell Kirk via a scathing deconstruction of William F. Buckley.  It is also a bit thick that Gordon—a senior fellow at a think-tank which is devoted to promoting a single, exceedingly specific school of economic thought—has the gall to label a farmer an ideologue. ~Jerry Salyer

Salyer responds here to David Gordon’s broadside against “crunchy” cons and Berry himself.  I have been a bit slow to comment on Gordon’s piece, partly out of frustration with the habit of labeling anything remotely “crunchy” or agrarian as socialist.  Especially at the end of a week when we have seen a plainly socialistic program pass Congress in the service of central government and concentrated wealth, the very antithesis of everything that these people believe, I have to marvel at the idea that the socialists among us are the ones stressing localism, self-sufficiency and independence.  One might be inclined to say that if he thinks these people are socialists, Mr. Gordon demonstrates ignorance of socialism, but that is not really fair, either.  Salyer addresses most of the problems with Gordon’s critique, and I would concur that even if it were true that Berry is not well-versed in the Austrian school he is reasonably familiar with the running of a household and farm and may have some relevant perspective on economics derived from practical experience.  I’ll let Salyer have the last word, which states things quite well:

I only wish Gordon had treated the honorable gentleman from Henry County, Kentucky, with the same diligence he applies to Rothbard, the same fair-mindedness he applies even to Strauss.  Had he done so Gordon would probably still disagree with Mr. Berry on a great many important issues.  He would, however, recognize that Berry is not a trendy policy-lobbyist trying to get subsidies for organic farmers’ markets but a good man who is trying to convince people to give more care to their heritage, to their families, and to the little corner of the Earth upon which they live.   

The only possible way the critics could be in the right is if the writer really believes Palin is unfit to serve. I have a hard time believing that a bad interview demonstrates that. ~Hunter Baker

How about a mediocre debate performance and a substance-free convention speech?  These are the other main things that have led her fans to deem her worthy of high executive office, and in the end they demonstrate very little.  Perhaps an unremarkable, thin governing record might tip the scales in favor of the skeptics.  Hard as it may be for him to believe, the critics who have declared her to be unfit really do believe it.  I certainly do.  I assume that others who have said so aren’t just saying something provocative just to say it.  If the tables were turned and we were talking about Kathleen Sebelius (who might be more qualified in certain respects), not only would there be no controversy about this but I suspect most conservatives would be trying to outdo one another in their efforts to prove just how unfit for such an office she was.  The people who would have regarded Tim Kaine as an absurd choice will now lecture us on the value of Palin’s qualifications.  For my part, I have made no secret that I welcome McCain’s defeat, so you might say that I am so biased against the ticket that you should ignore what I say, but it seems clear to me that the ever-declining standards that conservatives have set for what makes a candidate acceptable to them and the declining quality of the political leadership they have received are very closely related.     

Baker appeals to edification, as if the endless treacle about her family and spunkiness routinely offered up in Palin’s defense could edify anyone.  Have any of the paeans and gushing, embarrassing panegyrics to the virtue of Gov. Palin contributed anything worthwhile?  If you think so, I suppose that’s nice for you.  Could we all acknowledge that the dispute between her critics and her loyalists is an honest disagreement about the appropriate criteria for judging the merits of candidates?  Probably not, since most pro-Palin arguments have largely appealed to being a team player and seem to follow the lousy instincts of mass politics that demand conformity and silence. 

I happen to find her biography, stock “populist” appeals, cultural cues and irrepressible cheer to be poor reasons to become enraptured by her, while others seem to place great store by these things.  Some people go further and claim that she has a record of accomplishment that bears scrutiny, but I think it is fair to say that there isn’t much there.  That her defenders largely avoid talking about her thin record says something about the weakness of their case.  It seems a fairly reasonable objection that supporting candidates based on these things has turned out quite poorly during the Bush years, and a little more emphasis on expertise and preparedness might be in order.  She manifestly has less of both than any major party VP nominee in memory, perhaps ever, and her defenders need to account for why this is not a problem.  That, however, is apparently unedifying and adds nothing to public discourse.  So, three cheers for moose hunting, not blinking and winking!  I feel more edified already. 

Update: Bakerresponds:

Are there conservatives who are going to argue her record is less than admirable?  I don’t think it can be done.

Think about it a bit more.  Last I checked, raising taxes and increasing spending were not considered admirable on the right.  Leaving her hometown servicing a large amount of debt to build a little-used facility doesn’t seem admirable to me, but it is a fine, old Republican tradition.

Incredibly, Palin keeps reiterating her claim that Obama has been “reckless” in saying that airstrikes in Afghanistan have killed civilians, which serves to show that she seems genuinely to have no clue that our use of air power there has resulted in significant civilian casualties and that this has undermined NATO’s mission with the Afghan government.  As her running mate would say, she seems not to understand.  Even more remarkably, no one else seems to be noticing that she is absolutely wrong in her attack.  As I said earlier today, it is completely unacceptable for anyone running for such an office to be this ignorant about a war zone where Americans are fighting. 

Update: In her interview with FoxNews, Palin says that the other Court rulings she disagreed with were Kennedy v. Louisiana (she doesn’t seem to have understood the relevant Eighth Amendment issue), Kelo (she doesn’t seem to understand that it relates to using eminent domain on behalf of private developers), and, obviously, Exxon v. Baker.

Democrats were partially assuaged by the publicized vote-switching of some of their own members, including Reps. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), but were still gun-shy on announcing their 140 yes votes were still all locked up.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said that a $1,000 credit for property taxes could attract some Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members. The Democratic whip also said raising the limit on federal deposit insurance “may have satisfied one or two people,” and aides indicated that the Senate’s decision to include mental health parity may win over some votes in the CBC and Progressive Caucus.

Asked about her level of confidence in her own members, Pelosi said: “We’re looking to see if we still have the [140] votes, and right now they’re coming in pretty well.”

Clyburn started whipping Wednesday night by sending out a questionnaire on the Senate bill. As of press time, they still had 75 unanswered inquiries.

“We may lose people,” Hoyer said. “And I have informed the Republican leadership that that may be the case. Because, frankly, the things that were added on and the way they were added on essentially appeal to Republicans. “

Hoyer added that despite the importance of the bill, Democratic leaders weren’t prepared to turn the screws on their members who aren’t supportive [bold mine-DL]. ~The Hill

So it is not necessarily a sure thing that the provisions added to the bill to bring Republicans along won’t drive away enough Democrats to sink it again.

Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution notes that there is a consensus in favor of recapitalizing banks, and he also notes this:

There is also a consensus among economists that the bailout bill is not the right policy.  None of the above economists, for example, is enthusiastic about the bailout.  My bet is that all of us think that the bailout has a substantial likelihood of failing.  The support that exists is born out of hope and fear not judgment and experience.  Nevertheless, the political consensus is that a bailout is what we will get whether it is likely to work or not.   

Update: Ron Paul is addressing the House right now (11:21 Central) calling for market adjustment.  I’m not sure that “let the recession come” is the most politically palatable argument, but Rep. Paul doesn’t make a habit of sugar-coating unpleasant truths.

Second Update: Yves Smith and Megan McArdle had a very interesting bloggingheads conversation about the bailout and related matters.

Third Update: The bailout passed 263-171 with 26 Republicans switching their votes to yea from Monday.  Meanwhile, opinion on the bailout, which Rasmussen now calls the “rescue plan,” is pretty hostile: 45-30 against.  Republicans oppose the plan two-to-one, a narrow plurality of Democrats opposes it (38-33) and independents reject it 48-26.  Entrepreneurs oppose the plan 55-30.  People who work in the private sector generally oppose it 46-31.  Investors oppose it 45-35, and non-investors are against it 45-21.  The people who voted for this are going to take a beating on Election Day.

This is getting pretty absurd. Would Conor somehow feel safe if Barack Obama were president under those circumstances?  What if the Silver Surfer came to Earth and said Galactus was going to consume the planet? Who would make him feel safe then? ~Philip Klein

Klein is responding to Conor’s post-debate post in which he imagines a scenario that would put a President Palin to the test:

To put a finer point on this, I ask the following of everyone who watched tonight’s debate — were John McCain assassinated at his inauguration by terrorists, even as two American cities saw buildings partially blown up by truck bombs, and Vladimir Putin used the opportunity to move troops into a former Soviet Repulic, would you trust that Governor Palin would have the knowledge, credibility, bearing and calming influence on the country to handle the situation? Or would having her in the Oval Office freak you out in a deep way? I’d be frightened, and I expect a lot of people now supporting Governor Palin would think, “Oh God, what have I done.”

Of course, the honest answer that I think most people would have to give is clearly no.  In other words, if you try to imagine how she would handle such a scenario, you would have to acknowledge that she is not ready to be President.  Being unprepared and overwhelmed, she would probably overreact and make such a situation far worse than it had to be.  As it is, I don’t trust McCain’s “knowledge, credibility, bearing and calming influence” were the Russians to send forces into a neighboring state, because I already know that McCain responds very poorly when the Russians do this.  A President Palin would be even more pliable and susceptible to the worst impulses of her anti-Russian advisors.  It also seems obvious to me that Obama, who isn’t really fit to be President (but then neither is McCain), is certainly on balance more competent than McCain and the prospect of him responding to these events is slightly less horrifying.  It is a measure of how profoundly unsuited he is to the office McCain is seeking that even Obama inspires more confidence in most people in this country.

P.S.  This is all increasingly irrelevant, since there is no realistic way that McCain is going to be elected one month from now.

I had thought that I was done writing about Palin for a bit, but this J.P. Freire statement cries out for a reply:

But if you’re really after the measure of the man (so to speak), you don’t look to nail her on foreign policy stuff that no reasonable person would expect her to know as an Alaskan governor.

Perhaps no reasonable person would expect her to know anything about foreign policy as governor of Alaska, which doesn’t say much for the reasonableness of McCain campaign staffers for pushing the ludicrous idea that Alaska’s proximity to Russia constituted foreign policy experience.  Let’s try to remember that this hacktastic spin came from McCain’s campaign and their supporters, and Palin willingly went along in making this farcical claim on more than one occasion.  It is now supposed to be evidence of journalistic misconduct to make the mistake of taking the campaign’s own idiotic statements as though they were serious.  Duly noted.  Whenever the McCain campaign claims anything about either candidate, we should assume that it is equally nonsensical and give it no credence.

Three weeks or so ago it looked like the contest would be fought on John McCain’s chosen territory. Russia’s invasion of Georgia had put national security up in lights. ~Philip Stephens

I have absolutely no idea why anyone would believe this.  During the fighting in Georgia, McCain continued to trail, as he did until his brief convention/Palin bump, and only a very small part of the public considers foreign policy questions a top priority.  It’s true that Lehman’s bankruptcy, Paulson’s proposal and McCain’s utterly ridiculous handling of the entire situation combined to sabotage his campaign, but before 9/15 the campaign was not going to be fought on McCain’s turf.  The public was already overwhelmingly focused on economic matters, which is why the Republican convention seemed at times more like a convention of oil company employees, so enthusiastically and obsessively did they talk about drilling.  Besides being a P.R. stunt, a desperate bid to generate enthusiasm for a moribund campaign and the default choice once Lieberman was ruled out, selecting Palin was clearly aimed at emphasizing the GOP’s domestic drilling preoccupation, which had seemed to be the only issue where Republicans had enjoyed any advantage all year.  As for national security, one of the main criticisms of the Palin selection even by those generally on the right was that choosing Palin had pushed national security to the back burner, which matched up with the public’s own priorities.  Indeed, Iraq had receded from the campaign almost entirely.  Were it not for McCain’s bizarre obsession with Georgia, Russian actions would scarcely have registered in our election.  The trouble that McCain had after 9/15 was that he had embraced drilling (and tax cuts) as more or less the entirety of his economic message, and had made it very clear that he was fighting the election on an economic platform of sorts.  When the financial crisis worsened and he flailed around attempting to look relevant, his main economic themes were pushed to the side and his bumbling in his response to the crisis reinforced the impression that he had no idea what he was doing or what he was talking about.  The point is that national security was not going to be at the center of the campaign.  Indeed, one of the reasons why Obama was widely regarded as the winner last week was that most viewers were not particularly concerned with McCain’s supposed areas of expertise.  McCain had already acknowledged that in the weeks prior to 9/15, and the Palin pick made that even more clear.  So the crisis did notn upend the race, but gave added strength to the ticket that had been leading for essentially the entire summer.