On Gov. Palin's Answer to "The Bush Doctrine" Question

First off: go here for some background on the Bush Doctrine (or rather, its utter failure).

Ok, here's one opinion I think is pretty valid:

Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A.

Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio. Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.

People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture, the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (blush) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion.

So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view. What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

That's the "Why the Hell Is She on the Ticket?" critique.

My reaction was a little bit different. To me, it didn't seem that she wasn't familiar with the Bush Doctrine was as much as what the word "doctrine" meant.

Let's look at the relevant transcript, shall we?

GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

This is typical boilerplate RNC blah about how 9/11 changed everything and we need to stuff our brand of democracy down other people's throats because its our freedoms, not our policies, that the Middle East hates. Whatever. But when Gibson goes from the generic to the specific:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

You could almost hear a soft, robotic voice go "ERROR! ERROR!" as Palin tried to explain what she interpreted "the Bush Doctrine" to be. Her response was rooted in the adjective (Bush) and not the noun (Doctrine). And she totally nodded her head during this exchange as if to say, "I'm right...right?"

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Again, Palin's response is based on the adjective, not the noun. Her response here is about what she percieves Bush's mindset was; not about the policy he created. Which explains why she ended it with fluffy slogan-talk about "the beauty of American elections."

Ergo; Gibson has the uncomfortable task of spelling out for her what "the Bush Doctrine" is:

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

Now, even with the definition of the term presented to her, she defaults to generic statements about the president's job and being able to protect us.

Again: I don't think it was that she was ignorant of what the Bush Doctrine was as much as what the word "doctrine" meant. Nothing is her responses implied she had an opinion on policy.

Whether she agrees with it, disagrees with it, or favors pieces here and there I'm pretty sure she has an opinion on policies. And I doubt she was trying to dodge the question. She simply didn't understand what he was talking about.