Love her or loathe her (and those seem to be the only options), Sarah Palin won’t go away. Despite holding no office and having no obvious intention of running for one, she continues to dominate headlines and divide the country. So how will Romney handle her in 2012? Presuming that he won’t nominate her for Veep (the smart money is on a really boring white guy), what role – if any – will she take in the campaign? Should the GOP embrace the Palin effect or pretend it doesn’t exist?
Palin’s national role in the last few days reminds us why she matters. Last Sunday, Dick Cheney told ABC News that he thought putting her on the ticket in 2008 was a mistake because she wasn’t “capable of being President of the United States.” Cheney’s idea of a perfect ticket would probably be Cheney and Cheney, so we might put this one down to ego. But his remarks highlight the fact that Palin’s pick in 2008 is still relevant to the debate over the GOP’s strategy in 2012. The choice is this: do they run a moderate ticket that doesn’t offend anyone or take a risk on a radical ticket that angers some but motivates others? How mavericky does Romney want to be?
The evidence suggests that the maverick strategy didn’t work in 2008. Some will say that the Republicans chose the wrong maverick, and there’s no denying that Palin wasn’t yet ready for the media exposure. But a fair mind can never quite dismiss the Palin gambit out of hand because it was also tried in the wrong year. Frankly, the Democrats could have nominated Roseanne Barr in 2008 and the crazy lady would’ve won by a landslide. The economy was in decline and the country was stuck in two unpopular wars. Little has changed in 2012, except that this time it’s a Democrat running the mess and a Republican offering to clean it up. So what kind of ticket would persuade yet another change in direction in 2012: Obama-lite or Conservative Max? We’re a little over three months from voting and the question hasn’t been answered.
Then there was Sarah Palin’s intervention into Chick-fil-A-gate. In what could be the definitive conservative moment of the last few years, she posted a photo of herself on facebook eating at the anti-gay marriage chicken restaurant. Here was Palin’s appeal distilled: an ordinary woman out with her husband, doing what ordinary Americans do, looking ordinary – yet making a profound political statement at the same time. And she used social media to let the world know about it! That photo has “political science PhD thesis” written all over it.
Why haven’t we seen Romney in a Chick-fil-A, or Cheney, Bush or McCain? Some will reply that such cheapness is beneath them, that they are too busy being statesmen in Washington. But most Americans don’t live in Washington, aren’t members of Congress, don’t have a beautiful family home in Alexandria, don’t holiday in the Caribbean twice a year and don’t enjoy that fantastic Congressional healthcare. But they do eat at Chick-fil-A. And so, apparently, does Sarah Palin. That’s her appeal. When you use the word “Palin,” folks immediately know what you mean. And while some of the adjectives used might include “extreme,” they don’t include “snobby” and they probably will include “authentic.” Palin's strength and weakness as a Veep candidate in 2008 was that she came across like a real person. Some people want to be governed by real people, some don’t.
Given how central she is to modern, populist conservatism, it’s difficult to imagine that Palin won’t feature in the fall campaign. Romney trying to deny her existence is no more possible than Obama keeping Bill Clinton away from the cameras. Palin is the Tea Party and if he’s going to motivate the Tea Party voters, Romney has to be seen with her. The debate will be over how often and in what context. A good start might be the Romneys and the Palins having their Saturday lunch together in a Chick-fil-A. Given how inauthentic Mitt is accused of being, chowing down with some real people for a change can't hurt his poll numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment