Whilst I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, I do think there's much more to her than the sneering consensus here and in the US media admits. She's not dumb. Neither do I get the sense that she's particularly extreme or zealous.
Here's an interesting counterpoint to the conventional wisdom about her intelligence from an ex-Clinton aide who, oddly, has ended up doing some work for Palin:
Now by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or
nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but
suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean,
instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern
of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes
linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once
had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the
campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in
action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she
acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in
national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly
who she is.
I find all this quite easy to believe. Does that mean I think she's a towering intellect, the next Reagan/Thatcher etc? No. A combination of the moribund state of her party, and her premature ascent to the national stage, means that she's not being forced to use that brain to do any real thinking. She's interesting as a figure, but she really has nothing interesting to say. Anyway, I suspect she relies too heavily and lazily on her 'instincts' to do the hard thinking required to develop a distinctive political vision. But I do think she'll emerge as very strong contender for the GOP nomination in 2012 and that she'll come back as an improved, more substantial version of her 2008 self.
UPDATE: here's Lorne Michaels, Saturday Night Live head honcho, on his brief experience of working with her:
Michaels doesn’t agree with anything Palin believes but does think she’ll be continually underestimated just as “our end of the world” continually underestimated Ronald Reagan. “There’s a real intelligence there,” he said. “She connects with people. She's got a confidence. Whatever it means to be a star she is. Plus I think she will do the work. She has incredible discipline.”
Whatever intelligence she may possess is absolutely tainted by the extremism of her fundamentalist religious beliefs. Her mind may be a steel trap, but its rusted shut.
Posted by: Michael | October 27, 2008 at 08:42 PM
You do realize that this remarkably smart politician is still do a single press conference as a Vice presidential candidate, and might be the first and hopefully the last one to do so. Before you blame this on her handlers or the McCain campaign, consider for a moment why they have shielded her from the press. Every time she has given an interview to a non Fox reporter she has either made a blunder or exposed her lack of knowledge and nuance - Bush doctrine, Newspaper reading list, explaining how a VP makes policy decisions in Senate, lack of understanding about what preconditions are.
I guess lack of knowledge might be excusable by saying she is just new to the scene with insufficient preparation (inspite of having "photographic memory" and "associative" thinking). But, the most troubling issue is her outright denial of facts, like when in her only remarks on the subject, she said that the Troopergate report exonerated her of any legal or ethical issues when it specifically said that she violated govt ethics by misusing her position for personal gain.
The article you quoted is from a former Hillary supporter who disliked Obama long before she started working or even met with Palin. Not to discount her or your viewpoint, but being a contrarian just for its sake seems like a call for attention.
Posted by: Abhinav | October 27, 2008 at 10:06 PM
I plead guilty to seeking attention, Abhinav. But really there's nothing in your post that contradicts mine. She doesn't know enough and she shouldn't be in the position she's in - that much we agree on. All I'm saying is, she's not stupid. In fact she's probably pretty smart - and that means she can and will evolve as a politician. It's a fairly modest point.
Posted by: Marbury | October 27, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Oh, I am sure she will be a formidable politician. Though I would attribute that to her ambition and a false self image rather than smartness. You say "She doesn't know enough and she shouldn't be in the position she's in", but McCain didnt pick her against her wishes. She considered herself equal to the task or maybe she had enough foresight to see how she can just use this opportunity to grab a national platform. Anyways, I just dont agree with the article's author who says Palin is smart beyond being calculating/shrewd and and is someone "who knows exactly who she is".
BTW I am an avid reader of your posts, even though I sometimes disagree with your take.
Posted by: Abhinav | October 27, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Also, let us not forget that there are many forms of human intelligence. We live in a culture which favours just two of those forms -- verbal and logical/mathematical -- and it therefore easy to forget that there are other forms. It is quite clear from accounts of people who have worked with him, for instance, that George W Bush is very intelligent, even though he lacks verbal dexterity and fluency.
Of course, one could argue that precisely becuase our culture favours just two kinds of intelligence, then the occupant of the most powerful office on earth should be very facile in one or both of these forms. No matter how musically intelligent you are, for example, the Pentagon is not going to be able to make its submissions to you as jazz improvisations.
Posted by: peter | October 28, 2008 at 09:11 AM
Yes good point Peter. And of course that is why - sadly, perhaps - Jack Kennedy decided against making John Coltrane his Secretary of Defense in 1960.
Posted by: Marbury | October 28, 2008 at 09:34 AM
The analogy with Thatcher is interesting. Like many modern Republicans, she had a clear and relatively simple world view, sustained by strong 'instincts'. Though formidable at mastering a brief, she tended to be sneered at by intellectuals.
The crucial difference is that Thatcher believed passionately in ideas and in intellectual thought. She read Dicey and Hayek, joined the Conservative Philosophy Group, and surrounded herself (in the early years at least) with some brilliant minds. What's different about the modern right, as embodied by Palin, is its extraordinary contempt for intellectual thought, and the assumption that "knowing where you are" is the only requirement for office.
Great site, by the way!
Posted by: Gladstone | October 28, 2008 at 09:38 AM
The commenters always come out for Palin!
Posted by: L. | October 28, 2008 at 03:05 PM
I reckon that Sarah Palin is a really strong "F" in Myers Briggs terms - her approach to things is not primarily based on logic, she justs FEELS it. Brilliant at building connections (e.g. neocon bigwigs and the base) but not so hot at sounding thought out (e.g. "just feeling sick" about the bailouts)
Posted by: Elemjay | October 29, 2008 at 02:41 PM