Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | July 4, 2009

Mad Resignation

The speculation runs wild about why Sarah Palin is “really” resigning.  (Some commentators, like the predictable David Frum, are just glad she is.)

As is so often the case with Palin, speculation about her reveals more about us than it does about her.

Palin spoke, in what came across to me as the most premeditated and carefully thought-out part of her announcement speech, of being a point guard in a basketball game, and knowing when to pass off the ball, or knowing when to call an audible – either of which, in her analogy, is a means of advancing the team’s fortunes through scoring, or at least of getting into better position to score.  The implication is that there is a project underway larger than each individual player, and that it is the priority.  The objective of the project is what you design your actions and priorities around.  Strategy, tactics, personnel assignments – all put together to achieve the objective.

It occurred to me that the references to this sports concept left implied but unspoken an ancillary concept:  that you don’t stay with a game plan past when it stops working.  A football analogy (naturally) is what came to mind in this regard.  When the opponent’s whole defensive secondary has Terrell Owens completely covered on every play, go to Jason Witten.  Mix your plays up, get the defense to shift its coverage, break T.O. loose again.  (Yes, I know T.O.’s gone.)  In some ways, we might say Palin has been T.O., double- and triple-covered by the political opposition (including the media) for almost the last year.

I considered this analogy the heart of Palin’s announcement.  She emphasized it rhetorically, and had obviously put thought into it.  This passage is, in fact, her explanation of why she’s doing this.  It is a tactician’s move – an offensive coordinator’s move.  (I just do better with football.)  It doesn’t look from here like a head coach’s move, one made from the strategic heights, or made when one decision means the whole ball of wax, like whether to go for it on 4th and 8 with a minute on the clock, when the field goal is a long shot for your kicker and would only tie the game.

This decision of Palin’s is not a do-or-die “Hollywood moment” decision, sports-analogy-wise.  It’s a workmanlike, 3rd-quarter-adjustment tactical decision – and the question it should lead to is, what does Palin conceive the objective of the game to be?

We’re so used to conventional politics that the pundits, and probably many of us, assume immediately that we know the answer.  Why, Palin in the Oval Office, of course!  That must be the objective.  What other political objective is there?

Which is why everyone is discussing her resignation in that framework:  how it would affect a run for president.  Has she made a smart decision that clears her calendar for a national run?  Has she made a stupid decision that loads her with eccentric baggage for a national run?  That about covers the aspects of the “national run” topic.

There are, of course, those who think she’s probably just tired of it all.  Can’t finish the race.  Couldn’t handle the pressure.  All the negative press too much for her.  She picked the Friday-before-a-holiday-weekend-black-hole news window to hand poor David Frum his early birthday present.

Can we step aside for a minute, and recognize how politics-as-usual these conceptual ruts are, in which all the speculation is running?  I think there are a lot of smart people out there in the political punditry – people whose opinions and analysis I respect.  But every analysis so far has been conventional.  Charles Krauthammer on Fox:  this is an erratic move, she can’t overcome it for a run at 2012.  Bill Kristol:  “risky but shrewd” move (as paraphrased by Stephen Hayward at The Corner) to position herself for 2016 or 2020.  Rick Brookhiser, also at The Corner:  cutting and running; implication: bad for national aspirations.  Quin Hillyer, The American Spectator:  pretty much the same; “dereliction of duty.”  Rich Lowry:  inauspicious start for a 2012 run.  Amy Holmes:  disgraceful; another one (GOP possibility) bites the dust.  Allahpundit at Hot Air:  Nixonian (“won’t have me to kick around any more”) strategy.  Bypass next quadrennial free shot, time final buzzer at ’16.

There you go.  There’s a single way you operate in politics, and the rules are that the objective is the political office, and everything you do is designed to catapult you into it.  There is one profile of fitness for political office, and no leeway to deviate from it.  After all, you can’t get either approved by political pundits, or chosen for national tickets, unless you operate by the rules and meet the fitness profile.

Maybe they are right, the pundits.  They have made their living observing politics, many of them for decades.  Maybe they are right about what it takes to succeed in getting on a national ticket, and latching onto that brass ring hooked to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But I’m not so sure.  Ten years ago I would probably have reacted just as they are reacting.  I would have assumed that there is a pattern to national politics that cannot be broken:  lots of ways out, only one way in.  I might even have done what they are doing, and focused on every part of Palin’s speech except the sports analogy.  (They seem, to a pundit, to consider it a rambling, unfocused, and very poor speech.  I thought it was hurried:  not Palin’s best-paced speech ever, but it communicated what she wanted to say quite effectively.)

Today, however, I share the strong sense of many, many Americans that there is something lurking in our future that is going to change a lot of things for us.  A number of old rules that we have thought unbreachable are going to be turned on their heads.  Counting out any politician because of an unspoken-rules breach doesn’t look so wise in 2009 – nor does interpreting what politicians do solely in light of the rules for calculating political advantage.

I think it is just possible that Sarah Palin used her sports analogy because it conveys, more accurately than any other analogy, how she views this resignation.  And I don’t think she sees the objective of the “game” as getting herself into the Oval Office.  I think she see it in the terms in which she spoke of it today:  as guaranteeing freedom and security for America.  To the jaded ears of political pundits, her references to these quantities probably sound like cheap bromides.  But she frames them whenever she speaks – as she did so memorably in her convention speech last year – as the things that she, and we, are striving for.

The objective of the game she has committed to playing is to promote liberty, prosperity, and security for the nation – and it is very possible that it’s not clear in her mind, at this moment, exactly what role she will play in that.  She knows she is still in the game, but her role in the offensive game plan may be shifting for tactical reasons.  And she has to consider the dead weight her over-covered team position is at the moment, for the state of Alaska – which she probably sees as a bastion of the American ideal, in senses both practical and philosophical.  Promoting a future of liberty and prosperity for Alaska is part and parcel of doing so for America; and that has meanings unique to Alaska that she thinks are jeopardized by the focused hostility of the national left toward her.

It should not really surprise us that Palin might see politics as a field of endeavor in which agility, and the ability to change tactics and positional assignments rapidly, are advantageous.  She has obviously never been committed to, or enamored of, the stately pace of “politics as usual.”  She does come off as seeing herself more as a hardworking, high-proficiency athlete than as the more typical national-level politician frequently sees himself:  in the guise of a royal personage with an entourage, and tenure in his own space-time continuum.

Commentators like Rick Brookhiser and Quin Hillyer will resonate with many, in advancing their opinion that Palin’s behavior just comes off as irresponsible.  But I am not sure they, or many of the other established pundits, really understand how deeply disgusted millions of Americans are with the profile of politics-as-usual.  We have had nothing but politicians who stayed in their jobs, like they’re supposed to, for years now.  Everyone who gains even the smallest approval from the pundits and the GOP leadership fits the profile.  Cursus honorem:  representative, senator, senator-for-life, governor.  There are plenty of politicians-as-usual.  And they all disappoint conservatives by growing government instead of paring it, spending instead of cutting back, compromising instead of standing firm, and backing down time and again from confrontations with disastrous Democratic policies.

There are many, many – many – Americans who are no longer impressed with the qualities even the smartest political pundits consider essential in our politicians.  We’ve had all the politicians who do everything the way they are supposed to – and their record is inexpressibly unimpressive.  Many people have reached the point of saying, Don’t tell me only a politician who follows your set of rules is good for me.  The rule-followers are the ones who have given us a national deficit so colossal we almost certainly can’t recover from it without severe economic dislocation – and an anomic, irresponsible, ignorant, and yet irrationally arrogant electoral demographic that voted Barack Obama into office, and threatens to make sure that government of, by, and for the people shall, if they have anything to do with it, perish from the earth, by next Thursday – and covered in a “Townhall” by ABC.

What we are enduring today is the America that the politics-as-usual rule-followers have delivered for us.  It is far from unreasonable to recognize that having a comfortably conventional political profile, one that pleases Charles Krauthammer and Rick Brookhiser, is no indicator that a politician will guard constitutionalism, limitations on government, and individual liberty.

So it is early days to write Palin off.  But it is also early days to guess that she is positioning herself to run for president in 2012.  I don’t think she defines the “game” in terms of herself winning political office.  I think she defines it in terms of the effect produced for America and our political future.

I have one more theory to offer, and it relates to the point that her move, with this resignation, is a tactical one.  If she is the tactician – the offensive coordinator, changing the attack to adjust to the defense’s strategy – who is the head coach?  Who has the strategic vision?

Here’s what I think.  Take or leave it as you will.  Sarah Palin is an evangelical Christian, and in my opinion, she thinks of God as the head coach:  the one with the strategy for the whole game, as regards both herself, and the fate of the United States.  I suspect the idea of resigning has been in her mind, and she has turned it over and over and asked for guidance about it from God.  And I suspect that she feels a deep certainty that this move has God’s approval, even though it is decidedly unconventional.  For a decision of this kind, she would most definitely pray and seek guidance; and the direction of that guidance is usually discerned through a sense of peace and certainty about a particular course.

My guess is that Palin is less politically calculating than willing to take an unconventional risk on faith.  I think we can take at face value her sports-analogy explanation of the proximate reason for thinking it might be a good idea, to remove the distraction she represents, right now, for Alaska’s administration.  (The $2 million the state has had to spend on responding to the stream of spurious ethics charges against her looms much larger in Alaska’s budget than in California’s or Texas’s.   Her concern about being over-covered by the political opposition’s defensive secondary is a valid one, in the smaller pond of Alaska politics.)

And I suspect we can assume that Palin really did, as she said in her announcement today, pray about this, and that she believes her decision has God’s approval.  We can only wait and see how things will play out for Palin.  Maybe she will sink like a rock into a swimming hole, and never be heard from again as a serious national contender.

Why did she choose the Friday before the July 4th weekend to make this announcement?  My guess:  she is at peace with it, didn’t want to put it off, and wanted to have a relaxing holiday weekend with her family – resignation announcement firmly behind her.

Update:  Readers should enjoy another take on this offered by C.K. MacLeod at the Hot Air Greenroom today.  He points out that just about the only reason for Palin to stay in office is to avoid having the resignation on her resumé.

About these ads

Responses

  1. I agree with this perceptive analysis. I read the speech before I saw the video, and I think it reads much better than it was delivered — another sign, perhaps, that more effort was put into thinking through the substance of the decision than into preparing the presentation of it.

    Obama essentially quit being a senator to run for president less than two years into his first term, so there actually is a precedent here.

    But I think Palin is not following that game plan so much as having decided, as you suggest, to change the conventional game plan as she moves down the court, and will decide later on whether to take the final shot or pass the ball to someone else to take it.

    It would have been smarter, if the presidency were her goal, to stay in office, build a record, obtain a validation for it from a successful re-election campaign, wait to see if Obama is vulnerable for 2012, and preserve her option to run in 2016 if he does not seem beatable. But I think she does in fact have more important issues in mind.

    Thanks for such a thought-provoking post

  2. Re-think the point guard being subjected to a full-court press. To someone versed in basketball, it’s very clear that she’s saying that she’s being surrounded by more and larger players intent on getting the ball out of her hands.
    This was a disturbing metaphor and this was a speech that sounded as though something is weighing upon her.

  3. Spin like a top, she’s a quitter, full stop. If this is her “no mas” (another sports reference!) in politics, fine and dandy, not everyone can handle some jobs. But she’ll be crucified as a quitter, and rightfully so, if she tries to run for President.

    Another bizarre Republican – the Republican Party and Conservatism display the sort of social pathologies you find among beaten and oppressed peoples, the corrosion of soul caused by forced obsequiousness.

  4. Good post! I was coming to the same conclusion, myself, as to who is her head coach, as I listened to her speech and pondered her possible reasoning. I appreciated your insight and well written analysis in adding to my own general understanding of the situation.

  5. I think you are much closer to her perspective than many of the comments I’ve read. The only thing I would like to add that many people seem to ignore is that one of the primary reasons that people are attracted to her is her altruism and sincerity, sincerity in the old sense of the world.

    Many people responded to her as a genuine person who felt strongly about the positions she took. Maybe she never saw it as being about any personal ambitions she might have, but just her part in getting the country back to it’s founding principles.

    Being male, I hate to admit it but in general woman are more alturistic than men. It’s about the team, not about the individual player. Maybe she just felt that all the white noise being generated about her was obscuring the real goals more than it was helping and decided to change the game.

    In any case, I’m grateful that she drew the press’s attention away from Michael Jackson for awhile. Just another thing to add to the list of things she’s done for the country.

  6. Thanks, Rick and Greg, for your thoughtful comments.

    Fuster, I won’t be rethinking the sports analogy. You have merely refocused it to the shortest-term reaction — “someone might get the ball away from me.” Palin’s own words, which emphasize passing the ball to help the team, tell me that her focus is the operational one: on scoring and winning the game.

    John C., I’m sure you’re representative of a set of voters out there. My analysis could well be correct, and still there are people who will see it as you do. That’s a risk Palin has run by doing this.

    Welcome, Phubbie!

  7. As always, I admire your steadfastness, opticon.
    I was indeed focusing on the short term as I watched her speech and saw what appeared to be a person who was far from at peace.
    She seems to have been overwhelmed by the events of the past year and by the too-close and too-often hostile attention that she’s experienced during this year.
    She should indeed pass the rock, hit the bench for a blow, and concentrate on her D.

  8. [...] JE Dyer has made some thoughtful comments along similar lines, though from a different angle, dealing more specifically with comments from [...]

  9. Thank you for this excellent analysis. It was worth reading every word.

    I think those who have resigned from a position for the good of the organization or sat on the bench for awhile for the good of the team understand Palin’s decision.

    Those who have the most difficulty understanding it are those who have lived by the political wisdom that says that getting and keeping power is the most important thing there is. George Washington set the example early on that there is a time to leave that benefits a lot more than it hurts.

  10. Great site OC and thanks for your service in Iraq and elsewhere. I’d love to chat sometime about what you are able to discuss about your efforts there sometime for assistance with my site.

    Keep posting away in the meantime and Happy 4th of July.

  11. First time to read you … good analysis about the need for us to understand what game is really being played.

    However, IMO, you hurt yourself with the foray into name calling. What does this mean, anyway, and why isn’t it backed up by logic like the rest of your post?

    “an anomic, irresponsible, ignorant, and yet irrationally arrogant electoral demographic that voted Barack Obama into office, and threatens to make sure that government of, by, and for the people shall, if they have anything to do with it, perish from the earth, by next Thursday – and covered in a “Townhall” by ABC.”

  12. PS your computer’s clock is either wrong or you are not in the US. My last post is stamped at 1927 (727 pm), but it 1337 here in the mountain time zone right now. Maybe you are really in the east atlantic?

  13. I enjoy your post and have taken the liberty of quoting some of it on my blog. I wonder if we are seeing an evolution of politics away from the business-as-usual of both parties. I could see a libertarian revolt as the absurd Obama program implodes and I wonder if Sarah saw this, too. You say she is an evangelical Christian but she governed more like a libertarian. Could she be the bridge between the Christian Right and libertarians who are sick of both parties ? I guess we’ll find out.

  14. Dave Murrow — I’m glad you found the analysis on Palin useful. I think you’ll find the sum total of the pieces at my blog make the case for the sentence you found questionable.

    No, I am not in the eastern Atlantic, and neither is my computer. However, the WordPress hosting software uses Greenwich Mean Time, which is why you see time stamps that look like they are from Greenwich, England.

  15. MikeK — thanks for the cite. Your comment about Palin’s governance is an excellent one, in that it highlights what I believe is a misperception that conservative Christians would govern in a manner libertarians would find objectionable.

    Reagan was a conservative Christian, and George W. Bush is one, in a somewhat different style. I didn’t agree with some important aspects of Bush’s domestic policy, but certainly neither he nor Reagan ever tried to institute a theocracy. I don’t know of any conservative Christian candidate who has had anything like that in view.

    I wonder if you may be right, however, that Palin has a special ability to overcome that perception with the voters who have it.

  16. I just assumed opticon dwelt eternally at GMT as some kind of tribute to her naval bg – Rue Britannia and all that. Is GMT still the standard global time reference?

    If you’ve kept up with some of the discussion today – including the slapdown of defamatory rumors by Palin’s legal counsel, quoted at conservatives4palin.com, Palin’s 4th of July statement – Palinistas and friends are finding their feet after recovering from the surprise, and there’s even some giddy euphoria and anticipation breaking out.

    The contrarian/radical support for Palin’s move has been growing. It could become the fashionable view ahead of schedule.

  17. Isn’t the Rue Britannia in the 4e Arondissement in Paris?

  18. By OC I meant Optimist Conservative by the way. I’d love to chat sometime about your time in Iraq.

  19. Rue Britannia, Britannia du 4e Arondissement
    Britons never never never never will stand for enslavement.

    That’s not how it goes?

  20. [...] "It’s never the right time for a leader to resign – except when no other decision makes sense." J E Dyer: "As is so often the case with Palin, speculation about her reveals more about us than it does [...]

  21. OC -
    Thanks for the reply. I looked up amomic, so now I have a better idea of what you meant. Not that I couldn’t figure out the gist from the context.

    I would stick by my earlier assertion that the statement sounds like name calling. I know that kind of thing is tempting, especially when you are a true believer, but you run the risk of being lumped in the same category with those who do nothing but flame.

    It is also curious that you link this analysis to all of your other blogs with the statement. You are not one of those ‘agree with me on everything or on nothing at all’ types, are you?

  22. Feel free to delete this comment after it has served its purpose, but you can change the time stamp on your blog as well as the subheading, “Just Another WordPress Blog.” The forums, which can be accessed through the help section, are very useful.

    I had to go through all of this myself while setting up my blog.

    This is one of the best posts I’ve read on the Palin resignation, and I’ve read plenty. Although my initial response to the news was crushing disappointment, I’m reserving judgment until I hear more.

  23. [...] right. Read the rest of it. We’ll learn soon enough if Palin really is the different kind of politician she purports to [...]

  24. Dave Murrow: I can understand your worry with Opticon’s adjectives for Obama voters and “flaming”…

    Just take it to heart that Facts Flame.
    ;)

  25. Oh my. WordPress and its silly assumption of HTML tags.

    Last line was meant to say:

    Just take it to heart that Facts area greater than Flames.

  26. Dave Murrow — I think you will have to make up your own mind what “type” I am. I find arguing personalities to be a big time-waster.

    Arguing issues and ideas is more important, in my view. Perhaps you would like to challenge my characterization of what there is in the American electorate to be concerned about. If so, you’ll get a hearing here.

    In my experience with various blogs, affirmations of any kind can be called “flaming” by people who disagree with them. “Flaming” being in the eye of the beholder, I don’t expect any writer to dilute a trenchant message for fear of being accused of it.

  27. Gordon Winslow and Thuck — welcome! You’ve brought flip sides of WordPress drama to the blog today. :-)

  28. EXCELLENT COLUMN! THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT AS I LISTENED TO ALL THE PUNDITS TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHY THE GOV RESIGNED. IT MAKES SENSE TO ME FOR HER TO CAMPAIGM FOR OTHER “LIKE-MINDED .. CANDIDATES, REGARDLESS OF PARTY OR NO PARTY” FOR ALASKA & THE USA. I DIDN’T THINK SHE WAS PLANNING ON A RUN IN 2012.
    THANKS FOR ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW.
    DIANE

  29. Commander,

    I know and admire your work from the Contentions comments section, where I also posted (as Truthteller), albeit less frequently than I read the views of others. I came to this article via CK McCleod’s new after-contentions list–and it is my good fortune to have read it. Your observations and conclusions in re Sarah Palin are 100% on point. I know I read somewhere else that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and I believe this is another such instance.

    I have bookmarked your blog and will be returning to it often.

    I also look forward to running into you at after-contentions.

    Best,
    Howard

  30. Thanks, Howard/Truthteller, and Welcome! I recall your valuable contributions at contentions, and look forward to seeing more of you here, and at whatever web of sites the after-contentions Zombies finally settle on.

  31. [...] the right time for a leader to resign – except when no other decision makes sense.” J E Dyer: “As is so often the case with Palin, speculation about her reveals more about us than it [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 232 other followers

%d bloggers like this: