« Powerful Women: Does Exposure Reduce Bias? | Main | The ten most underrated science fiction movies »
Is Sarah Palin the female Ross Perot?
Palin is being compared to Dan Quayle and Clarence Thomas but I think Ross Perot may be the more apt citation (the rest goes under the fold)...
Palin has an outside, straight talker, pro-reform, true blooded American, take no prisoners image much as Perot did. (A second point of comparison is Arnold Schwarznegger, with some obvious differences.) And she has only begun to cultivate that image. Do you recall how much impact Perot had on the American people?
Of
course if Perot actually had had the chance to be President, the
results probably would not have been pretty. He would have been forced
to act like "just another politician," as has been the case with Arnold because in fact the job revolves around knowing how to govern.
There is one biographical fact about Palin's life that the critics (Drum, DeLong, Yglesias, Klein, Sullivan and Kleiman are among the ones I read) are hardly touching upon. I mean her decision to have a Downs child instead of an abortion. This is the fact about her life and it will be viewed as such from now through November and perhaps beyond.
If only for this reason, she will be seen as a candidate who stands on principle. I don't think the critics are sufficiently appreciating how tired the American people are of candidates who say one thing and do another and who abandon their principles at the first provocation. This is a deep and very strong current and it runs through virtually every group of American political voters. Because of her decision to have a Downs child, many voters will not view Sarah Palin in a cynical light, no matter what the critics say. No story about firing a state trooper will break that seal.
In my jaded view, "politicians who break their word, violate their ideals, and do not follow through on their promises" is not one of the major problems in American politics. In fact it's often good that political promises are forgotten in the light of the realities. So the American obsession with political promise-keeping does not resonate with me. But the American people have been hungry for a "promise keeper, ideals believer" for decades and when was the last time they actually got one?
By the way, my mom's first reaction to the nomination (hi mom!) was that other mothers of "different" children (what exactly is the right word here?) would very much identify with Palin and view her life as validating theirs and thus support her.
Go away and watch a Frank Capra movie and think about Palin again. Larry Ribstein gets it.
I do recognize and indeed emphasize that this analysis requires that she is good on TV. I give that p = 0.63. I'll also give p = 0.13 that she ends up off the ticket, but most of that chance comes from her deciding she needs to spend the time with her kids.
Addendum: The best argument against the pick is this, although it does not much revise my priors.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 30, 2008 at 01:37 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Ross Perot built a couple of multi billion dollar companies and said he would just "open up the hood and get in there and fix the country's problems." He used lots charts and graphs in his talks. He was all about being a super competent and demanding businessman who could get things done.
Sarah Palin was the former beauty queen and part-time mayor of a small town who shops at the local grocery store with her child on her hip. Her image is about being in touch with normal, average American with simple values and not lots of experience, or taint, from business or gov't.
I can see how both images might be appealing to certain voters, but they don't seem very similar to me.
Posted by: a student of economics at Aug 30, 2008 1:46:36 PM
Just to add another data point to the measure of Palin experience: Sarah Palin manages a state government budget nearly twice as large as Bill Clinton ever did.
In 2007 Alaska had total state government expenditures of over $5.5 billion dollars in 2007, making it the 32nd largest state government in the US.
In 1991, when Bill Clinton was governor, Arkansas was the 37th largest state government, having spent $1.86 billion dollars. This is $2.79 billion in 2007 dollars.
See this post on my blog for links to sources.
Posted by: Neil at Aug 30, 2008 2:02:08 PM
Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. Sarah Palin thinks both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools.
I rest my case.
Posted by: S. Weynard Miller at Aug 30, 2008 2:12:38 PM
@Neil: Could just as well 'prove' that Palin is more Big Government than Clinton (was), won't you say?
Posted by: JSK at Aug 30, 2008 2:12:48 PM
Weird comparison. Palin is actually an elected official with a track record. Perot was just a big mouthed tycoon.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at Aug 30, 2008 2:26:39 PM
Surely Palin knew that having a down syndrome baby would be a credibility indicator, so that makes her decision less of a true credibility indicator. It seems plausible that she wanted to abort the baby but didn't because it could help her career (and because of the risk that someone might find out about her abortion, which could be devastating to her as a pro-life politician).
Posted by: talekhine at Aug 30, 2008 2:30:02 PM
Has anyone investigated in what was she was involved in firing the state trooper? When did she communicate on the subject with the State Troopers? When was she in office, things like that?
She seems like far too principled a person to do such a thing, if you ask me.
Posted by: Richard Sharpe at Aug 30, 2008 2:32:00 PM
I really don't think the Palin nomination has brought the best out of Andrew Sullivan.
Posted by: thehova at Aug 30, 2008 2:32:10 PM
Can I repost this here (as I like my analogy more and more)? Palin is like Harry Truman, the haberdasher. Harry never went to college. He did two years of law school; no degree. His "judgeship" of Jackson County was a head administrative position. The population of Jackson County today is approximately the same as the population of Alaska today. He did serve as an officer in World War I.
How many days into office before he had to deal with Uncle Joe? And did he get it right? And didn't he get MacArthur right?
Posted by: Frank at Aug 30, 2008 2:35:24 PM
Tyler: I'm not positive, but I think the term you were searching for is "special needs children." After reading of your mom's reaction, I guess it was not so strange that both my mom and my sister-in-law had similar responses.
Posted by: RW Rogers at Aug 30, 2008 2:38:33 PM
Just after I commented on how shrill and sad Andrew Sullivan's reaction to Palin has been, Ross Douthat posted this:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/all_class.php
I'm having trouble reading Andrew Sullivan. I'm done with him.
Posted by: thehova at Aug 30, 2008 2:39:13 PM
This is a really astonishingly odd post. The argument made by many on both left and right -- including those you cite -- is not that this is a tactically bad choice on McCain's part, but that it is a bad choice for the country, that Palin, whatever her appeal or actual personal integrity, represents a terribly irresponsible decision on the part of a man who has said that this is an existentially important election.
So Sullivan and DeLong et al. aren't missing anything; they're making a different, and IMHO an entirely valid point.
And then there is the substance of your claim, that Palin's decision not to abort will be a sufficient measure of her quality to satisfy the electorate. Maybe, but as you surely know, the question of integrity is something that gets dealt with by a thousand cuts, and not just one. Troopergate? A problem. The misleading claim that she opposed the bridge to nowhere? A problem. Her Veco contributions? A problem. Any of these definitive. I don't think so. But how in how many news cycles do you want to hear that Governor Palin has had to leave the campaign trail to give a deposition on her ethics?
The fact that she did not have an abortion will certainly matter greatly to those who oppose abortion. To those who favor the right to choose, it will be seen as the exercise of a choice...good for her, and now on to the issue, inter alia, whether she thinks other women should have the ability to exercise the same autonomous judgment for their part.
More simply: this analysis seems like wishful thinking (and double that for Mr. Ribstein's invocation of the irrefutable Jimmy Stewart argument). Mine could be too. Taking that last refuge of the opinionated: only time will tell.
Posted by: Tom Levenson at Aug 30, 2008 2:40:07 PM
In fact it's often good that political promises are forgotten in the light of the realities.
Agreed, our current president is a man who sticks to his promises about staying in Iraq. How many of us praise him for his stick-to-it-iveness. Not me.
Posted by: Jim Gannon at Aug 30, 2008 2:44:39 PM
The problem with your argument is that I don't see why voters would assume that her sticking to principle on a pro-life decision would imply that she would be principled on decisions in which her religion does not offer such black-and-white guidance. Thus, I think the issue of whether she put the interests of her family above the interests of her state in this statetrooper case will definitely matter to voters.
Posted by: DRDR at Aug 30, 2008 2:45:22 PM
Sarah Palin thinks both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools.
Except she's not running for school board....
Surely Palin knew that having a down syndrome baby would be a credibility indicator, so that makes her decision less of a true credibility indicator.
Ai yi yi - not everyone is as cynical as you are.
And I'm curious - how do you plan to have a child with Down Syndrome?
The problem with your point is she was pro-life before she knew she was carrying a child with Downs. And having the baby is consistent with that.
I have a few friends who are evangelicals: and they have gone from being mildly interested in the election to McCain-Palin supporters.
The left was already revved up. Now the conservative base is getting revved up, too. The next 66 days are going to be *very* entertaining.
Posted by: at Aug 30, 2008 2:47:57 PM
I haven't seen anyone mention that perhaps Palin bears some responsibility for the child having Down Syndrome in the first place. Doesn't the risk go up drastically when the mother is in her late 30's? She was 44 when the baby was born!
Neil,
It is interesting that Alaska has a much larger state budget than Arkansas despite having only a quarter of the poulation.
Posted by: MS at Aug 30, 2008 2:49:33 PM
She is like Harriet Meiers, only less qualified.
But she has one thing in common with Ross Perot: he lost, and she will too.
Wil all due respect, your economic analysis on thsi blog is often terrific and always engaging, but your political analysis is often weak and uninspired.
Posted by: RCinProv at Aug 30, 2008 2:54:00 PM
Sarah Palin believes God commanded her not have an abortion, so she didn't have a choice in the matter. Given her stance on creationism and global warming, she also doesn't seem to believe in science. Having a child with Down's Syndrome is simply the unquestionable will of God.
I don't think that set of beliefs is quite as mainstream as you think it is.
Posted by: zota at Aug 30, 2008 3:05:28 PM
MS, not so odd. In 2006 Alaska had a per capita income of $38,138 while Arkansas had one of 28,473. Rich states tend to have more expensive governments, if only because high cost of living makes it more expensive to employ people. Being a huge state with low population means fewer people to spread large fixed costs of state capital like roads, Finally, large state oil revenues lower the apparent cost of government to tax payers, and so it isn't a surprise that voters ask for more of it. They see the benefits but not so clearly the costs.
Posted by: OneEyedMan at Aug 30, 2008 3:05:44 PM
I haven't seen anyone mention that perhaps Palin bears some responsibility for the child having Down Syndrome in the first place.
I'm sure someone somewhere has mentioned it.
Yes, we should definitely blame women like that (older women who have kids who are born with Downs because the woman did not abort the child).
Riiiight.
Posted by: at Aug 30, 2008 3:12:30 PM
OneEyedMan, point taken but still. My back of the envelope math tells me Alaska state budget per capita is almost 8 times that of Arkansas, give or take.
Posted by: MS at Aug 30, 2008 3:26:24 PM
Also, anecdotes about your mom aside, men like the Palin choice better than women.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/women-more-skeptical-of-palin-than-men.html
Posted by: zota at Aug 30, 2008 3:29:06 PM
Not saying it is her fault but look at this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs_syndrome#incidence
The risk of Down Syndrome skyrockets past 40. At 45 it is 3.6%. I'd put it in the same category as drinking or smoking during pregnancy.
Posted by: MS at Aug 30, 2008 3:34:40 PM
And I heard it from the Internet that that baby isn't hers:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/17933/7330/417/579267
(she announced the pregnancy 7 months in but wasn't showing, her teen daughter was out of school for a couple of months for mono).
Posted by: burger flipper at Aug 30, 2008 3:40:32 PM
I think the other fact could very well turn out to be her trooper gate. There is a good jump off point with transcripts to police intervews and timelines here. My reading of it is that she had an abusive, dangerous, a-hole of a brother-in-law who was a state trooper and who was threatening her family and before she was governor, she took it to his superiors. Noticing how the state trooper bureaucracy just did everything it could to protect and cover up one of its own, this actually plays into her ballbuster take-no-prisoners reformer story. She stood up for a good principle on this one, namely that law enforcement officers ought not be driving drunk, threatening their wives, and tasering their kids. How does anyone fault her for that???
Here is an email she sent before she was governor. She and her husband even hired a PI to investigate an incident at a bar, presumably to bolster her sister's divorce case. But to see how the state just moves the trooper from spot to spot without dealing with what are some obvious issues is just disgusting. Good for Palin for using something she knew about as a litmus test for whether any reform was occurring.
Posted by: BoscoH at Aug 30, 2008 3:49:33 PM