Sarah Palin spoke on Wednesday to an investor conference in Hong Kong. The Wall Street Journal published excerpts. Recognizing the limitations of reading excerpts, a few concerns arose.
Governor Palin’s remarks were organized under a loose banner of “common sense.” For instance, she described herself as a “common sense conservative” and said “common sense” is not on the side of liberalism. She said that given loose lending standards in the years leading up to the financial market collapse, the market behaved “exactly as common sense would expect it to.” And she heralded several “common sense” approaches to policy issues.
I wonder if this invocation of “common sense” strikes the same chord with a group of international investors as it does with hometown crowds. Same thought when she said, “We need to make sure that this regulatory reform that we’re talking about is aimed at the problems on Wall Street and won’t attack Main Street.” While I’m generally sick of the whole Wall Street/Main Street construct, it seems especially ineffective before an international audience.
As comfortable as Palin can be talking about domestic issues such as energy and health care, she seems at times to be a little out of her depth on more specialized matters.
Discussing the genesis of the financial crisis, Palin said, “The government forced lending institutions to give loans to people who, as I say, couldn’t afford them.” Encouraged and incentivized lending? Yes. Forced lending? I’m not sure. And reading, “Speculators spotted new investment vehicles, jumped on board and rating agencies underestimated risks,” I get the sense that she’s sort of trying on a new rhetorical suit.
Palin indicted the Fed for loose monetary policy and argued against making the Fed a systemic risk regulator:
And how can we think that setting up the Fed as the monitor of systemic risk in the financial sector will result in meaningful reform? The words “fox” and “hen house” come to mind. The Fed’s decisions helped create the bubble. Look at the root cause of most asset bubbles, and you’ll see the Fed somewhere in the background.
This is a popular point among conservatives, but it seems especially weak here. After all, look at any economic event and you’ll see the Fed somewhere in the background.
For an antidote to the current Administration’s obsession with government control, Governor Palin invoked Ronald Reagan. This always feels stale, the touchstone for conservatives who don’t have anything new to say. But it gets worse when married to a too-bubbly formulation of Reaganism:
Ronald Reagan, he was faced with an even worse recession, and he showed us how to get out of here…. I can’t wait until we get that Reaganomics sense supplied again because we are going to survive, and we’re going to thrive and expand and roar back to life. And as the world sees this, the world will be a healthier, more secure, safer and more prosperous place when this happens.
Palin’s attempt to tackle foreign policy was especially unsettling. “China has some one thousand missiles aimed at Taiwan and no serious observer though believes that it poses a serious threat to Beijing. Those same Chinese forces make our friends in Japan and Australia kind of nervous.” Kind of nervous? I don’t know that the language is terrible, but I can picture and hear her saying it, and I can’t imagine it came off as especially authoritative.
“The more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnic group will be able to settle disputes in court rather than on the streets.” Hmmm. I don’t know enough about China to know anything about its judicial system, but I don’t often hear political figures of the right welcoming the day when ethnic conflicts are settled in court – if such a thing is even possible.
“Our economic interdependence drives our relationship with China.” Yes. “I see a future of more trade with China and more American high tech goods in China.” Good. “But in order for that to happen, we need China to improve its rule of law, and protect our intellectual property.” Exactly. “We need to avoid protectionism and China’s flirtation with state assisted national champions.” Yep – wait, what? China’s flirtation with state assisted national champions? China’s been a direct owner of some of its largest companies for decades. That’s a full-blown love affair.
And in describing her aspirations for Asia, Palin said: “Asia is at its best when it is not dominated by a single power. In seeking Asia’s continued peace and prosperity, we should seek, as we did in Europe, an Asia whole and free.”
When George H.W. Bush said this about Europe, it was as Europe was transitioning from a period of actual partition, both physical and ideological. The notion of a whole and free Europe had real meaning as the counterweight to a half-century of Communist rule and continental schism. I’m not sure the same set of facts applies to Asia, unless Palin was making a bold plea for Chinese and Taiwanese unification, or a single government on the Korean peninsula.
Palin’s remarks did have their good moments, as when she offered a rather philosophical definition of conservatism: “We don’t believe that human nature is perfectible; we’re suspicious of government efforts to fix problems because often what it’s trying to fix is human nature, and that is impossible. It is what it is. But that doesn’t mean that we’re resigned to, well, any negative destiny. Not at all. I believe in striving for the ideal, but [within the] realistic confines of human nature.”
And that echoes the question conservatives will wrestle with over the next few years. What are the realistic confines of Sarah Palin’s political ability? While her instincts may be generally sound, her ability to articulate instinct as a fully fleshed out and understood policy platform is far from proven. This speech was little noticed and was entirely forgettable. By September 2011, she’ll need to be much more fluent on policy across the board than she is today. She and her team have work to do.
UPDATE: Rich Lowry at National Review looks at different excerpts and comes away impressed with Palin’s speech, calling it “a big step in the right direction.”
