Sarah Palin's Resignation--Game Changer or Game Over?

There's been a lot of chatter already (and rightly so) about the stunning, peculiar aspects of Sarah Palin's announcement to resign as Alaska governor. So, let's pull back from the more sensational and overheated analysis and look at this move from the perspective of political strategy and communication. Let's assume, for this essay, that she's not resigning because of an unknown scandal or a personal health issue, or as a permanent withdrawal from politics (although those remain possibilities) and let's look at this as a move to begin preparations and positioning for a 2012 White House run. The question then becomes, from a communication standpoint, what arguments emerge from this move that will bolster her presidential prospects?

My initial answer to this question is: not many. Palin's governorship was of value to her national political fortunes, because it provided evidence of high-level executive experience. It was an effective counterpoint to her running mate John McCain and Democratic nominee Barack Obama, both of whom had none. However, in 2012, Palin's one term (or two-thirds term, as it turns out) as governor of a sparsely populated state will pale in comparison to Obama's stint as President. From an experience standpoint, there's no getting around that, even if Obama's not doing well. So Palin probably knows that the argument made by her status as governor will be weighted very differently next time around. Maybe she's decided that her time would be better spent building political support without the constraints of a demanding, full-time job. Yet, to defeat Obama in 2012, a candidate will need to argue that she or he could have done a better job managing the country. That argument now becomes very difficult for someone who couldn't even finish the job.

So what will Palin do now? She will probably appear on talk shows, write a book, make public appearances, and engage in fundraising. In other words, she'll become either a pundit, a conventional full-time politician, or both. All of those actions will win her political allies and help her sharpen her political communication skills. However, it has the potential to strongly dilute the most unique and appealing aspects of her unique political brand--the fresh-faced outsider from the frontier. In order to make this time politically useful, she must engage in activities that will render her typical of most politicians. Nothing could be worse for Sarah Palin, to become, after all of the trailblazing maverickosity of 2008, the female version of Mitt Romney. On the other hand, if she vanishes from the public scene altogether to reinvent herself and re-emerge in a couple of years, the political ground beneath her may have shifted so dramatically that the voters very well may have moved on.

The balance of her gubernatorial term also presents rhetorical problems. If her successor does well, then the refrain will be that Palin was not even the most qualified person to lead Alaska, let alone the whole country. If the new governor stumbles badly, many will hold Palin responsible for bailing out in the first place.

The one argument option that remains viable is one that goes something like this: "Look, you said you wanted change in 2008, so you voted for change. But the change agent you elected came from the same old system, and so we didn't get much change. We need someone who has no connection to that old system, so that's why I got out in 2009. I'm the real deal." Now much would depend on the execution of such an approach and Palin would still have to prove her policy competence during the campaign. But, as I see it, that's the only truly powerful rhetorical option generated by her brash resignation. And a bold move that leaves you with only one option is usually a bad move.

Of course, I could be wrong. Pundits like Mary Matalin and this guy from FOXNews.com see this as some sort of brilliant "checkmate" move. But the latter's argument is based on Palin now being liberated from her Alaska responsibilities and building a national political presence here in the "lower 48." All of which make her into something altogether uninspiring--a typical pol who quit on her constituents. Try making a bumper sticker out of that.

Twitter and Politics - Part I - The Landscape

I've been mulling this topic for a while now and with Friday's Time story about the overall impact of Twitter on our lives, I thought it would be a good time to post about the political and communication implications of this fast-growing technology. For the uninitiated, Twitter is a free microblogging web service which allows the sharing of brief messages (140 characters maximum) among friends, colleagues, and public figures. On the whole, Steven Johnson's Time piece is quite positive. Although it acknowledges Twitter's potential for becoming "an entire new empire of distraction," the article praises Twitter for its immediacy, interactivity, and user-generated innovations, such as hashtag, @ replies, and live searching. Johnson spends little ink on Twitter politics, other than noting that the service offers opportunities both for more exposure to diverse opinions and polarization.

The issue of Twitter's political impact and value is surprisingly complex. On the one hand, Twitter has received its share of scorn and skepticism. One of the earliest and most dramatic examples of Twitter's political power, the student-led, pro-democracy protest in Moldova, has already been debunked, although Johnson perpetuates the tale in his article. On the other hand, it was recently reported that China had, in the run-up to the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, blocked the use of Twitter along with other Internet networking sites. It's been argued that the Chinese action acknowledges "Twitter's new power in mainland China" and its value as a subversive news outlet.

In U.S. politics, Twitter has become yet another element of the partisan divide. Republicans and conservatives are seen as "early adaptors" to this new online craze, a stark contrast to their otherwise lagging Internet presence. The website "Top Conservatives on Twitter" or TCOT, is a sprawling registry of GOP Twitterers numbering in the thousands. However, the "real time" feature of Twitter, along with its built-in bluntness, has generated some GOP embarrassment. Most notably, in the middle of the Somali pirate standoff, Newt Gingrich posted a tweet criticizing President Obama's measured public response as a "major mistake" that made the U.S. "look weak." Not long after, of course, the crisis was decisively resolved, the President's approach was vindicated, and Gingrich (ranked #1 in popularity on TCOT) had to backtrack. During the stimulus bill debate, a Twitter-wielding John McCain garnered attention and raised eyebrows with his now-infamous Top 10 list of wasteful spending.

Those high-profile episodes capture headlines but don't answer the key questions: What does Twitter mean for politics and what does Republicans' embrace of the service mean for the balance of power in web politics? Although some scoff at the idea that the lightly-regarded Twitter offers any real advantage to conservatives, Michael Turk, in a post on TechPresident makes a spirited argument that Democrats ignore the GOP Twitter movement at their own peril. Turk argues that Democrats are making the same mistake their rivals made when underestimating the Left's embrace of the Internet after 2000. Addressing his opponents directly, Turk writes:

In the world of converging technologies, Twitter represents the single most interactive, most real-time, tool available. Twitter is mobile. Twitter is rapid. Twitter facilitates deep content (via linking) and fast action (via retweets and viral distribution)....It is likely, I would even say certain, that Twitter, or some next generation concept that builds upon Twitter's framework, will be a central component of the GOP resurgence. It most certainly won't happen overnight. However, I guarantee you will - when you find yourself out of power again - be able to trace the roots of your downfall to this earliest of efforts.

Pretty strong words from a party that mostly conceded its inferiority in websites, blogs, and social networking up until this point. As expected, Turk's post did not go unnoticed and generated two interesting responses. One blogger argued that social media technology generally favors the grassroots and so Twitter, therefore, would be most useful to those segments of the conservative community that are marginalized (I'm assuming this refers to areas such as gay rights, pro-immigration, etc.). Another response challenged the notion that social media technology alone can truly reverse a party's political fortunes; it still takes "stronger messages and messengers."

I would agree with this last point. I mean, the Democrats' web dominance did not save John Kerry in 2004. In fact, one could even argue that the Right used blogs more sparingly but with more strategic effect in that campaign, with the Dan Rather/National Guard memos debacle inoculating President Bush quite well against war veteran Kerry. Also, it's not like Democrats have been unable to capitalize on social media technology. Obama's campaign excelled at social networking, text messaging, and video sharing. Most likely, both parties, in order to achieve electoral success, will need to play catch-up to master the Obama approach before truly capitalizing on newer platforms, such as Twitter.

Guantanamo: Wedge Issue or Wuss Issue?

According to an article in today's New York Times, the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has become an effective "wedge issue" for Republicans against Democrats and President Obama. To review, in politics, a wedge issue is an issue that is given emphasis primarily because of its potential to drive a wedge between voters and one's political opposition. So, make no mistake, the diatribes we're hearing on this issue are primarily politically-motivated rather than genuine concerns about local and national security.

Because if they are the latter, then those critics have a pretty wimpy view of our country and its people. They are arguing that, despite all of our resources, the U.S. cannot safely secure the remaining 240 Gitmo detainees, many of whom have been beaten down by years of imprisonment and would undoubtedly face a thoroughly unpleasant ordeal incarcerated in a U.S. facility. That's 4.8 prisoners per state. According to a study by the Pew Center, as of 2007, the U.S. housed 7.3 million inmates in our prisons, including all sorts of ruthless criminals who have "killed Americans." We really can't handle 5 more in each state? And it's probably fewer than that because there may be a few more who have been wrongly jailed and should be released anyway (see earlier post on this topic). And, yes, I can honestly say that I would have no problem with a detainee holding facility in my community as it would probably be one of the most secure prisons in the history of the world.

I don't recall an outpouring of fear and outrage about the possibility of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh escaping captivity and repeating his horrific acts. Yet, prior to 9/11, McVeigh had launched the most lethal terrorist attack on U.S. soil. How is this different? Have we lost our nerve, along with our principles? If those opposing the closing of Guantanamo have done so, then their America is a weak nation easily confounded. Or, more likely, they indirectly suggest this in pursuit of the almighty "wedge issue" and its momentary political payoff. So which is it? Playing politics or playing scared? Wedge issue or wuss issue?

Obama at Notre Dame

My preview of President Obama's controversial commencement speech at Notre Dame on Sunday can be found both here and here (scroll down to "studio guests" for second video).

Robert Gates and the Military Budget

A couple of interesting reactions to the Obama administration's proposed defense cuts and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's interest in taking on the defense procurement system. Michael Gerson's column in today's Washington Post is noteworthy because it's one of the few positive columns Gerson (President George W. Bush's former chief speechwriter) has penned about the new administration. Of course, most of the attention in the column is on Gates, a Bush holdover, and Obama is barely mentioned. The column is a good example of thoughtful conservative analysis that actually challenges Republican thinking on an issue. Unfortunately, it's not a typical example of the author's Post work. On most days, Gerson eschews serious conservative commentary for knee-jerk Obama-bashing.

Tony Auth's cartoon, inserted at the top of this post, draws on the iconic image of the Chinese dissident at Tiananmen Square in commenting on Gates's challenge to the "military-industrial complex" (that term itself an allusion to President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address warning). Auth's metaphor is discouraging: Is Gates's cause truly that hopeless? Will the military industrialists really do anything to hold on to their power?

Obama at Notre Dame - Kenneth Woodward's take

Interesting and useful column in today's Washington Post about the controversy surrounding President Obama's commencement speech and honorary degree bestowal at Notre Dame in May. I especially like the last paragraph's allusion to John F. Kennedy's 1960 candidacy; Woodward gives it a nice turn in connecting it to the ND controversy. Kennedy addressed the "religious question" in his speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Obama's situation, however, will be more like former first lady Barbara Bush's commencement address at Wellesley in 1990, when students opposed Bush as too traditional and not representative of Wellesley women. Bush's speech, which was ultimately very well received, can be found here.

Obama's Address to Congress

My analysis on the President's Address to Congress in which he laid out his priorities for the first part of his presidency can be found here.