While one expects an executive to speak with a large degree of certainty in his or her position, to instill confidence and clarity of purpose, one similarly expects that the executive reached his or her decision after recognizing and contemplating the many variables, the complexities, the unknowns, that comprise the important decisions he or she faces.

Having carefully read the interviews of Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, and Robert Draper’s book about George W. Bush, Dead Certain, there is one thread that permeates their decision-making.  They are absolutely certain that they know the ultimate right and wrong.  There is no room for debate or discussion, nor any place for doubt. 

We are living with the product of this, non-decision-making decisions.  Choices are simply made, damn the torpedoes.

The ABC interview of Sarah Palin by Charlie Gibson was far from perfect.  There are many areas where Charlie’s questions could be well-challenged.  But ultimately, this wasn’t a test of Charlie as an interviewer, but of Sarah Palin as a president.  The fact that Charlie could have done better has no bearing on Sarah Palin’s performance.

After the hashing of partisans is done, there is one thing that was laid bare by this first interview of the woman who would be president.  She is absolutely simple and absolutely certain. 

Sarah Palin delivers a speech well.  She has many attributes that could make her a fine politician, and perhaps even a fine governor beyond her first two years in office.  But she does not have the depth of intellect needed to make decisions that will affect the lives of Americans, and the existence of the United States in the world.

The New York Times editorial recognized one of the foundational problems in American politics:

One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News’s Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don’t want “somebody’s big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state.”

Somehow, it’s become fashionable to ridicule education, experience and intellect.  This is the flip side of the glorification of “common sense” as the answer to all questions.  It’s a view that appeals to common people, because they all believe that they possess it and that each of them, individually, is right. 

Of course, being right when chatting with friends and family, but having no responsibility for the welfare of a nation, is a fun game to play.  There are no negative consequences of being wrong.  But when it comes to making decisions for all the people of the United States, kitchen table solutions aren’t enough, no matter how well they appeal to others of similar intellectual depth.

This has nothing to do with which ultimate answers are right or wrong, but the manner in which those who would govern arrive at their solutions.  As we come off a regime that saw thinking as “hard work,” too hard to be worth the effort, and relished in its absolute certainty that it was right, it’s appalling that so many Americans will turn a blind eye to our current situation and try game their way out of repeating the same mistakes.

Ms. Palin talked repeatedly about never blinking. When Mr. McCain asked her to run for vice president? “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission,” she said, that “you can’t blink.”

Fighting terrorism? “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”

We need to do a lot of blinking before we arrive at a decision.  We need to blink long and hard.  We need to weigh the many concerns, consequences and impacts.  Sarah Palin doesn’t blink.  We need someone who does.

Shifting Gears

One of the most interesting and informative blawgs is the Volokh Conspiracy.  Until lately.  There have been a number of contributors who are obsessed with Sarah Palins, and write about her with a frequency and fervor they’ve never shown toward the law.

The nature of these posts strikes me as not merely grossly partisan, but venturing into becoming Palin Apologist Central.  For example, they are in a frenzy to attack Charlie Gibson for the substance and style of his interview, as if attacking Gibson somehow betters Sarah Palin.  These are otherwise thoughtful people, so the fallacy of their attacks cannot be excused as the rantings of the foolish or ignorant.

Orin Kerr, who has not succumbed to the Palin disease, posted this :

Palin Palin: Palin palin, palin palin Palin Palin. Palin Palin. Palin palin palin palin — palin. (Palin: Palin)

I wish his fellow VC contributors would have read it.  I fear that the lure of politics turns even sharp minds dull.

Update:  It appears that Sarah Palins will be subject to a second interview.  This time, she will be interviewed by that pillar of journalistic integrity, Sean Hannity.  Was Rush too strung out to do it?

Update 2:  Because I can’t leave well enough alone…