The Palin interviews: Ignorance in the service of the ultra-right

World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org

WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
The Palin interviews: Ignorance in the service of the ultra-right
By Bill Van Auken
15 September 2008

ABC’s broadcast over three nights of the interview between the
network’s anchorman Charles Gibson and Republican Vice Presidential
candidate Sarah Palin served to expose the candidate’s ignorance and
ultra-right politics, while skirting around some of the most crucial
questions underlying her improbable candidacy.

Equally revealing has been the reaction of the Obama campaign and the
Democratic Party, which have given Palin a pass on everything said in
the interview except her attempt to once again identify herself with
the runner-up in the Democratic primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton. An
angry reaction issued over the name of Florida Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman Schultz had more the character of a protest over brand name
infringement than any substantive response to Palin’s positions.

Ignored in the Democratic response was Palin’s presentation of
political views that are significantly to the right of the Bush
administration, including foreign policy positions that pose the clear
threat of a nuclear third world war.

In its tone, the interview was undoubtedly one of the most peculiar
exchanges to be staged in recent American political history.

Gibson’s approach often resembled that of an impatient and skeptical
professor quizzing one of his failing students. For her part, Palin
came off as semi-robotic, clearly feeding back talking points which
Republican campaign operatives have crammed into her head in the
little more than two weeks since her surprise selection as Senator
John McCain’s running mate.

There is little doubt that many of the nearly 10 million viewers who
tuned in to the interviews did so at least in part out of morbid
curiosity, watching to see if the untested and virtually unknown
governor of Alaska would seriously disgrace herself on national
television.

Palin fumbled some questions and had an evident “deer in the
headlights” moment when asked about the “Bush Doctrine,” something
with which she was clearly unfamiliar, even after Gibson helpfully
explained it to her.

Behind the packaged image, the qualities that Sarah Palin brings to
American politics are religious-based bigotry and hostility to
democratic rights, anti-intellectualism, phony right-wing populism and
unwavering support for American militarism, in short, the stock and
trade of the Republican right.

The dangers posed when this kind of ignorance, backwardness and
reactionary outlook becomes fused with state power became clear in the
ABC interview.

After Palin declared her support for the admission of the former
Soviet republics Ukraine and Georgia into the US-led NATO alliance,
Gibson asked her whether this meant that the US would be obliged to go
to war against Russia if Moscow again sent troops into the region.

“Perhaps so,” replied Palin, in a matter-of-fact tone that suggested
that war between two countries controlling stockpiles of nuclear
weapons capable of incinerating the world was the most obvious, common-
sense solution to a geopolitical crisis. “I mean, that is the
agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked,
you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help,” she
continued.

She repeatedly described Russia’s action in Georgia as “unprovoked,”
when even the Bush administration’s State Department has claimed that
it warned Georgia not to attempt an armed takeover of the autonomous,
Russian-aligned regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Asked about what insight she had concerning the country against which
she is so blithely prepared wage war, Palin claimed—erroneously—that
one could see Russia from part of Alaska.

Similarly, Palin was asked what attitude Washington should take
towards a decision by Israel to carry out airstrikes against Iran’s
fledgling nuclear program.

“Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we
should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend
themselves and for their security,” responded Palin.

While Gibson pressed her on this point, she clung doggedly to this
position, twice repeating the phrase about not “second guessing” any
action by Israel.

That Washington must routinely “second guess” such decisions—despite
the undeniably inordinate influence exercised by Israel and the
Zionist lobby over US foreign policy—apparently never occurred to
Palin. Nor, apparently, that such an Israeli attack would almost
certainly result in Iranian retaliation that could include attacks on
US occupation troops in Iraq, including her own son, who deployed
there on September 11.

Then there was the exchange on the “Bush Doctrine,” about which much
has been made in the media. Palin’s initial fumbling was
understandable. Gibson asked her “Do you agree with the Bush
doctrine,” and she replied by indicating she believed he was referring
to “his world view.”

When Gibson went on, however, to indicate that, no, he meant “the Bush
doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war,” it became
clear that Palin had not a clue that he was referring to the doctrine
of “preventive war” by which Bush arrogated to US imperialism the
right to militarily attack any country in the world that it saw as a
potential threat to its interests.

Palin babbled on about her agreement with Bush’s effort to “rid this
world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying
our nation” and affirmed that any “mistakes” or “blunders” in the
process could be corrected with the election of new leadership.

Nonetheless, even from her standpoint of ignorance, Palin’s responses
made it clear that she embraces the essence of the “Bush Doctrine”—
unrestrained American militarism.

Asked about whether the US had the right to carry out cross-border
attacks against Pakistan, without the permission of that country’s
government—something that is already taking place on the orders of the
Bush White House—Palin responded: “In order to stop Islamic
extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our
allies, 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.”

So emerges the Palin corollary to the Bush doctrine: go anywhere and
target anyone, just don’t blink.

On domestic issues, the combination of ignorance and duplicity
continued to characterize Palin’s responses. Asked about her recorded
differences with McCain on global warming, she denied the existence of
any such disagreements and asserted her belief that “man’s activities
certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate
change.”

Just last year, however, she faithfully echoed the line of the extreme
right and the oil lobby, telling an Alaska newspaper, “I’m not an Al
Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our
climate on human activity.”

Palin reiterated her well-known opposition to abortion rights, calling
for the overturning of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision and
stating her belief that abortion should be banned even in cases of
rape and incest. While Palin described this view as her “personal
opinion,” Gibson made no attempt to press her on the fact that she
favors merely a state-by-state approach to abortion, but advocates
making it illegal everywhere, regardless of the sentiments of the pro-
choice women she claimed to “respect.”

Gibson asked her about the well-established fact that as the newly
elected mayor of Wasilla she had pressured the town librarian about
banning of books deemed unacceptable by the Christian right. Her denial
—calling it “an old wives’ tale”—was left unchallenged.

Significantly, what went entirely unexplored in the Gibson interview
were Palin’s extensive ties to the extreme right and Christian
fundamentalism. There was no question about her relationship with the
Alaskan Independence Party, which her husband joined and whose
conferences she herself attended and addressed. The party, which calls
for Alaska to secede from the United States, is an affiliate of the
Constitution Party, an ultra-right electoral party whose program
incorporates the outlook of a Bible-based fascism.

No question was asked about Palin’s attitude towards dominionism, the
doctrine of the Christian fundamentalist right that the US is a
“Christian nation” and that all of its laws and institutions should be
run according to Biblical law.

The only reference to Palin’s religious-political views came in
Gibson’s question about remarks made to her church to the effect that
the US troops fighting the dirty colonial-style war in Iraq are “on a
task that is from God.” Gibson asked her if she believed that the US
is “fighting a holy war.”

The candidate’s improbable response was that she was merely echoing a
statement made by Lincoln. While the Republicans regularly drag
Lincoln’s name through the mud, this is rather extreme, given his oft-
stated contempt for organized religion.

Neither the media nor the Democrats have any interest in exposing this
dirty secret of American politics, that the most significant popular
“base” of the Republican Party—the most consistent defender of the
corporations and finance capital—is composed of extreme right-wing and
fascistic elements, including the most reactionary tendencies within
Christian fundamentalism.

Under normal circumstances, Palin’s ignorance of international
relations and limited political understanding would have disqualified
her for the vice-presidential nomination of one of the two main big
business parties. The sole reason for McCain’s choosing her as his
running mate was the desire to “energize” this ultra-right base.

The Democrats have chosen to ignore this issue entirely. Nor have they
issued any response to Palin’s statements regarding war on Russia and
Iran. Having embraced the “surge” in Iraq, Obama is running not as an
antiwar candidate in any sense, but as the advocate of a more
strategically thought-out and even more robust form of American
militarism. As such, he has issued his own bellicose statements
against Russia, Iran and Pakistan.

That Palin could even be considered as the Republican Party’s vice
presidential candidate is testimony not only to the extreme right-wing
trajectory of this party itself, but also to the spinelessness of the
Democrats and their inability and unwillingness to wage any serious
attack on either the Republican Party or the ultra-right.

There are clearly some misgivings within the American ruling elite
over this strategy and the pitfalls of having an individual like Palin
a “heartbeat away” from a presidency occupied by a 72-year-old man
with significant health problems. The Washington Post published an
editorial on the interviews describing them as “unsettling.” Her
performance, the paper stated, was “not disqualifying, but it was also
far from comforting.”




Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved