September 12th 2008
Which Bush Doctrine?
S
arah Palin’s stumbling response to Charles Gibson’s question, “Do you support the Bush Doctrine?” was the low point of last night’s interviews. Her posture and voice both went defensive, and she came across, as I noted here and here, as not knowing the answer.
On second thought, though, the problem may easily have been that she didn’t know which answer, not the answer. That’s because the Bush Doctrine is actually many doctrines:
- The right of the United States to treat countries that harbor terrorists as terrorists (the justification for the Afghanistan invasion)
- The policy of preventive war, or the right of the United States to depose foreign regimes that represent an immediate threat (the justification for the Iraq invasion)
- The policy of supporting democracy in the Middle East and around the world in order to squelch terrorism
- A willingness to pursue U.S. military interests unilaterally. (A hat-tip to Wikipedia, for compiling the points so succinctly.)
Let’s consider the initial substantive answer she provided:
I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation.
That is a credible endorsement of each of the four elements of the Bush Doctrine, all of which are directed at ridding the world of Islamic extremism, but because it was not presented as, “Yes, I endorse the doctrines because …” it has not been viewed as credible.
In my company’s media training programs, we teach executives and politicians that if they don’t understand the question, to ask for clarification, and we counsel not to guess at answers. Palin guessed at an answer last night and it came across – perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly – that she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is. That’s hardly an endorsement of her foreign policy prowess – but why all the angst? There are only so many hours in a governor’s day, and they’re filled with local, state and federal issues, not foreign issues. It’s been the same with great foreign policy presidents (Reagan) and disastrous ones (Carter).
Her better response would have been, “Which Bush doctrine are you asking about, Charlie? I support them all generally, but I want to answer your specific question.” That would have set Gibson back in his chair and would have put a stop to all the prattle (here, here, here, etc.) this morning.
Update: Charles Krauthammer – who coined the term “Bush Doctrine” – agrees. (Thanks, Christa)
Posted in 2008, Foreign policy, Messaging, Palin, Uncategorized | 5 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:17 am
September 12th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Comments
September 12th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Hello Laer. You make a good point on this and one I made in my own post analyzing this. I think her confusion hower, was of a different magnitude – it was not know which part of the “Bush doctrine” to comment upon, rather it appeared that she was unfamiliar with the term “Bush doctrine.” She made her ignorance on that much more important than it need have been had she, as you noted, had she sought clarification. “Charlie, drawing a blank here. Define the doctrine and I’ll comment.” It would have appeared far less weak than her attempt not to show weakness.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Wow. My comment is almost nonsensicle. Sorry about that. Proofreading is not my strong suit.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Hi, Laer! Great points about the Palin interview – Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who says he coined the “Bush doctrine” term pre-9/11, likewise outlined the four options (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1_).I’m so sick of this establishment snobbery against Palin! I think it was Mike Huckabee who said 10 minutes as governor is better executive experience than 10 years as senator. McCain’s choice is golden, period.