If you read my last post, you know that my prognosis for the McCain/Palin ticket is pretty grim. This raises the question (at least in the minds of some), what does this mean for Sarah Palin and her political future?The answer is, I think, nothing bad. The immediate presumption is that it would be better for her political prospects to win this election, since “incumbent VP” is usually a pretty strong position from which to run for president; but as I noted last night, Gerard Baker’s right that this is probably going to be a rough four years to be sitting in the Oval Office, and there’s no guarantee that a McCain presidency would be a successful one. Obviously, I don’t believe an Obama presidency will be, and just as obviously, I think a McCain administration would at least be better; I don’t know that I actually think it would be good. I think his judicial appointments would be solid, and I trust his instincts and judgment on foreign policy and national security; given, however, that he can’t even make up his mind whether he wants to attack Barack Obama or not, or on what, or how, or what his message is, or how it should be delivered, and that he can come up with plans on health care and other issues but can’t seem to muster the wit and will to articulate and defend them clearly . . . well, let’s just say that if he does win, I don’t have high hopes for his administration’s record on domestic policy. I think a President McCain could handle Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the rest of the crazies in Iran as well as anyone could; but facing an equally hostile regime on Capitol Hill, I think he’d be much less effective in dealing with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. As such, it’s entirely possible that a loss in November will be a blessing in disguise for Gov. Palin.The question is, where does she go from here? The immediate answer is of course obvious: back to Alaska. Equally obvious is the fact that that doesn’t answer the question. At this point, Gov. Palin would have to be regarded as the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, since she has national recognition and a broad base of support in the party, well beyond anything that any other potential candidate can muster; the question is, what does she need to do to build on that?The first thing, I think, is to keep herself out there as a national politician. This may be somewhat tricky to do, because the usual way to do this—run for the Senate—is not an obvious option for her. Lisa Murkowski’s Senate seat comes open in 2010, but for Gov. Palin to run for it simply in order to facilitate a presidential run two years later would be the worst sort of politics, and it seems hard to believe that Alaskans would go along with it. What’s more, such a tacky move would only damage Gov. Palin’s standing and reputation. There is the possibility that Ted Stevens’ seat could be available after the election, if he loses his trial but wins re-election; in that event, the Senate would probably expel him to serve his sentence, which would trigger a special election in which she could run for his seat. This sequence of events, however, seems unlikely (among other things, the government’s case against him is actually remarkably flimsy), and even if it did occur, it might not be a good opening for Gov. Palin anyway. Sen. Stevens has won a rock-solid seat by bringing home large quantities of pork, on which the state of Alaska is largely dependent, given how much of the state is owned by the feds. Gov. Palin has done a fair bit in her time in office to reduce that dependence, but there’s a lot more work to do in that regard; for her to run for the Pork King’s seat on a pledge not to seek pork probably isn’t tenable at this point—and for her to run on any other basis would ruin her nationally.Given that, it seems that she will need to work by other means to keep herself on the national stage. It would help if she were to do so in a way that convinced conservative skeptics like Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, George Will, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley—not that their opinions are particularly important, but because impressing those who ought to be her supporters and currently aren’t is the most direct way to establish herself as the true standard-bearer of the Republican Party. As well, it would be best for her to choose an approach that will not only benefit herself but also benefit the party, strengthening it and bringing it back to its roots. Therefore, as one who framed the troubling challenge presented by Iran with the question “what would Reagan do?” I would suggest that Gov. Palin should ask herself the same question, and do what Gov. Reagan did in the 1970s:
Reagan . . . [spent] years in the 1970s mulling the great issues of the day, reading voraciously, and presenting detailed commentaries on everything from the SALT and Law of the Sea treaties to revultions in Sub-Saharan Africa to the future of Medicare. Then and only then, finally, after 16 years on the national stage, did the GOP give Ronald Reagan its nomination and present him as its candidate for the presidency.
Obviously, she’s still going to have her day job; but in and around that, and raising her kids, I believe Gov. Palin should devote as much time as she can to studying and writing on the great issues of our own day. Keep building her governing experience dealing with the challenges of Juneau—and as much as possible, take advantage of that to use Alaska as a “laboratory of democracy” on issues like health care—but engage intellectually as well with the challenges of Iran and Pakistan, Social Security and judicial philosophy, the future of NATO and how to deal with a resurgent Russia, practical approaches to changing the system in D.C., and what our stance ought to be toward China. Co-author pieces with leading conservative intellectuals—maybe an article on judicial nominations with Antonin Scalia, to throw out one wild idea. Help rebuild the conservative intellectual treasury that was squandered by the GOP during its time in power. And off these articles (and perhaps books), I’d like to see her give speeches under the auspices of the Hoover Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Foundation, the Institute for Religion and Public Life, and other such organizations.In short, I believe Gov. Palin should keep her name out there, not just by doing political things (though she should certainly continue as she has begun in Alaska), but by using both her position and her gifts to articulate, develop and defend conservative political philosophy and its applications. In so doing, if over the next four years voters become accustomed to seeing her name and picture appear along with insightful, well-argued, thought-provoking pieces in places like The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, conservative opinion magazines such as National Review, the Weekly Standard, and The American Spectator, websites like RealClearPolitics, and perhaps even on occasion in the MSM if they allow it—including, on topics which make it possible, illustrations from her own achievements in Alaska—then she’ll maintain her public profile but in a way that gives the lie to those who’ve tried to dismiss her; and along the way, she’ll reinvigorate American conservatism in much the same way as Ronald Reagan did, and help the GOP along in the necessary task of taking stock and getting back to being the party it needs to be. Two birds, one stone—and an entirely fitting task for one who would be her party’s leader, to start by leading it back to its soul.