In my latest post on legal education, I diagnosed the supposed problem with legal education in fairly simplistic terms as follows: law schools should teach more skills. Recognizing that the call for more teaching of skills inevitably entails less teaching of substantive law (including the skill of legal analysis), I suggested that “this sacrifice is largely unnecessary and probably counterproductive.” In this post, I follow up on that assertion and add a few thoughts about more promising avenues for teaching skills.

Michael Woronoff, who is a practicing lawyer in Los Angeles and an adjunct professor at UCLA, has offered some helpful nuance on the skills debate in his recent remarks at the AALS Mid-year Meeting in Long Beach. (You can download his remarks here.) Michael asserts that legal training consists of the transmission of three categories of information: substantive knowledge, practical skills, and expertise.

Michael and I agree on the importance of substantive knowledge, and we both cite the Carnegie Report in support of the notion that law schools do a pretty good job of transmitting such knowledge. Michael also makes some interesting points about the shortcomings of law schools in teaching substantive law to students who want to be transactional lawyers, but I will save that issue for another post. The more general point is that training in substantive law is valuable, and if you propose to cut back on that training, I believe you have a pretty heavy burden of proof.

Which brings us to the issue of skills training. Again, I rely on Michael to provide the framework for our discussion. He observes that most people who talk about the need for more “skills training” in law schools seem to be talking about a combination of practical skills and expertise. The trick to thinking about skills teaching is to “distinguish between the types of skills that law schools can teach and those they cannot.”

Exactly right.

Michael’s view is that law schools cannot reasonably be expected to teach expertise. Most law professors are not expert practitioners, and even if we were, students wouldn’t have the time in three years to develop expertise after learning the fundamental principles of substantive law. Moreover, “almost any attempt by law school to replicate real practice will necessarily be much too artificial.”

All of this leads Michael to conclude that law schools should focus on what he calls “practical skills.” This term comprises both “the ability to perform tasks necessary for the practice,” such as drafting and negotiating for a transactional lawyer, and “an understanding of the context of the practice,” such as “the ability to understand the language and structure of transactions and the rationale behind these structures.”

Excellent. I agree that law schools can — and should — teach such skills. But if you have been paying attention, you see that we have come upon a bit of a quandry: how can we add such skills training without diminishing the quality of our teaching of substantive law?

Michael chides me for my plan to include at least one case study in every chapter of my Business Associations casebook:

In my own defense, I did not suggest that adopters of the casebook teach every case study. I have never done that for the reasons Michael suggests, even though I am not certain he is correct in his objection. (See more on that below.) The point, rather, is simply that we would make case studies more available.

In any event, Michael does not find attempts to integrate skills training with substantive courses particularly attractive. He has a different idea about teaching practical skills: “we should add new courses, which allow students to see how to practically apply substantive law they have already learned.” Michael points to Rob Illig’s M&A course, which Rob described here on The Glom, as a model for such a course. Michael also likes the idea of “adding a first year “Introduction to Business” course, in which students can learn basic business, accounting, finance and economic concepts early in law school to provide better context for future substantive courses.” (By the way, I have taught such a course to second-year students, and it can be very useful.)

The problem with this part of Michael’s analysis is that bit about adding new courses. Earlier in his remarks, discussing the importance of substantive knowledge, Michael complained that law schools didn’t devote sufficient hours to basic courses and that students don’t take enough of the right elective courses to enable them to “become true experts in their future field of practice.” I am sympathetic to these concerns, which is why I am less excited about adding new skills courses than I am about exploring new methods of teaching the traditional, substantive courses.

Which brings me to the issue of “teaching naked.” (Thanks to my colleague Lynn Wardle for directing me to this article.) That’s the way José A. Bowen, dean of the Meadows School of the Arts at Southern Methodist University describes teaching without technology:

If you are a longtime reader of this blog, this line of reasoning may sound familiar to you. Last year, I wrote about moving my PowerPoint slides in Business Associations outside of the classroom … and the mini-existential crisis created by the move. While I am not at all in favor of a heavy-handed dean removing computers from the classroom, Bowen is right about the potential effects of PowerPoint on student engagement. Nevertheless, in my experience, PowerPoint can be useful in the classroom in two circumstances:

• Explaining concepts that are difficult for students to grasp from the reading materials. Last semester, I taught Corporate Finance out of Bill Bratton’s casebook, which is very challenging for most students. We used class time to work through the most difficult concepts.
• Generating class discussion. When reading law, I tend to map relationships. Lot’s of boxes and arrows to show how people or concepts are connected. PowerPoint is very helpful in setting up a class discussion, and the diagrams are a useful point of reference throughout the discussion.

Unless these things are happening, however, I am all in favor of moving PowerPoint slides outside of the classroom. Class time is usually too valuable for lectures.

I am also moving away from Socratic method in upper-level classes. This post is already too long, so I won’t dwell on this point, but the main observation here is that Socratic method is not a very effective means of transmitting substantive law, even if it is useful in teaching legal analysis.

In my view, students can usually get a pretty good handle on the substantive rules by reading the casebook and relevant regulations or statute, then listening to a 10-15 minute lecture online. The best students still have questions, but I am striving to make the class period a time during which students can apply the substantive law using problems, cases studies, simulations, etc. My hope is that such a class would not only answer their questions, but also provide them with better training in the practical skills that Michael identifies.

This title of this post implies that law schools are underperforming. I don’t want to concede the point, though I am willing to grant it temporarily in service of a good discussion. If we are going to have that discussion, however, we should get an accurate diagnosis of the problem.

In his post on PrawfsBlawg, republished here on Bloggingheads, J.B. Ruhl contests the diagnosis offered by Paul Lippe: in a nutshell, “law graduates don’t acquire client-marketable skills, since so many law faculty don’t care much about the practice of law.”

Lippe espouses a view that is a widely held by practicing lawyers, and I have some sympathy for this critique. When I was interviewing for teaching jobs 15 years ago, I offered similar views. My practice experience at Skadden was a baptism by fire, and I didn’t want my students to have the same experience. So I told those who would listen to me that we should introduce a “transactional approach” to the classroom. At that time, many of us were inspired by Ronald Gilson’s famous article, Value Creation by Business Lawyers: Legal Skills and Asset Pricing, 94 Yale L.J. 239 (1984), and by the AALS Workshop on the Transactional Approach to Law, held on October 13-15, 1994. Over the years, the transactional approach has spread through law schools, and this summer a bunch of us who teach and write about transactions gathered in Long Beach for the AALS Workshop on Transactional Law.

Of course, this is only my little corner of the legal education universe, but it is typical of many innovations in law teaching over the past few decades that give law students are more realistic encounter with law practice. The proliferation of clinics, including business clinics, and externship programs are the most visible encroachment of skills training into the traditional law school. But we have also changed our teaching materials, relying more heavily on problems and case studies, and our curriculum, adding many innovative courses taught by tenure track and adjunct professors. Thus, after spending the last 15 years on this side of the podium at six different law schools, I believe that Lippe’s diagnosis is completely wrong. Most law faculty do care about the practice of law, and we are changing legal education to be more responsive to the demands of the market. (For a recent example of such efforts, see Dean Joanne Epps’ column about Temple’s law school in today’s National Law Journal.)

So if legal education falls short and the problem is not lack of faculty interest, what is the problem? Surely, part of the problem is the unrealistic standards imposed by law school critics. As noted by Professor Ruhl, we cannot realistically expect law schools to produce “fully functioning lawyers,” and critics who use that as a standard are bound to be disappointed with our graduates.

Even a less lofty standard, however, might result in disappointment. The Carnegie Report correctly concluded that law schools excel at teaching analytical skills, and in my experience, most legal employers value this training. Nevertheless, law schools probably fall short in teaching other skills relating to problem-solving, counseling, and advocacy for real-world clients. This is the core of the problem for most law school critics. They simply want law schools to do more, to go beyond what law schools have traditionally done well and teach other skills. Of course, this desire raises the nagging problem of opportunity costs: “More this and more that inevitably means less of something else.”

Now, at least, we can have an intelligent conversation. If you want law schools to teach more skills, what are you willing to give up? To his credit, Paul Lippe is willing to name his sacrifice: instruction in substantive law. See my earlier post and some wonderful discussion on this topic here. In my view, this sacrifice is largely unnecessary and probably counterproductive. But I will say more about that in a subsequent post.

Over at The Right Coast, Tom Smith makes a good observation here.  He reads the Rhode Island legislation as far from “flawed” — he suggests that it is carefully crafted to permit lap dancing.  I agree that lap dancing is outside the scope of the legislation.

This inspires a follow-on question.  Is lap dancing prostitution?  If prostitution is selling (or buying) use of a body for sexual pleasure, then I suppose the answer is yes.  Yet I follow this statement with the admission that I have extremely well-educated, seemingly polite and law-abiding male friends who freely acknowledge enjoying lap dances.  These men say they have never paid for intercourse (massages with so-called “happy endings” are another story, though).  I cringe at the idea of both the lap dance and paid intercourse, but I admit that I cringe a little less at a lap dance.  Why?  Maybe because I know so many men who have received them that it seems “normal”?  Because I don’t want to be the prissy one with “old tired ethics” raining on the boys’ parade? (Hat tip to Ariel Levy’s work.)  Surely that’s no theoretical defense of lap dancing.

So why might some people –Rhode Island legislators included, it seems – judge a lap dance more acceptable (or less offensive) than paid intercourse?  Is it because the health and safety risks to the woman are lower with a lap dance than with intercourse?  After all, lap dances typically are done in full view of others who can enforce a no-hands rule.

I wonder if the different attitudes toward lap dancing and prostitution are influenced by an unarticulated belief that the roles of exploiter and exploited are reversed in the lap dance scenario.  In other words, might a permissive attitude toward lap dances rely, at least in part, on the belief that those men who receive a lap dance lack a certain power and that those women who perform lap dances wield a certain power?  If so, is that assumption correct?

-Bridget Crawford

An interesting aspect of the Rhode Island legislation is the General Assembly bill’s definition of prostitution.   A person is guilty of prostitution when such person “engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee.”  Section 11-34.12.  “Sexual conduct” means “sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, any digital intrusion or intrusion by any object into the genital opening or anal opening of another person’s body, or by the stimulation by hand of another’s genitals for the purposes of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either person.”  Section 11-34-1.1 [sic].  The Senate bill does not define prostitution.

Legislative drafting is a difficult because language is an imperfect means of communication.  But I doubt that sponsoring Representatives Joanne M. Giannini, Elaine A. Coderre, Helio Melo, Al Gemma and Deborah A. Fellela intended to draft legislation that is flawed on its face.  Notice what is not defined as “sexual conduct” –genital stimulation with objects; fully-clothed, non-manual bodily stimulation (look, no hands!) …  the list goes on.  Furthermore, what constitutes a “fee”?  Does “paying” someone with groceries, dental services, an apartment constitute payment of a fee under this statute?

If this legislation is to be successful, Rhode Island legislators must define prostitution more carefully.

-Bridget Crawford

Villanova Law School’s Dean got a deliciously just dessert – Villanova is a Catholic university after all, so it’s no surprise that hypocrisy about sex should surface (see Senators Craig and Ensign and Governor Sanford, just to name a few other Christian moralist hypocrites).

Beyond the schadenfreude of the example, it actually points toward a real policy choice. Professor Crawford’s correct that an excellent way to crack down on prostitution is to focus on demand rather than supply. Anti-prostitution efforts until recently almost always centered on limiting supply – rounding up prostitutes and taking them off the streets or out of the brothels. This seemed like a sensible solution to male lawmakers who viewed prostitutes as responsible for their industry without regard to the economic inequality that leads many woman to engage in sex work.

Comparative law is helpful here. Sweden, for example, has a solution that focused on thinking of prostitution differently. In 1999, Sweden criminalized the buying of sex and decriminalized the selling of sex. The focus immediately switched from limiting supply to limiting demand. Unlike in the United States, where such criminal law efforts are pursued without regard to the social consequences. Enforcing a prostitution ban, whether by criminalizing the purchase or sale of sex, has serious effects on the livelihood of the people who perform sex work. Sweden, unsurprisingly for a social democracy, takes this into account by providing extensive social support systems for people who want to leave the sex work industry, including education and other support. The effect of the law has been a marked reduction in the number of prostitutes and the instances of sex trafficking into Sweden. The Swedish government’s argument for the law is as follows: “In Sweden prostitution is regarded as an aspect of male violence against women and children. It is officially acknowledged as a form of exploitation of women and children and constitutes a significant social problem… gender equality will remain unattainable so long as men buy, sell and exploit women and children by prostituting them.”

The Swedish example and the arrest of Dean Sargent both reflect an abolitionist stance. But many sex workers, such as those in Coyote (Call off your old tired ethics)http://www.coyotela.org/what_is.html
argue that engaging in sex work is part of their exercise of control over their bodies. Many third wave feminists, whose work Professor Crawford carefully theorizeshttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=887914
, would argue that sex work is part of self expression and it is retrograde to presume that women engaged in sex work have no agency. I’m not sure how persuasive I find those specific arguments, but I do have a hard time enunciating exactly what’s wrong with prostitution in theory. Unlike rape for instance, the sale of sex conceivably could be consensual, and then what’s wrong with it? As a utilitarian matter, though, it’s quite clear that prostitution harms the lives of real people in many contexts, and that for many sex workers, the level of consent is minimal at best.

Both chambers of the Rhode Island State legislature have passed bills to “crack down” on otherwise-legal indoor prostitution in that jurisdiction. Both bills aim to penalize both prostitutes and johns, but neither bill comes close to offering any meaningful protection for women. In the General Assembly version (here), a person found guilty of selling or buying sex faces a jail sentence of up to 6 months and a $250 fine. For repeat offenders, the penalty goes up to 12 months in jail and a $500 fine. The principal difference in the Senate version (here) is that the Senate bill imposes liability on landlords who knowingly permit prostitution on the premises and fail to “make reasonable effort to halt or abate such use.”

If Rhode Island were serious about stopping prostitution, the legislators should take a lesson from former Villanova Law School Dean Mark A. Sargent.  Sargent  has been implicated as a customer of a prostitution ring in Devon, Pennsylvania. (For coverage of that story, see here, here and here.) Apparently Mr. Sargent was “patronizing” a prostitute when the house was raided by police on November 25, 2008. Mr. Sargent abruptly stepped down from his post at Villanova (for “personal and medical reasons”) on June 29, four days before the Philadelphia Inquirer published the story detailing Sargent’s involvement. This suggests that Sargent did not resign until he got word that the story would go public. Sargent likely thought, with good reason, that he would suffer no repercussions from being caught.  After all, the legal system usually punishes the female prostitutes, not the johns.

Want to stop prostitution? Publish the names of the customers.

-Bridget Crawford

Chris’ well thought-out response to my initial post demonstrates that even among those who are not supporters of Governor Palin, there is broad-based agreement that she is likely to remain a significant figure in conservative electoral politics. I think the more significant point of contention is whether she warrants the level of attention and enthusiasm she garners, and whether she should be a credible candidate for office. However, I have to say that I think most of the seemingly endless discussions around this topic by the talking heads on cable, and throughout the blogosphere, are a frivolous, if not overtly cynical, waste of time.

Partly because most of the people who engage in these discussions are committed partisans who will never change their minds about Palin (pro or con). But more importantly because at this stage of the (non) election cycle, I think the time, energy, and sheer passion invested in these discussions would be far more productively spent debating issues rather than personalities. (My comment about the “overtly cynical” nature of many of these discussions is in reference to the fact that they are often initiated chiefly to stir up controversy and boost traffic/ratings.)

But of course the fact that there continues to be so much interest in Sarah Palin as a media personality only reinforces my point about the emerging preeminence of celebrity politics – another point in which Chris and I seem to be mostly in agreement. However, whether she can translate her undeniable “Q-rating” into broader electoral support remains a point of contention between us.

This is where I think some recent poll data on Sarah Palin’s post-resignation popularity may be enlightening. While the headline on this Rasmussen poll released last week declares that a not insignificant 40% of GOP voters believe that her resignation will hurt her chances in 2012, there is more encouraging data buried within the poll results. The survey included standard favorability ratings comparing the leading GOP candidates for 2012. Palin rated at the top of the list with a 76% overall favorability rating (Romney was a close second at 73%), and she finished just below Romney on the question of who the respondents would pick as their candidate for President in 2012.

And of greater relevance to the question of whether she can expand her support, this Gallup survey of all voters from last week demonstrates not only that Palin continues to garner very strong support amongst Republicans, with 72% saying they’d be likely to vote for her in 2012, but that even among independent voters, a healthy 44% say they would be at least somewhat likely to vote for her. Considering how far off 2012 is at this stage, I think she is actually starting with a decent level of support, even among independents. And this in spite of what most conservatives view as a biased and unfair media focus on her perceived shortcomings over the past 9 months. (In fact, this same poll demonstrates that 53% of all Americans view Palin’s media coverage as “unfairly negative”).

Which makes this a good time to bring up Chris’ claim that Palin is doing herself no favors by continuing to directly criticize the media for their treatment of her. The problem with this assertion is that it is mostly untrue. While conservatives at large have protested loudly and often to this effect, Palin herself has by and large ignored the media onslaught against her, both prior to and subsequent to the election. No doubt Chris or other opponents can single out a complaint or two from Palin (e.g. in reference to the Letterman dust-up or even her recent resignation speech). But when considered in proportion to the sheer volume of mostly negative, and in some cases completely outrageous, media coverage of Palin beginning last August, I think it’s patently unfair to suggest that she has made a point of portraying herself as a victim of the media. I see this as just another liberal meme propagated by the denizens of HuffPo, DailyKos, etc., which has virtually no basis in fact.

Now on this topic, I’d like to concede that Chris’ last post demonstrates I think that it would be unfair to characterize his own viewpoints as “stridently liberal”. In fact, in some ways his assessment of the issues surrounding Palin is more balanced than what I’ve read from some who identify themselves as staunch conservatives. But I do think Chris’ recital of some of the standard criticisms of Palin demonstrates the degree to which his own bias influences the sources he reads and considers, and ultimately his perspective. For example, he falsely attributes Tina Fey’s “I can see Russia from my house” line to Palin. A joke which was based on an actual interview Palin did with ABC’s Charlie Gibson. However, I think any objective observer would have to admit this was overall a fairly impressive performance on her part. (Demonstrated by the fact that her haters seized on and propagated her less impressive performance with Katie Couric.)

Chris also fairly points out that I failed to address the more substantive criticisms of Palin’s performance during the campaign (e.g. the Couric interview). It would be silly of course for me to argue that her performance with Couric and in all other circumstances was flawless. With the lights on and camera running, every candidate says things they regret, and forgets things in the pressure of the moment. I think the most telling point to make with regards to this is to consider the current holder of the Office of Vice President. Seriously, has there ever been a more prolific source of gaffes than Joe Biden? Yet, I don’t remember anyone outside of the conservative realm seriously questioning whether Biden was a liability for the Obama campaign. Frankly, I don’t remember any of his numerous verbal screw-ups being covered by the mainstream media at all. Certainly not to the degree which Palin’s faux-pas were magnified and perpetuated throughout the media. My point is not that these aren’t fair criticisms of Palin, but that how one evaluates the long-term significance of these types of issues tends to be based on the perspective you come in with.

I want to make just one more important point with regards to this discussion for now. As anyone knows who has followed or participated in debates related to Palin in the blogging world, these discussions commonly devolve into name-calling sessions where any conservative who opposes Palin is labeled as an “elitist”. With the reverse implication being that you must be a Bible-thumping hick with limited intellectual capacity in order to see any good reason to support her. Not only are these types of discussions wholly unproductive, but I think they also mask a more important discussion which should be taking place amongst conservatives. And that is the role of government within society.

A core principle for many conservatives, myself included, is that the government should play a relatively limited role within society, as intended by the Constitution. Rather than looking at government as the solution to every problem, in overly simplified terms, we want a government which protects our basic rights and freedoms and then gets the heck out of the way. So as a corollary to this, we aren’t looking for political leaders who see the government as the solution to every problem. We’re looking for leaders who share our core principles of individual liberty and responsibility, and who respect the traditions and historical greatness of America. As a result, for many conservatives it really isn’t all that important for our leaders to be uber-geniuses when it comes to law and policy. Or for them to have extensive experience within the institutions of government. (In fact, this may even be considered a liability.) And of course with the preeminence of individualism, and the private sector over the public, personal accomplishments and business success count for a lot.

I think only in this context can the enthusiasm and support for Sarah Palin be understood. But reasonable people can disagree, and many serious-minded Republicans have legitimate concerns as to whether Sarah Palin has the requisite qualifications and experience to be considered a credible candidate. Especially in relation to other possible candidates. And it’s not unreasonable for limited government advocates to share these concerns as well. But her greatest appeal I believe will be to those who share and are inspired by these values. And if she chooses to run, I think the opportunity to expand her base of support will be in attracting more people to the conservative movement, not in trying to reinvent herself as a policy wonk. By 2012, there will likely be an even larger contingent of Americans who’ve grown tired of the government asserting itself over every sector of our society. Sarah Palin may very well have the combination of core values, personal charisma, and political acumen necessary to successfully launch the next phase of the conservative movement.

Thanks to Morgen for his sharp response and very kind words towards myself and my fellow co-blogging members of the League of Gentlemen (though I assure you we are quite ordinary).

I agree with Morgen’s argument that Sarah Palin can not run a national campaign from Alaska so it makes sense for a number of reasons for her to roll the dice and attempt to claim territory in the now wide open leadership void within the GOP.  I also agree with his analysis of campaigns (particularly post-Obama but preceding him) as built around celebrity-hood and personality issues.  In comparison to a Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, whatever else is to be said about her, has wattage. It can be argued that the media loves to hate her, but that attitude still involves love.  By media standards a Romney or Pawlenty is a nothing-burger (again fair or unfair, that’s the harsh truth of the media-age politics).

I don’t think however that she has a strong chance of moving that personality politics movement into an elected position going forward.  So perhaps we arguing over our sense of the meaning of success/failure.  If she continues on, let’s imagine gets the GOP nomination (which I still think is a fairly outside shot), then loses (maybe big-time) to Obama, did she fail?  Did she succeed?  Did she ever really have a chance?

Whatever the answers to those question, she needs to find some concrete outlet or the same media technologies and fascination that has fueled interest in her will quickly dissipate (out beyond her core following). I doubt she will want to go for a Alaskan Congressional seat.  She could perhaps find some place on a board at a political advocacy group like American Enterprise or something.  Morgen mentions new media technologies as a possible outlet and that certainly is a possibility (maybe a talk radio show, webepisodes of political commentary, and the like, I don’t know).

Morgen is right that I did think (and continue to think) that Sarah Palin was unqualified for a job of Vice President and therefore of President.  But I don’t agree with his characterization of my position as expressing the  most “stridently liberal interpretation of these types of issues”.  On the specific Letterman point, Letterman made an awful completely out of line joke–which he himself admitted and apologized for, genuinely apologized for I believe and offered a hand for reconciliation and she came back continuing to (as I said) pick the fight.  She could have accepted his apology and appeared magnanimous.  Instead to me it showed a kind of subordination of everything to her belief in being persecuted by the media.  It became a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy and that has only left her open to more criticism which again I think hurts.

As she (in)famously said you can’t blink.  You can’t back down.  That attitude that earned her the nickname Barrucuda endears her to some, but turns her off to others she desperately needs if she ever wants to fulfill the higher ambitions for which I think she feels herself destined.  One thing to be a fighter; another to be unwilling to admit you have ever goofed.  I’m not sure it’s a guaranteed dealbreaker (few things in politics are), but on balance I believe they hurt.

For some perspective, I actually thought some of the coverage of her during the campaign (and since) has been very unfair.  I don’t think she is in anyway some special breed of specifically horrible politician.  I think of her as pretty much a normal politician in our contemporary US age:  probably a little thin-skinned, highly ambitious, not entirely clear on their governing philosophies or how to concretely effect change, and generally more interested in winning than in governing.  That might be considered a cynical view, but it’s not singling her out for special approbation.  I’ve never understood this kind of special animus towards her.  Her persona is certainly unique in it’s way, but it doesn’t strike me as fundamentally different from the rest.  In fact, I think she’s pretty normal…for a US politician.  That’s hardly the most stridently liberal position on Sarah Palin.

And to be even fairer to Sarah Palin, the fact that I thought her at the time unqualified for the job of Vice President was really a criticism of John McCain not Sarah Palin.  He picked her without it seems to me adequately having assessed her past, her person, her capacity for the job, etc.  That reflected poorly on McCain and his campaign.

Now that Sarah Palin is wanting to move out into her own, however, that political albatross is around her neck.  Protestations of unfair treatment from the media are not going to endear her long term to the kinds of people she needs to move to her side.  That kind of rhetoric I believe only appeals to those already within that politico-linguistic worldspace.  In what I will call a reverse Nixon, she’s not going have the media to kick around forever–at least in a way that will win her expanding support.

To be clear, it isn’t only the drama/potential scandal elements that float around Palin alone that hurt her image with the broader public in my mind but events like the Katie Couric interview, the “I can see Russia from my house” comment, as well as the cultural warrior stance that is the real problem for her.  Morgen I don’t think adequately responded to those criticisms, instead focusing alone on the scandal tabloidish/liberal media bias angle, usually a deflecting defensive ploy by Palin herself and her supporters.

When even Bill Kristol says that she needs to work hard studying for issues in order to win over skeptics, then you know she needs some work.  When Peggy Noonan writes this, you got problems.  Like Lucy, Sarah’s got some ’splaining (not blaming) to do.

–

Afterthought:

Re: the poll Morgen cited concerning the Upper Midwest, those numbers could support an alternate theory as well.

While it’s true conservative identification has risen slightly in those states, the analysis of that poll reads:

A plurality of residents in each of the three Upper Midwestern states view themselves as politically moderate – averaging 45.3 percent in Minnesota, 42.4 percent in Iowa, and 41.1 percent in Wisconsin during this five-year span.

My central point is that Palin has a very negative image with moderates.  We already know she has stratospheric uber-negatives among liberals. I think this negative press hurts because it can give credence to the prime vulnerability to Palin (esp. among moderates/independents):  her perceived lack of readiness.  The only bad press that really hurts is the stuff that re-confirms the negative storyline.

That fact–not the negative press itself–is what is really hurting her with the party GOP establishment.  For her to capitalize on her grassroots support will require donors, funding, and some support from the bigwigs in the party.  If this GOP uptick Morgen points to is going to be leveraged by Palin she is going to have to have some party support.  Acting in the manner she has been of late (again not even really the decision itself but the poorly, shoddily way it’s been handled) is really closing some doors she needs to stay open.

During campaigns one, sometimes two, issues/concerns/events come to override the rest and the election often becomes a ratification or nullification of various candidates’ responses to those events.  In 2008 it was the economic crisis, which McCain handled very poorly and as a result lost.

Sarah Palin will need to work on a number of issues so that when something does break in a campaign, she will be able to respond. Otherwise those moderates will remember the VP candidate who turned them off in ‘08, assuming she even gets that far.

Thank you Chris for getting this kicked off. Prior to starting this debate, I had a chance to review some of your work over at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen blog. And I must commend you and your co-bloggers for generally staying true to your moniker. (The “Gentleman” part, not the “Ordinary”). You run a very thought-provoking site with a respectful tone towards your audience and commenters. Which is a relative rarity in the blogging arena – so kudos. And on to the debate!

I guess I have to open by saying that it seems it would not be all that unreasonable for me to declare victory on the basis of your opening statement alone. For if the primary subject of this debate is whether Sarah Palin’s resignation will end, or even just be detrimental, to her political career, it seems we may be generally in agreement. I am referring of course to the fact that you seem to have readily conceded that she will continue to be a major factor in conservative politics moving forward, and in fact go so far as to say that you could see her “making a serious run (maybe even winning) the GOP nomination”. (Granted, you qualified this statement by saying “with luck” you could see her doing so).

Of course you also seem to indicate by your statements that you personally feel she is unqualified for office at a national level. While you are certainly entitled to hold this opinion, and are one of many who do so, I would like to take issue with a couple of the statements you made in relation to this.

In particular, I take exception to your statement that the “demographic population of [Palin's] base is shrinking”. Recent poll results indicate that this is clearly not the case. For example, there is this recent analysis of poll results in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin which demonstrates that there has been a significant upswing in conservatism in these states over the past 2 years. I think this sampling is very significant as these are all states which Obama handily won, yet also represent the type of middle America sort of states where Palin is likely to have the broadest appeal.  And furthermore, at a national level this Gallup poll from just last month clearly demonstrates that far from being on the wane, the self-identification of voters as “conservative” is in the midst of a significant upswing. A trend which I think will only be accelerated by the failed policies and massive deficit spending of the Obama Administration.

I also think you greatly overstate the impact Palin’s various personal “scandals” have had on the broader electorate’s perception of her. To a large extent these scandals have been generated and/or perpetuated by the tabloid-like media focus on her and her family. A reader need look no further than your comment that Palin was “picking fights with David Letterman” to pick up on the biased angle in which you have personally evaluated these events. Letterman was completely out of order in his comments about Palin’s daughter, and what mother of any decency would not take issue with this…much less a public figure of Palin’s stature. Frankly, I find it somewhere between surprising and disappointing that you seem to have adopted the most stridently liberal interpretation of these types of issues surrounding Palin. (Although far from the blatantly dishonest and insane level of fixation that someone like Andrew Sullivan has demonstrated). I am confident that the average non-partisan, American voter has a far more balanced impression of Palin, and sees most of these faux-controversies as the tabloid fodder they are.

(I believe recent poll data from after Palin’s resignation was announced corroborates this claim, but in the interest of moving this discussion along I will save a look at this for a future post.)

Let me quickly run through what I think is the most significant point regarding Palin’s resignation, and the impact it will have on her career going forward. First of all, I do not believe stepping down as Governor of AK was a calculated move on her part to further her political career. However, as I noted in my post on this topic at Verum Serum, I do think that her resignation will ultimately prove to have been a good move towards this end. (If a national political career of some sort is her objective, which certainly seems to be the case.) The reason is simple. The dynamics of national level politics are changing rapidly, with the concentration of power, influence, and money shifting from national party structures to focused, popularity-based campaigns centered around individual candidates and issues-based groups. (I called this the “era of politician as celebrity” on my blog). The proliferation of internet access/usage and the advent of social networking tools such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. has hastened this along, and frankly I think we are still in the relatively early stages of this revolution. In other words, the success of the Obama campaign was only a preview of the impact this celebrity-based approach and use of internet technology will have going forward.

Sticking around governing the State of AK (which most in the Lower 48 pay no attention to), while dealing with an endless stream of frivolous ethical complaints, and unfair personal attacks on her and her family, would have afforded Palin very little time and energy to further advance her agenda and base of support amongst a broader national audience. While personally I think it may be best for her to get out of the spotlight for a while, and remove herself from the line of fire (including “friendly” fire), she will now have plenty of time to regain the enthusiasm and sense of purpose which attracted so many to her to begin with. And in the process I believe she can get a head start on leveraging all the new media technologies to expound on her vision/agenda and expand her base of support.

I am in full agreement with Chris that it will be key for Palin to do so in order to be a serious candidate for national office in 2012…or 2016. However, as noted above, we seem to have some serious disagreements about the challenges she may face in the process. But what fun would a debate be without some disagreement? Personally, I think Sarah Palin has an incredible future ahead of her. She is a rare talent who possesses the combination of character and ability necessary to inspire and garner support amongst a diverse group of Americans. And there is no question that if it’s her desire to do so, she will be a significant factor in conservative politics and the movement at large going forward.

This is a very difficult topic to discuss.  Sarah Palin evokes all kinds of reactions from all sides of the political spectrum. Most of which (in my mind) not of the calm reasoned well-thought out variety–either in favor or opposed.

Furthermore it’s challenging to discuss the question of her future political career (or lack thereof)  post-resignation because we frankly still don’t know why exactly she resigned and/or what she is aiming to do as she leaves the Governor’s office.  There are many hypotheses as to why she resigned, but no one really knows for sure. At this point it’s all very much speculation.

In addition, there is no way anyone can know either way how this will all turn out.  The future is not already written on this one.  It’s open to all kinds of choices yet to be made as well potential outside events that could affect how this develops.  What I do know is that however it plays out for Sarah Palin, pundits will deploy 20/20 hindsight ‘it was all inevitable’ reason to argue that her downfall (or potential comeback) was set in stone.  That this decision was either the biggest bonehead move ever or the cagiest most genius political maneuver ever.

With that said, allow me to speculate. 

The only thing it seems to me we do know with certainty is what Palin has said concerning her intentions.  Namely that she desires to speak to the issues that matter to her: limited government, strong defense/security, and energy independence.  She would like I think to be a central figure in the upcoming 2010 midterm elections, campaigning on behalf of GOP candidates, using that as forum to test the waters for a possible 2012 run and establish herself as the de facto leading voice/head of the GOP.

And this is where I think the execution of her decision–if not the decision itself–has been really destructive to any future plans she has.  Word is out that a number of GOP candidates in swing districts would like her to stay home–or at least campaign for somebody else.  We know Sarah Palin is very popular with the right-wing base of the Republican Party.  But she has burned bridges (to nowhere?) with a large swath of centrists and independents.

The longer she is in the news picking fights with David Letterman, having the father of her grandchild speak to the media, seen to have forced her daughter into reversing her position on abstinence teaching, the more tabloid/reality TV-like the family drama continues to be, the more this really hurts her across the board except in the minds of those who are already on her side. For them, this is just proof of liberal media bias and a campaign to discredit Sarah Palin because she represents the true voice of ‘real’ America.

She doesn’t need to convince that latter group however.  She needs the former to be more open to her, and this kind of stuff is corrosive to her political image in the minds of those she most needs to persuade.

If Republicans in swing districts fear her polarizing tendencies, where does she go from here?  She wants to run (I think) an insurgent campaign for the 2012 GOP nomination.  She has no choice really.  The GOP party establishment has largely abandoned her and would like to see her go away (preferably quietly).  I think she is trying to re-run her somewhat improbable victory in the Alaska Governor’s Race. She starts with a fairly small, ultra-loyal, right-wing base and then uses that as a launchpad to run as a more moderate/centrist reformer/good governance figure in the general election.

However in that case, she was a political newcomer to much of the State.  She is now extremely well known–or more importantly people think they know her and have formed strong images/perceptions of her.  She evokes strong reactions on both sides which explains both her high favorability ratings within the party and her high unfavorability ratings outside the GOP base.

Three years is a near eternity in our contemporary 24/7 cable news political cycle.  Nevertheless, strong gut opinions formed on a candidate tend to stick.  And her rambling quasi-incoherent slapdash speech at her press conference announcing her resignation, her followup bizarre less than grammatically precise Tweets, etc. all play into the negative image of her as unprepared and un-reflective.  Contrary to some consenus views, I don’t think the charge of being a quitter is the one Palin really has to worry about, but rather the charge that she can’t hack it when  the pressure is on.   To that end, Mike Huckabee, her prime rival for the social conservative vote, came out and said she might not be able to handle the pressure–implying without saying that she is unbalanced.  That’s a brutal label she does not want sticking to her.  Especially if she were to ever run against the ultra-calm, ultra-cool Obama.

Still even with her big following in the GOP base, the GOP nomination process will work against her.  It will work against an insurgent candidacy.  Obama’s insurgent campaign, was both brilliantly conceived and the beneficiary of A)Hillary Clinton’s poor campaign strategy and B)The Democratic nominating process.  [Remember the GOP nomination process is winner take all (not proportional delegates as Democrats do].  I have to think that most of the GOP candidates we imagine running in 2012 (e.g. Huckabee, Romney) ran last time and will have learned those lessons.  If she can not get some early wins she will sink like lead.

Lastly and perhaps most distressingly for her chances, the demographic population of her base is shrinking.  Obama won in 2008 by offering an alternative vision for 21st century–it was on display at the Democratic Convention in Denver.  It was multi-racial, multi-ethnic, it was young, old, crossed class lines.  How will Sarah Palin expand beyond her base on the national level? What does Sarah represent as a future vision?  A throwback to a nostalgic imagined past of small town ‘real’  America?

At their absolute worst her campaigns during the 2008 election evoked extremely nasty protestations against “them”, “the others”.  If she were to run for President, those would only be even more magnified by the national media.

Not only does Sarah Palin add fuel to the fire of the culture wars (with her stances on abortion and so forth) but also stokes a potential racial/ethnic divide.  The US writ-large is not Alaska.  The country is trending Democratic and to overcome that built-in advantage, she (any Republican actually) will have to overcome.  Her Nixonian crusade against the elites may not have the pull it once did.  We’ll see–maybe there’s a silent majority out there for her.   I’m quite skeptical.

She will have to thread the needle of stoking her base without stoking fires.  This is the media age. All politics occurs through the medium of medias.  Any such outbursts, whether fairly or unfairly will really hurt her chances.  Such negative videos, confirming negative stereotypes, would only further and further alienate and turn other voters outside her base against her.

I could see her with some luck potentially making a serious run (maybe even winning) the GOP nomination.  But I don’t see any way she can win out in a larger setting.  If the 2012 election is going to be a referendum on President Obama’s first term–as re-election campaigns usually are–and let’s imagine things are going very badly for the country and for him politically at that point, a Sarah Palin nomination takes the focus off turning down Obama for re-election and puts it squarely back on Sarah herself and perceptions about her readiness (mentally especially) for the job.

That is needless to say, a lot to ask.  And given her stormy political career so far and the unimaginable pressure of a national campaign in this age, I don’t see how it happens.  Do we imagine that all the same kinds of problems–political infighting, gut decisions made before thinking through the ramifications or how to proceed with the decision, lacking a real clear policy agenda, and a perceived lack of interest in world events–is going to do anything but be magnified by a factor of 100 in a national campaign?

She would really need to convince a large swath of very skeptical/pretty much already made up their minds voters, that she has changed…that she has boned up on world events, that she has a sense of perspective on the various different strands that make up America (and all of them rightly being considered American, hers being but one version thereof), and a whole host of other things.

It’s a tall order. A very tall order.