Palin: guerrilla warfare and Reagan as a thinker

Joe Pyrah makes good points. Why didn't she do a better speech? Doesn't she owe it to people who voter for her?

Is she just a charismatic figure without the backbone to stick to something?

Or is she something different?

GUERRILLA FIGHTING

Here's a hypothesis, offered in the scientific spirit; it may be wrong; but, just as an idea:

If she runs a conventional campaign, she will lose, as a revolutionary army cannot win a conventional war against regular forces.

That's what she found in the Alaska governor's office. She was pinned down, and exposed to air and heavy armor attacks by the media and political establishment.

She has to go guerrilla. She has to attack when the conventional forces least expect it -- July 4th weekend, for instance.

She has, as it were, gone into the hills. She will sally out at times and places of her choosing -- speeches for conservative candidates, perhaps gigs on Fox News or talk radio, writing a book — then retreat before the conventional media can bring all their firepower to bear.

It also may be that her personality, even the many shifts, are suitable for our age. This isn't to give our age any medals. It's just to say that in the age of Twitter and multi-tasking, her style may fit in.

Maybe she just is a flake. But here's the thing: a politician challenging the establishment by definition will look flaky too.

She just connects to people. Nobody can explain it. It isn't fair. But she does.

Of course, that is indeed her weakness. A populist can be blown along by the people. And there's little sign the people won't want bigger government, in the end, if not led well.

RONALD REAGAN

I am not one of those conservatives who fawn over Reagan. I volunteered for Ted Kennedy in '80, so I have no nostalgia for him. No personal tie; I find him cold and odd as a human being.

But I grudgingly acknowledge his accomplishments.

Also, he's an interesting comparison to her. Eureka College, then an acting career. But

1. He had to learn. He changed. He went from FDR liberal to a conservative. He had to think about it. He had to find out about conservatism.

Palin, in contrast, comes to conservatism naturally. So, does she really understand it?

In this case, she is no different from 99 percent of Republicans. They scream about deficit spending -- but take the money. They say Obama spends too much -- but can't say how much.

They don't have the theory. That's why they can't say no, in the end, to almost anything.

Palin has to pick up the knowledge. I'm not sure books are the way in our post-book age. I'm not hailing that, just seeing it.

But she has to talk to a lot of smart people, she has to grasp the ideas, and incorporate them into her life.

2. Reagan got the ideas. I'm not saying he was a modern academic thinker. But he thought about all these ideas. He got to the core. And he understood it.

Plenty of politicians can parrot the conservative slogans in, say, Austin or Provo. But can they keep it up, even in Washington?

Reagan had the intellectual grounding. He gave speeches year after year, he did all those radio talks. It's possible to exaggerate what this means; but it's also possible to miss the significance. Maybe he didn't get the nuances. So what? He got the core.

And, as someone who worked in Hollywood and lived in California, he must have taken the heat. As president, he took the heat?

Can she? Right now, now.

On the other hand, she's just a baby politician. As one pundit pointed out, she could be around for decades. She could change and grow. Or flame out.