Robert David Sullivan 2

Palin's bad timing: The world is "too dangerous" for her right now

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan has been getting a lot of attention for her post-election takedown of Sarah Palin as an intellectual lightweight. But Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, is careful to avoid the implication that it's always been a bad idea to send ill-informed people to the White House. Here's her rationale for turning against Republican VP nominee Palin:

Here's why all this matters. The world is a dangerous place. It has never been more so, or more complicated, more straining of the reasoning powers of those with actual genius and true judgment. This is a time for conservative leaders who know how to think.

The world has never been more dangerous? Not even during the Great Depression or Cold War? Or the Black Plague? I'm open to the argument that human existence is at its most precarious because of climate change, but Noonan doesn't include that in her list:

Here are a few examples of what we may face in the next 10 years: a profound and prolonged American crash, with the admission of bankruptcy and the spread of deep social unrest; one or more American cities getting hit with weapons of mass destruction from an unknown source; faint glimmers of actual secessionist movements as Americans for various reasons and in various areas decide the burdens and assumptions of the federal government are no longer attractive or legitimate.

I don't see how Noonan's reasoning is any different than the cliche that each presidential election is "the most important ever."

I also wonder whether Noonan is giving herself room to back a Palin-caliber candidate in the future. The "prolonged American crash" probably won't last forever, and recovery is bound to bring another George W. Bush ready to run for president on the promise of tax cuts and more tax cuts. Noonan notes of Palin's national candidacy that "in another age it might not have been terrible." Will that "other age" be back in 2012 or 2016?

An Obama backlash among rural political scientists?

Barack Obama is the most urban president in US history (no horseback riding or clearing brush on his vacations), so it's inevitable that Jeffersonians are trying to shore up their forever-disproportionate power in American politics. Exhibit A: An article by a University of Iowa professor and a University of Missouri professor defending Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses. Here's the concluding paragraph of "Iowa: The Most Representative State?" in the January issue of PS: Political Science & Politics:

Is Iowa representative? Yes, at least reasonably so. And when it is not, that is often because it boasts a superior performance socially (e.g., educational attainment) or politically (e.g., voting turnout). Further, with respect to other social goods, it might be mentioned that the politics of Iowa is well known to be corruption free. If indicators on corruption had been included in our analysis, they would be expected to boost its ranking higher. With respect to the leading dimension of economic conditions, which we did measure, Iowa is unambiguously the most representative state in the country. In addition, its geographic and historic centrality, commented on initially, should not be forgotten. All things considered, there seems no cause to take away Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential selection status. If one state must hold this position then it is hard to make a better pick. Although of course not impossible, if one accepts the first-place ranking of Kansas.

What this supposedly representative state does not have is any of the 109 largest cities in America -- or a population that is less than 91 percent non-Hispanic white. (Kansas is indeed more cosmopolitan: Wichita is the nation's 51st biggest city, and the state has a population that is 81 percent non-Hispanic white.)