I haven’t written a whole lot about Palin, because a) I find the whole thing somewhat depressing, and b) it merely confirmed a lot of what I’d already thought about McCain’s lack of judgement and integrity, and frankly, there wasn’t much chance of me voting for the old man even before he picked a demonstrably unqualified right-wing nutjob to be his second.

Still, it’s obvious that the pick has had a real effect on the race– the right-wing evangelicals have one of their own to get excited about, and it’s crazy the number of them I’ve seen gloss right over the top of the ticket and explain to the camera why they’re so excited about voting for Sarah. On the Newshour this week, one of them even described her as “the next President of the United States.” I mean, how does John feel about that?

Anyway, two takes on this that I’ve seen in the last couple days that seem important. First, James Fallows writing at the Atlantic, explains why her “What Bush Doctrine?” moment with Charlie Gibson the other night should be a disqualification for higher office:

Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A. 

Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.

Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals. 

People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture,  the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (blush) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion.  So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

There’s more at the link, and worth your time to read it. The bottom line: Sarah Palin is the second coming of George W. Bush: a toxic combination of righteous self-assurance and a complete ignorance about the issues we need our leaders to be experts on. Scary.

Even scarier, it seems she has real appeal beyond the hard core evangelical base. Via Ta-Nehisi Coates, we get this column from Marc Fisher in the Washington Post, detailing how some women are embracing her because she’s just like them.

"She's just as flawed as we are," Tweddle said. "It's not the fact that she's a woman but the way she does it all. And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real."

...

Like many at the rally, Victoria Robinson-Worst sees Palin's lack of experience as an asset. "I know people who have experience who are totally incompetent," said Robinson-Worst, who lives in Loudoun County, designs wedding flowers and raises two children. "And I know people who have no experience who step in and get it right. I mean, women can do amazing things."

This is where culture wars, identity politics and self-suffocating academic theories of deconstructionism have led us: Authority is suspect. Experience is corrupting. Ignorance is strength?

Next will be "war is peace." Or have we already heard that one?

Again, the whole thing is definitely worth reading, and man does it ever depress me. This is the worst of America: suspicious of elites, eager to embrace ignorance as some badge of authenticity, dividing us up into us v. them. It’s been part of the Republican game plan for a generation, and it still works.

Leave aside the policies that have left us poorer economically, in reputation around the world, and morally, in all our torture-embracing ugliness. Bush, Palin, and all their fellow travelers deserve our undying enmity for that alone.