Charlie Gibson's Hubris

Perhaps it's the downward glance over the lowered spectacles that gives the ABC anchor the look of the schoolmaster who always knows better than you. But it seemed clear that Charlie Gibson's intent was to expose Sarah Palin's apparent lack of experience during her first ever full length press interview. I'm still waiting after two years for the Democratic Presidential contender to get the same kind of grilling.

But Gibson made a couple of crucial mistakes that show his own lack of understanding of the subject matter. At one point, Gibson queried Palin about whether she supported the Bush Doctrine without identifying what it was. Palin looked as if she was waiting for clarification and asked, "in what aspect Charlie?" At which point Gibson sensed a 'gotcha' moment and pounced. He chose to let her squirm while he left the answer of exactly what the Bush Doctrine was hanging in silence.

Apparently Gibson thinks the "Bush Doctrine" means only one thing which should be readily apparent to any village idiot. But he is decidedly wrong on that point. Gibson finally relented after letting her fumble around for his meaning and said he was referring to the "preemptive strike" aspect of the administration's policy.

Palin was completely correct to ask "in what aspect" because even foreign policy experts cannot agree on what is meant by the term. It includes the stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy, increased unilateralism in foreign policy, an expanded view of American national security interests, and more including the issue of preemptively striking nations that pose a national security threat.

Jacob Weisberg in his book the Bush Tragedy, a decidedly anti-adminstration piece, identifies six different "Bush Doctrines". While former Bush staffer Peter Feaver identifies seven! I would join Palin in asking, "In what aspect, Charlie?"

Many scholars actually suggest that there is no one underlying unified theory to define what is meant by "Bush Doctrine". So really, what Gibson was doing was creating a trick question meant to shame and embarrass the interviewee. Someone without that intent would simply have clarified by explaining what they meant.

Secondarily, Gibson also tried to trap Palin at the outset by asking whether she expressed any doubt about her ability to be President. And when Palin said she didn't blink when asked, he responded that her attitude sounded 'like hubris'. But labeling confidence as 'hubris' is a judgment call that can only be made if Gibson believes she is not qualified and therefore should be asking the question. Had she expressed any doubt of her convictions in her answer, she would have been portrayed as weak. She didn't give him that, so he chose another negative way to frame her response.

It is Gibson's arrogance, rather than Palin's that was on display during the ABC interview. The only fault I have for her is that she didn't return the favor by putting him on the spot by insisting that he clarify his question in order for her to answer. She should have embarrassed him in return by saying, "Charlie, as you know scholars can't agree on what the Bush Doctrine is. Unless you clarify your question, I can't tell you whether I agree with it." It's understandable under the circumstances that she didn't. All in all, she handled it well. He on the other hand did not.