Rubin: Is this all the Times has on Palin?

Palin's sudden ascent from petty small town/state despot to national prominence recalls an important issue in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates. From Herbert Storing’s book, What the Anti-Federalists Were For (pp. 43-44):

The Anti-Federalists complained that in a large republic the people will not in practice be able to choose men like themselves, and the representative body will inevitably be composed of the natural aristocracy. In large districts, “a common man must ask a man of influence how he is to proceed, and for whom he must vote,” and the only men with a chance of being elected are those of “conspicuous military, popular, civil or legal talents.” … The Federalist case for representation is the likelihood that it will produce a government with a capacity to govern well. The probability is increased in an extensive republic, which is more likely to put forward “proper guardians of the public weal” and less susceptible to electoral corruption than a small one. Corruption is difficult where there are many to bribe, and the large district is protection against other forms of “bribery” such as demagoguery and appeals to narrow interests. Petty republics and small districts are the natural homes of petty men. “It is only in remote corners of a government,” James Wilson thought, “that little demagogues arise. Nothing but real weight of character, can give a man real influence over a large district.” In a large district an aspiring politician has to seek a wide base of support, and this increased the likelihood of his taking a broad view or at least decreased the chances of narrow partiality. “The little demagogue of a petty parish or county will find his importance annihilated, and his intrigues useless, when several counties join in an election; he probably would not be known, certainly not regarded, out of his own circle, while the man whose abilities and virtue had extended a fair reputation beyond the limits of his county, would, nine times out of ten, be the person who would be the choice of the people.” For the Federalists, then, representation is a mode of selecting for rulers the best men, or at least better than average; and the large districts of the large republic increases the chance of securing such men.

Palin has only been a “reformist” when it has served her political ambition and elimated opponents. She has behaved like a “little demagogue” in the “petty republic” of AK, and “bribed” its citizens with oil welfare checks. Obama’s South Side of Chicago has corruption and demagogues aplenty, but at least he’s shown the “abilities and virtue” to have a broad national appeal to people, despite not being “like themselves,” the sole source of Palin’s appeal. She is hardly a member of the "natural aristocracy," and has demonstrated no abilitiy that she would govern a large republic well, much less a small one.

Now that we are allowed to finally ask questions about Palin and we are going to focus on substance instead of mystique, we need these kinds of stories. It is instructive that the "first dude" is included on official, government conversations about personnel decisions and that she includes him while excluding others. It is instructive that she's perceived as largely absent from the official workings of the legislature and that she refuses to meet with local officials. That is viewed as distant and unconnected to policymaking, beyond a close circle of old friends, is something that's helpful in evaluating her record, instead of who she chats with at the Beehive while getting her hair done.