A lot of people here lump Palin together with Bush, and even Reagan, as brainless politicians. In a sense, we were crying wolf by calling Reagan an idiot, because he seemed brilliant compared to Bush. And Bush seems brilliant compared to Palin.
I don't, by the way, believe that any of them were/are literally stupid (though Bush and Palin are definitely incompetent). I know that probably puts me in the minority here. I think Bush and Palin deliberately play to the lowest common denominator. Their folksy anti-intellectualism represents the end result of something that's been going on in conservative circles for decades. What started out as attacks on elitism degenerated into attacks on anyone who reads a book (that was Bush's innovation) right down to anyone who reads a newspaper (Palin). I don't know what's next. Attack people who read shopping lists, I guess.
Palin's gambit, however, isn't working the way it did with Bush and Reagan, and it's not simply because the country has grown out of it. It's because she's just not that good at it.
By saying that Palin is just as stupid as Bush, let alone Reagan, we overestimate her abilities. Reagan was a gifted politician. Many liberals don't like to admit it, but he was. He did put his foot in his mouth a lot (remember "I've been told that in the Russian language, there isn't even a word for freedom"?), but what's striking is that he got away with it, over and over. He had both the charisma and the savvy to handle his opponents, and the media's infatuation with him wasn't blind luck; it reflected his personality and ability to draw them in.
In political IQ, Bush is no Reagan. He isn't especially charismatic, is an average public speaker at best, and doesn't simply have foot-in-mouth disease but is fundamentally inarticulate. His journey to the White House depended on his family background and a dubious victory where he received fewer votes than his defeated opponent. And his 2004 win, while marginally more impressive, was one of the narrowest reelection victories in history. He enjoyed no Reagan-like landslides (or any other sort of landslide), and although for a brief period after 9/11 he had the highest approval rating ever recorded, it later sank to an all-time low.
Still, Bush was an effective campaigner. Ruthless, but effective. Remember how hard a time Gore and Kerry had in fighting him? Many of us blamed this on a mixture of Gore and Kerry's ineptitude and the country's stupidity. But those were excuses. The fact is that Bush knew how to cut his opponent down. He had Rove to thank for it, but he also had a knack for keeping his message straight and simple in a way that eluded his opponents. Even in the post-election fiasco of 2000, his ability to stay on message is part of the reason Gore lost the legal battle. Sure, the media had something to do with it, but the larger truth is that Bush knew how to handle the media.
His reputation as a country bumpkin was nothing more than a stage-crafted persona. When people attacked him as one, it actually revealed the success of his image-making. I agree with the linguist Geoffrey Nunberg that Bush's pronunciation of "nucular" was a choice, not an ignorant mistake. The real Bush was no hick but an Ivy Leaguer from a privileged background. (Remember Vicente Fox's description of Bush as a "windshield cowboy" after he noticed the U.S. President was afraid to get on a horse?) An unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978, in which his opponent painted him as out of touch with rural Americans, had a deep influence on him.
I have seen no evidence that Palin possesses the political skills of either Reagan or Bush. She does have public speaking skills, I will admit. As a Toastmasters member, public speaking is an interest of mine, and I have some appreciation for anyone who can rouse a crowd. It's a trickier skill than many people realize, and doesn't depend simply on the text one is reading. She always exudes a strong belief in herself--way out of proportion to her actual abilities--and it comes through in her brusque, confident speaking style.
But that is all she possesses (aside from her looks, of course). When speaking off the cuff, she is even less articulate than Bush. Her best moments are pure boilerplate; most of the time she sounds incoherent. Her presence on the McCain ticket dragged down his campaign. I don't think he would have won anyway, but she didn't help. The counterargument--that she excited the right-wing base--is no doubt true, but it has been at the cost of turning off just about everyone outside that base, including establishment conservatives.
Palin supporters I've talked to seem to view her as the next Reagan. Reagan, you will recall, went on to defeat a Democratic president after an unsuccessful run four years earlier. There's no question she tries to evoke Reagan. She even said "There you go again" during the vice presidential debate. But it didn't have a Reagan-like effect. She didn't seem to notice that the laughter coming from the audience wasn't a sign of approval. Most people clearly saw she was riding on Reagan's coattails.
The central flaw in her affected folksiness is not that the country has woken up (though that's part of it), but that she's unconvincing and transparent at a game Bush and Reagan knew how to play. And we ought to admit that by now.