Vice Presidential Politics

I had intended to address only my spiritual musings in this blog, rather than my politics. Passions are running high among my respected Republican and Democrat friends. Events are seen and heard from their respective positions only in ways that support their views. I expect I am guilty of this as well, seeing my own preference as insightful and well reasoned (of course).

At the beginning of the primaries, I liked McCain. That has to do with the fact that we both graduated from the Naval Academy, he served heroically as a POW in Viet Nam, and acted in opposition to the hate and intolerance embraced by the Republican religious right. I wondered how the politicization that would surely arise would cause me to sway away from him as he pushed to fit himself into the Republican mold. A real "maverick" wouldn't do that - and he did, reversing himself on social issues. While I would suspect that he would be inclined to moderate the Republican stance once elected, I can't trust his longevity. I've seen the Presidency consistently and significantly age its office holders. Further, with the loss of his single mindedness he appears more to me as a party apparatchik. I expect that such shifts are born of pragmatism.

His introduction of Sarah Palin to me was immensely cynical, and perhaps eccentric. Even the most intelligent person can't be expected to handle the national and international stage with 5 weeks of briefing. This particularly true when they have come from such a relatively sheltered life (no exposure to foreign culture or international politics).

While I like her as a person, her use merely to win the Republican's religious right is painfully obvious. In the debate, I wondered how many Americans really looked with relish upon her patois without regard to substance. I wondered how she would perform on the international stage, when heads of states' questions would be put aside because they did not align with her talking points. I wondered how many people would recognize that a "maverick" doesn't hide behind language bestowed by Republican handlers. From Webster's dictionary: maverick - an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party.

It was demeaning to both Mrs. Palin and her party that her "victory" in Republican's eyes was achieved after 1) a significant lowering of expectations (wow, no gaffes), and 2) was based on her ability to parrot Republican talking points when the "right" questions were posed. I need to know that a person a heart-beat away from becoming a world leader can think and reason objectively, independently, and on their feet. She was far from such portrayal. What I saw was a person cornered into arrogantly discarding the game of debating, and indeed a global stage which is seen only through the world press.

To reject that "filter" is to abandon access to those whom she would lead. I saw her decision as a reflection of insecurity, naïveté and the handlers' lack of confidence in her ability. How can a world leader operate if they cannot stand up to the scrutiny of the press? Senator Biden offered a stark contrast in agility, independent thought, and reasoning as he stood to answer questions. When he spoke, one saw Senator Biden. When she spoke, one saw Republican rhetoric.

One might argue that when Biden spoke, only Democratic rhetoric was observed. While this probably true, I've no doubt that Biden was the author - as a leader in the Democratic Party.

I expect that if the Republicans lose, she will return and finish her term as governor. After that, I expect she will probably succeed in U.S. Senate race. It will be interesting to see how independent and effective she would be on what is nearly a world stage, especially having developed a broader range of experience.

I've received emails with inflaming videos and writings from both political views. Having read John Adams by David McCullough, I came to an understanding that our American Republic stands as a perpetual argument. The founding fathers engineered a government incapable of stopping that argument, yet when agreement reigns, awesomely proficient in mobilization and resolution. My friends on both sides of these issues have lamented the end of "our democracy." The fact that they are passionately engaged from their own truth is to me evidence that our democracy is thriving. Impassioned arguments do not limit themselves by nature. They can be nasty and ugly.

It is from this dark place that the brilliance that has carried us forward for 232 years emerges. It is indeed those relatively rare moments of integrity and luminosity (from both sides of the aisle) that show through to carry the day. Perhaps it is because they contrast so sharply with the morass of daily political life. Indeed I expect something splendid will emerge from even this argument.