Ignorance of the Outside World. Until 2007, Sarah Palin didn’t even have a passport. [Source – NY Times]. As someone fortunate enough to have traveled extensively, I can tell you with absolute certainty: foreign travel broadens the mind by exposing the traveler to cultures, values, and methods for getting things done that are wildly different from our own.
Censorship. A widely-circulated list of books Sarah Palin wanted banned is a hoax — a sloppy cut and paste job that includes books not even published when Palin was Mayor. What hasn’t been disputed, though, is a statement by former Wasilla, AK, mayor John Stein, who told Time Magazine, “She asked the library how she could go about banning books [because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them]” (Source: Time Magazine).
Right-wing coverage of this story seeks to shift the emphasis away from that request, preferring to focus on the bogus list and the fact that no books were actually banned by the library. The real issue, though, is that Palin, in order to court the votes of “some voters,” was willing to make the request in the first place. Is anyone willing to set aside the First Amendment in order to garner votes really worthy of the second most powerful seat in government?
Borrowing Authority from God. In a video posted on the Wasilla Assembly of God’s web site — now removed — Palin called the war in Iraq “a task from God.” In the same speech, she positioned an expensive and controversial effort to build a natural gas pipeline in her state as “God’s will” [Source – Washington Post].
This business of positioning the personal and political as “God’s will” implies two dangerous things: that the speaker knows God’s will … and that he or she is a representative of Divine will. This strategy also has the advantage of positioning those who oppose a point of view as people who oppose God.
In my experience, politicians who claim to know God’s will are not to be trusted.
Making the Personal Political. Walter Monegan, a public safety commissioner in Wasilla, says Palin had him fired after he refused to have Palin’s ex-brother-in-law removed from his position as a state trooper. The claim is under investigation, and Palin herself has promised to cooperate (a good sign), but several member of her staff have refused to be deposed (a bad sign, generally speaking) [Source – The Los Angeles Times].
If the claim proves to be true, Palin would be the kind of person who seeks to make personal issues have inappropriate public and political ramifications. That’s not a quality I want in the leaders of my government.
Inexperience. Much is being made of the issue of experience in this presidential race — primarily because, during Barak Obama’s bid for the office, the Republicans have made a perceived “lack of experience” the centerpiece of their attack on his qualifications. It’s ironic, then, that Palin continues to position herself as more experienced than Barak Obama, implying that her service as Mayor provides her with more experience than his work as a community activist and organizer.
There’s just one problem. A letter from one of Palin’s own associates (vetted by Snopes.com) notes that, during her stint as mayor over a city of about 5,000 people, Palin transferred most of her duties to a paid administrator. Why? Party officials were weary of her penchant for firing people … a fact that had given rise to a recall campaign [Source: Snopes.com].
Worse, while Palin campaigned as a fiscal conservative, she increased government expenditures over 33%, increased city tax revenues over 38%, and, after inheriting a city with zero debt, left behind a deficit of over $22 million.
GOP leaders claim Palin represents a change in the party’s direction — but this kind of conduct, frankly, sounds very familiar to me.
Why This Matters. The other night, we found ourselves engaged in a political conversation with a chatty waiter, a young gay man who had just watched the Republican primary. “Did you see Sarah Palin’s speech?” he asked us. “She’s really pretty, and I loved her attitude. Maybe she’s just what this country needs.”
For him, it wasn’t relevant that Ms. Palin was ignorant of the world, an advocate of censorship, a person who does not hesitate to borrow God’s authority for herself and her causes, a person incapable of distinguishing between the personal and the political, and an inexperienced (and, apparently, fiscally irresponsible) leader. It didn’t matter, either, that Palin is a member of a church that advocates that gay people need to be cured of their homosexuality in order to be considered acceptable to God [Source – AP Wire Reports].
All that mattered to this young man was her looks and her attitude. “She seems spunky,” he said.
In the end, as responsible citizens, I suggest we need to focus less on a candidate’s apparent spunk and sparkle, and more on what she has achieved … and how she has achieved it.
Excellent post. I blogged and twittered it.
Steve, this is a thought provoking piece. I have a few points here…
1) I do not normally follow your posts, and found my way here via Twitter/FriendFeed. As such, I can make no judgment on your knowledgeability on the subject of politics nor Sarah Palin in particular. However, you assert some level of authority in this post.
2) To your point regarding ignorance of the outside world, I would tend to agree that a well-traveled person most likely has a more well-rounded view of how to approach problems. However, your statement is a rather generalized jab.
3) To your point on censorship, I too agree with protecting 1st Amendment rights. However, your freedom ends whereby it encroaches upon my own. More pointedly, as a parent, I enjoy the right to protect my child from certain things until such time as I deem her ready. In this fashion, I hope to impart a strong enough moral compass for her to make her own decisions in life. I would venture a guess, Palin was simply acting on behalf of the constituents she was elected to represent. And, for the record, asking a question should never be discouraged. That in and of itself is censorship.
4) To your point on borrowing authority from God: This is a very dangerous precipice to stand upon. Many leaders throughout history have invoked religion to justify their actions… not just American politicians. I do not agree with this, and would not presuppose to defend it. Furthermore, as a former United States Marine, I did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq (for many reasons), but also understand that once we are committed to this course of action, it would be unfair to prematurely disengage at this critical juncture.
5) To your point on inexperience, I must say I’m incredibly torn between electing someone with a lot of political experience (because look where that is getting us), and electing someone that is not capable of handling the stress of office. Let me simply say that we as humans look to the past as evidence to indicate future performance. If you will review history, many a great leader had never experienced the monumental task they were tapped to lead. Look to Presidents Lincoln and Truman as evidence of heavy burdens to bear. Were they qualified to make the decisions over sending even 1 person to meet their maker? … and yet they made decisions that changed the world.
Again, this is a very thought provoking post. I write this rebuttal in the hopes of furthering conversation, not in arguing inane points. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with the world, and I look forward to reading more in the future.
Small correction – Please excuse my error in addressing this post to Steve. Mark, this was intended to be addressed to you, sir. I had mistook the comment as the post footer. Please accept my apologies.
Hi, Ken. Thanks for stopping by MadeByMark.com, and for taking the time to post a thoughtful comment.
KS: I can make no judgment on your knowledgeability on the subject of politics nor Sarah Palin in particular. However, you assert some level of authority in this post.
MM: Where?
KS: I would tend to agree that a well-traveled person most likely has a more well-rounded view of how to approach problems. However, your statement is a rather generalized jab.
MM: Please accept my assurances that my statement was not intended as a generalized jab.
Actually, I meant to levy a very specific criticism: while Ms. Palin possesses the aspiration to be a world leader, she apparently lacks the motivation to experience first-hand the world she aspires to lead.
That’s a bit like trying out for a Major League baseball team without ever having bothered to swing a bat or run the bases.
KS: I too agree with protecting 1st Amendment rights. However, your freedom ends whereby it encroaches upon my own. More pointedly, as a parent, I enjoy the right to protect my child from certain things until such time as I deem her ready.
MM: When talking about rights, it’s useful to distinguish between Constitutional rights (like the freedom of speech) and the parental rights you mention here (which are generally acknowledged, but not Constitutionally guaranteed).
That said: I agree that you, as a parent, can and should make an effort to protect your child from any information you deem unfit for her. There are at least two approaches to this:
1) Vigilance. Review what she selects at the library, approve what she checks out, and monitor what she reads, or
2) Censorship. Campaign for the removal or elimination of any information you feel is inappropriate for your daughter.
If, indeed, “my rights end where your rights end,” then surely the first approach — which empowers a parent to defend a daughter’s innocence without restricting choices available to adults — is better than the second one — which seeks to apply the restrictions devised for a child on every member of the community.
KS: For the record, asking a question should never be discouraged. That in and of itself is censorship.
MM: If one is going to assert that Ms. Palin has the right to ask a public library to remove books she or her constituents found offensive, then surely one would also have to support my right to ask whether Ms. Palin — who apparently cares so little for Constitutional rights — should be elected to an office charged with upholding those rights.
All very valid points. Let me clarify 1 thing … on the position of authority, this was intended to represent your assertion of opinion in a well spoken manner – e.g. authority in your written tone and assertion in your belief. Nothing sinister, I assure you.
To all of your points in your reply to my comment, it would be my humble opinion you are entitled to your opinion and have stated your case very clearly.
I actually agree with many of your points – or rather I can see your side of the story as it were. I do not wholly disagree with anything you have said. My only concern is of course the truth of the matter – at the end of the day.
Of another point I always have to be careful of is playing the role of armchair quarterback. I do not like to presuppose what I would do in a given situation until confronted with that situation.
If indeed some of these issues are true, there are some scary issues to deal with in the character make-up of Sarah Palin. With that said, I must admit I always feel as though I am choosing between the lesser of 2 evils during elections.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the subject. I find this type of back and forth very good for increasing perspective in life. It is rare to find someone who can provoke thought in a constructive manner these days – so kudos to you, sir.
Excellent post….
Added to Reddit.