« Obama’s Acceptance Speech | Main | Barack Obama on the O’Reilly Factor »
Gov. Sarah Palin
By BrianHull | September 3, 2008
There are a few things that I wanted to write about John McCain’s choice for Vice President, Gov. Sarah Palin. First, I want to congratulate her on her success, being involved in city politics as a councilor and then mayor and then winning the governorship of Alaska. In all sincerity, and with political ideology aside, it’s good to see a strong woman achieve the success in government that she has. With this in mind, it saddens me that her being chosen as McCain’s VP pick appears to be almost entirely shallow.
When I heard about the pick I immediately thought to myself that it was pure political pandering, an empty gesture meant to secure the disaffected Hillary Clinton voters who were disappointed that Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for president. I saw the move as one of short-term political gain coming from a campaign infused with a sense of desperation. In my opinion the rushed choice of Sarah Palin, coming immediately on the heels of the Democratic National Convention, could be viewed as inherently sexist, notwithstanding it being a beautiful campaign strategy to shift media attention away from Barack Obama and focus it on the McCain campaign. The choice of Sarah Palin can be viewed as sexist (if the above justification is correct) because it assumes that women are too stupid to analyze policy differences and that only gender matters. I like to think that people are smarter than this.
Moreover, the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate stands in sharp contrast to John McCain’s entire campaign theme of “experience.†Using the Republican’s own logic, Gov. Sarah Palin has more “executive†experience than John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden combined. Everyone should just give up and coronate her president. Of course, it doesn’t actually make any sense and anyone can see the holes in the logic. Gov. Palin’s “experience†relies on the same type of false argument that underscores the whole “Obama is inexperienced†strategy that the Republicans have been using unsuccessfully. She was the mayor of a small town, Wasilla, Alaska (population of about 7,000 when she was Mayor), and then later became Governor of Alaska. Granted, being Governor of any state will offer its fair share of challenges, but I disagree with the premise that running a state qualifies someone to run the country. While some challenges faced by a President are similar to the problems afflicting some cities and states, anyone involved in government at any level can be capable of analyzing social and economic problems and developing strategies at remedying them. I mean, did anyone really consider Rudy Giuliani as qualified to run the country because he was the “executive†(i.e. mayor) of New York City?
With national security issues (a vacuous word that really doesn’t describe what the issues are or what we should do about them, but that’s a topic for another day), I disagree with the common view that “executives†are better prepared than are “legislators.†In situations of national emergency, such as a hurricane or an attack by a terrorist group, it does come down to the executive to decide what to do; a deliberative body works too slowly. But this does not preclude legislators (either Obama, Biden, or McCain) from being able to be effective executives. In large part, it is knowledge of complex situations which will be a better guide than previous executive experience gained as a mayor or governor. And while Palin supporters tout her national security and international relations credentials because Alaska is the Northwest bulwark against Russian expansion and sits next to Canada, the knowledge and experience gained by being a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee is much more important with regard to foreign policy and national security.
There must be some other reason why Palin was added to the ticket, so it must be the angry Hillary voter, right? The more I think about the choice though, the less I think of Sarah Palin as a tactic to move disaffected Clinton voters to McCain. Rather, it may be a strategy to suppress the Obama vote, to have the “Hill-raisers†stay at home on Election Day. It is a chance for the McCain team to subconsciously demonstrate to the American people (or specifically Democrats) that Obama was wrong not to choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. I don’t think it will work, but I do think it is part of McCain’s strategy. The choice of an attractive, family-oriented, middle-aged woman from a middle-class background seems like it could be a political ploy to reintroduce the Obama-Clinton wedge within the Democratic Party after the “unifying†convention. It also diminishes the Obama campaign’s “history-making†aspect, because with a woman on the ticket, the Republicans can make history too (of course, 24 years after Water Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate).
I think the “gender effect†of Gov. Sarah Palin is actually secondary though, although it is still a prominent aspect to the selection of her as VP. More important is the effect she has with Christian Conservatives, a group that was still largely ambivalent to John McCain. McCain was never seen as a faithful proponent of socially conservative values, even though he is, because he never campaigned on socially divisive issues. Previously, McCain never felt that it was necessary to openly kowtow to the religious right, amplifying their social agenda through his campaigning. That has changed and the McCain camp understands just how important it is to have the support of social conservatives in order to win the White House as a Republican.
By picking Palin, the McCain camp tried to kill two birds with one stone, secure the socially conservative, Evangelical base and possibly ignite another war between the Obama and Clinton factions in the Democratic Party. Gov. Sarah Palin is a die-hard conservative. She is opposed to abortion, even in cases of incest and rape. She is opposed to same-sex marriage and the recognition of any civil rights for same-sex couples. She believes that creationism should be taught in schools. She believes in abstinence-only education, even though it apparently doesn’t work for her own family (more on this later). She wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. McCain’s pick, rather than being entirely an empty sexist pander (although if some female Democrats do vote for McCain, I’m sure the Republicans wouldn’t mind), is more of an appeasement gesture to the religious right within the Republican Party.
And all this would be fine if the entire religious right / socially conservative movement wasn’t full of fucking hypocrites. I don’t care that Bristol Palin has sex out of wedlock. I don’t care that she accidentally got pregnant at 17. I don’t care that she is choosing to keep the baby. I don’t care that she will be marrying the father. What I do care about is that if this was the story of a poor girl from an inner city, there would be a profoundly different response from the religious right. If Barack Obama had a 17 year old daughter in the exact same situation, everyone on the right would be implicitly calling her a slut and damning Obama for the entire situation. But that’s not happening with the Palins.
Conservatives cannot have it both ways, even though they always do. The unwavering support of Gov. Sarah Palin by the most prominent social conservatives in the country tells us a lot about the current state (and the future) of the Republican Party and Conservative ideology. While Conservatives deride the “media†as being too invasive about a private family matter for even mentioning the fact that Bristol Palin is 17, unmarried, and pregnant, it only demonstrates the moral incongruence of Conservative ideology. Whatever happened to the nuclear family and a strict avoidance of premarital sex? Why is there not outrage over her obvious “moral deficiencies?†I mean, she had sex and got pregnant, shouldn’t she be banished to some far away island to live the rest of her life in complete misery for her mistake?
I’m actually pretty happy that Obama himself did not comment on the private life of Bristol Palin, her sexual decisions, and her plans on keeping the baby and marrying the father. It shows good taste. I disagree, however, that the issue itself is taboo to discuss, especially since Bristol Palin is a stark example of Republican hypocrisy. I suppose all the rhetorical arguments used by Republicans are now irrelevant. The only litmus test for conservative traditionalists is abortion because the sexual habits of an unwed underage daughter are actually a family matter. But if this is the case, I never want to hear another word from the likes of people like Newt Gingrich and James Dobson about the sexual habits of anyone ever again.
Topics: Abortion, Elections, Republicans |