I am very thankful to have to intelligent, active, and attentive (liberal) contributors (in comments) on this blog. Various particulars relating to snippits as they come out concerning “Who is Gov. Palin” have been up for discussion. While we can go back and forth quibbling over details, still at this point seen quite dimly, it occurs to me there is an over-arching issue up hiding in the wings.
Most of what has been coming in fits and starts from the media sources (and for that matter the campaign) have been negative (and positive) pieces largely unconnected from context. This is alas, counter from the enterprise in which we are all engaged regarding the good governor.
In the context of the election with regards to all four candidates what the rest of us are trying to do is to build a holistic picture of the candidates as a person, to figure out their political and moral philosophies. Who are they? How do they think? How do they appreciate and consider the issues facing the nation?
This problem is made more complicated by the fact that the candidates and the press are aware of this exercise on our part and are intentionally trying to frame that image in a way that is perceived by us as favorable (in the case of the candidates) or unfavorable (in the case of partisan factions). The mechanisms that the press and press releases operate however is antithetical to the process at which the rest of are engaged. The modern press operates on sound bites, catch phrases and other short bites (bytes?).
What we seek however is a holostic ensemble view of the candidate. The challenge for the voter is to fight through this morass of annoying scattered flotsam and to assemble that image. My suggestion (which I’m about to follow more consciously) is to disregard in the main those details provided sans context.
A frequent commenter and blogger (his blog is here) Dan Trabue graciously sent me a copy of a book (that arrived with me away on vacation) that he finds to be a significant work describing his view on how Poverty and the Christian relate. In a short series of essays I’m going to compare, review, and contrast this pamphlet The Biblical View of Sabbath Economics by Chad Myers with a somewhat older work on basically the same topic. The the latter part of the 4th century St. Gregory of Nazianzus gave a lengthy oration “On the Poor”. It is these two works I’m going to compare.
Chad Myers according to the frontispiece has “worked for three decades in the field of non-violent activism for social justice, church renewal and radical discipleship.” Mr Myers has degrees in philosophy from UC Berkeley and the Graduate Theological Union (also in Berkeley).”
St. Gregory of Nazianzus on the other hand was the most accomplished rhetorician of the 4th century Church. The piece “On the Poor” is the 14th oration that has been passed on from his era. His most famous orations, the so called 5 “theological orations” given in just a short interval from just outside of Constantinople was a major turning point forever cementing the Nicene tradition in the Church over the more popular (at the time) Arian heresy. If you today hew to the Nicean statement of faith … in part you owe it to the brilliant rhetoric of St. Gregory. It also should be noted that St. Gregory unlike his friend St. Basil (the Great) took a different approach to asceticism. He personally eschewed the monastic and extreme asceticism practiced by St. Basil and others around him. His asceticism was a more literary (and spiritual) asceticism of contemplation without embracing all or perhaps many of the rigors of the monastic life. It might be noted however, that he did take at an early age a vow of celibacy which he maintained throughout his life.
Both of these pieces have some similar conclusions. Both stress that charity is a primary virtue. However their methods, arguments and ultimately their conclusions are very disimilar.
I will also admit up front that I have a lot of difficulty giving Mr Myers work a fair reading. Stylistically he makes blanket assertions about, for example, the nature of the free market society which at best are a caricature of the market economy as told by a Marxist. In short, a lot of false statements are made about economic truths and conditions in markets and in pre-market, i.e., early Bibilical societies which need disentangling from his main argument. What is left after the dissection … is a question I can’t answer at this point of this study. It is indeed one of the questions that will need to be answered in this short series.
It has been argued by many that the amazing inexperience of Mr Obama is now off the table, due to a similar lack of experience of Ms Palin (who it might be noted is not running for President). However, that inexperience factor is not “off the table”, it is turning out to be something of a political Trojan horse. The left is no longer as worried about talking about the experience factor. Where before they were actively sidestepping this topic, now instead they are talking about it.
Part of the problem is, the experience of Ms Palin and Mr Obama are roughly on a par. Both are about the same age. Both attended school. While Mr Obama supporters like to point to a distinguished Academic career of their candidate, it really isn’t so. He ostensibly took an Academic career after law school but … failed to publish (and if you talk to Academics you’ll find that for an Academic career publishing is not just a small matter). As well, he went into “community activism”, and his record at community organizing apparently was only distinguished by his ability to use this as a stepping stone to the next level, i.e., state office. Ms Palin by contrast did not seek public office (a far more commendable outlook from this onlookers point of view), but circumstances thrust it at her. From PTA to Mayor to Regulatory board to Governor she was thrust up not by dint of self promotion but instead by the fight against corruption.
The time Ms Palin and Mr Obama spent in actual public office is comparable, one might actually argue that the time that Mr Obama spent at the highest level (Senator in his case vs Governor for Ms Palin) is far less while because, alas within 6 months to a year of attaining his Senate seat he was campaigning full time for the Presidency … and thus missing out on actual Legislative experience. For what it’s worth, Mr Obama had 50% approval ratings as a State senator during that stint and Ms Palin prior to Mr McCain asking her to be on his ticket enjoyed 80+% approval ratings.
The point is, that far from taking “experience” off the table, it has gotten the left to bring it up. And, when they do, it is not a winning issue for them. So I’d argue that experience as a topic far from being “off the table” is even hotter because the left has been fooled into thinking it is now a safe topic.
In my recent travels abroad, of which I will indeed blog more (with photos) presently, one of the observations I had was that the urban/rural cultural divide is more important and pronounced than a lot of our other cultural splits.
With that in mind, one of the (unspoken objection) that a lot of (urban) liberal bloggers have to Gov Palin’s inclusion on the ticket is that by her resume and rhetoric she is not one of “them.” She doesn’t hang out with, is part of, or identifies with any group with which they associate. And that is problematic because they misread or fail to read her cultural cues.
There are a lot of non-urban voters out there with more rustic values and virtues and they see them in McCain’s running mate. Their failure to note that seems akin to color blindness. Teddy Roosevelt wouldn’t poll well in the Democratic party today either, and that’s the point.
The urban liberal Hillary voter may be put of by Gov. Palin … but the suburban/rural female (and male) voters, I think might poll differently.
It has been also remarked that by putting Sarah Palin on the ticket, Mr McCain loses his line of attack on Mr Obama regarding “experience.” While I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case, it also might be noted that Mr Obama loses the “Change” line of attack as well. Mr Biden, Mr McCain are all old hand beltway denizen, and Mr Obama is a Haaaarvard educated lawyer and Senator. That is without even noting that Mr Obama’s actual voting record and policies are basic liberal/progressive boilerplate.
Real change is an outsider like Gov. Palin, who is not a lawyer, DC regular or “one of the club” in any way shape or form.
A sanity check by both parties in the US is desperately needed. Look, I have no love lost for Mr Obama. I think as a President, if elected he will turn out to marginally worse than Jimmy Carter’s 4 year term. He’ll push for a number of programs, continue centralizing healthcare and attempting as much as he might in expanding various entitlements programs a number of fronts. McCain similarly will push for (and against a likely Democratically controlled Congress get somewhat less of what he desires) a different set of programs. But, no Mr Coates is completely loony when he offers that a McCain Presidency is to be equivalent to “sell the freedom of their daughters …” or that for the poor, a McCain Presidency implies … “the outcome will be sickness and death and homelessness and, for those cut off from health coverage and help …”
Look, Presidents have a lot less domestic influence than we pretend. Mr Bush has been in the office for 8 years and gosh, our daughters aren’t slaves and the lot of the poor is not that appreciably different than a decade ago.
But over the top rhetoric and outright demonization of the other side is just unhelpful all around.
Try some sanity on for size. It might help.
In the wake of the Georgia/Russia/South Ossetian kerfuffle I’d like to consider the implications of expansion as policy for a country. The invasion and counter-invasion (which was mostly missed by me due to my disconnect with the Internet and news sources over the last two weeks), is something I’m not qualified yet to comment. I’m still reading up about, one source here.
However, in the abstract, especially in the wake of recent military adventures and the as well the Kosovo and Ossetian moves toward independence, one might consider when and if national expansion is justifiable. Certain elements of the left as well as the pacifistic supporters are of the opinion that attacking or anything but “defensive” wars are inexcusable in all circumstances. This belies the fact that every nation that exists, owes its very existance to a past non-defensive war. The motions of peoples in the antiquity, clans settling and moving were all accompanied by violence. If only defensive wars are justified, how are those wars justifiable if indeed the place being defended was initially acquired in a way which is a priori unjust, that is if aggressive conflict is assumed unjust.
Now, I’m well aware the “everyone does it” isn’t a moral justification. In ethics, there is rarely a cut and dried simplistic path to the good. There are instead tensions, or a weighting that must be done. One must evaluate the good and other less salutary aspects to find a solution which maximizes the good. Similarly in political conflict there are times when war (even wars of aggression) are viewed by those evaulating the possibilities as the best possibility. For a people the option of expressing their independence can be seen as one which justifies much. Manifest destiny drove expansion of the US states from a small colony on the East coast across the continent to the other sea. Expansion did not always occur peacefully (and it is naive to expect that an expanding industrializing civilization can abide peacefully in contact with a nomadic tribal one).
Roman expansion in part was driven by economic goals and gains as well as a notion that Roman civilizing influences were in the best interest of the conquered nation. Glen Cook, in a fantasy novel which I read in my (mispent?) youth, had a character remark to another that “no villain sees himself as evil”. That is the villain of the piece is acting for and on the behalf of what he perceives as good. And that fact is something which is wise to recall.
Mr Putin as well as almost all or leaders are honestly doing what they feel is “right” and in the best interests of their people. While is easier to assume your personal take on the world is “righteous” and those with whom you disagree are in the wrong, most of the time the “other” guy, even those with a wildly different idea of what is right to do, has performed the same sort of reasoning, but with a different set of starting assumptions and “weighting” of values and also things he’s right and doing good. That makes the world a little more complicated, but at the same time is a more realistic view of the way things are.
