Friday, October 3, 2008

A Positive Perspective on Palin

Just hours after last night's Vice Presidential debate, cnn.com featured an article that provided a brief summary and analysis of the candidates' performances. In the article, Democratic political commentator Paul Begala sums up Biden's and Palin's "approaches" in this way: "You had two different strategies. Joe Biden's strategy was to hammer McCain, link him to the status quo and Bush. He succeeded . . . Sarah Palin's strategy was to defend Sarah Palin and repair her damaged image, and I think she did a pretty good job of that." It seemed that this CNN article sought to provide a balanced presentation, offering praise of both candidates.

As I watched the "youtube" clips and read over the transcript of the vice presidential debate, one quote especially hit me. While responding to moderator Gwen Ifill's question regarding what promises Palin would not be able to keep due to the current "financial crisis," Palin remarked, "And how long have I been at this, like five weeks?" We can question as much as we want whether it was prudent of Senator McCain to choose Governor Sarah Palin in light of her relative lack of political experience, but that will not change the fact that she may very well be our next Vice President. There has been a lot of bashing of all of the candidates, but I feel that Sarah Palin has been especially targeted for numerous reasons (her inexperience, her religious views, her pro-life stance, the actions of her family members, etc.). I would like to say a few positive things about Sarah Palin, particularly in regards to the recent debate. Considering her newness to the political stage, I think it is remarkable that she has done as well as she has, especially in the debate. In those "like five weeks," she has shown herself to be a passionate, dynamic politician who is working to better understand what her role as Vice President would entail. I was especially impressed with Palin's response to Ifill's question regarding who was at fault for the current "subprime lending meltdown." Using colloquialisms such as "Darn right" and "Joe Six Pack" (which some may find repugnant but I personally am not terribly bothered by), Palin point blank placed the blame on the "predator lenders" while also affirming the responsibility of the American people to "refuse to be exploited and taken advantage of." Granted, during the debate Palin brought up the issue of energy several times when it was unrelated to the question at hand, and she failed to clearly articulate a plan for Iraq (two salient flaws), but PBS's Gwen Ifill herself recognized that both candidates sometimes managed to get off topic. After one
question in particular, Ifill said bluntly, "Governor, Senator, neither of you really answered that last question about what you would do as vice president."

In the cnn.com article, "Republican strategist" Amy Holmes characterizes Palin in this way,"She was polished, direct, folksy, and on message. She stressed her personal experience both as a mom and as a governor, from the kitchen table to the executive branch, her record as a reformer and bipartisan deal maker. She even got Biden to agree with her." Whether or not you agree with Palin's politics or approve of McCain's choice, I think that it is only fair to acknowledge that she held her own last night more so than many expected. Her personal touches such as her identification with parents at a soccer game talking about the economy were down-to-earth and facilitated a point of connection with the American people (Yes, Senator Biden provided personal
touches too, like when he spoke about Joey Danco at the gas station, but it seems to me that Governor Palin employed this tactic more often as part of her approach). Many feel that Senator Obama and Senator Biden would bring about the necessary change for our country because they are not of the Republican party that has dominated the executive branch of the government for the past eight years. I would argue that a hockey mom-turned governor would shake up the white house more than a senator who has served for many years in the nation's capital. While there is no substitute for experience, I also feel that Governor Palin has something fresh and unique to offer precisely because she is coming from a different background than those who have been entrenched for years in the political web of Washington D.C.

Linked to the commentary on cnn.com was a list of five different political analysts with their remarks and letter grades (on a scale of "A" through "F") that they awarded each candidate. Although these are simply the opinions of only five analysts (and I question whether their opinions have much more weight than an average American), I wanted to point them out. I thought it was very interesting that there was a relatively small disparity in the letter grades each candidate received from the analysts. Overall, Biden received three A's and two B's. Palin received two A's, two B's and one C (the C was ironically from a political commentator whose first name is Hilary). Overall average ratings submitted by people who simply visited the CNN website have shifted dramatically over the past few hours. When I first wrote this paragraph, CNN website visitors had given Biden an average rating of B and Palin an average rating of D. Looking at the same website only a few hours later, the tables had completely turned, awarding Palin with the overall B and Biden with the overall D. They then shifted back towards Biden again. What grade would you give each candidate?

8 comments:

Carmine said...

Were you going to tie this into religion somehow?

And oversimplifying and stereotyping middle class America down to "Joe six-pack" is ignorant at best, but mainly insulting. Next she going to call poor Mexicans "Jose Burrito," and why stop there, how bout labeling middle class French "Jacques bottle-o-wine."

This type of language is exemplary why she is yet another embarrassment to our nation

Jennifer Draeger said...

Dear Carmine,
Hi! Thanks so much for sharing your comment. I hadn't realized that "Joe six-pack" is a derogatory term for members of the middle-class. You bring up a good point, and I apologize for not taking that into consideration.

I wasn't planning on tying in religion, but maybe it's a good idea. How would you tie in religion?

Thanks again for your comment! God bless and have a great day!

Jen

Carmine said...

Well Jen I am commend you for taking my near sarcasm with such graciousness.

Tying the VP debate into religion is quite simple really.

Sarah is trying to appeal to groups of people to get elected, fair enough, they all do it. The groups she aims at are the religious base, obviously, and middle working class America. We've established how she insulted the intellect of "Joe-Six-Pack," not only because of the label but also because she and other politicians believe that simply because they portray themselves as being associated with middle-class means that she will represent them properly. It serves to reason that the same goes for religion as well. Simply because a politician maintains the same faith as a group of people does not mean that she will act in the interests of that group.
For example, you seem to be a religious person yourself; would consider one mechanic more qualified than another based on the fact that he or she adheres to the same faith as you?
Now some might say that politics involves moral issues more so than does being a mechanic,however, being a vice president is still a highly technical craft and being religious and folksy does not increase Sarah's political abilities. Moreover, if I were religious I would be insulted that a politician would think that simply because she drinks beer and goes to church that I will vote for her.

I am glad you seem to have an open mind Jennifer, I would invite you to read my post "The Unifying Right to the Sanctity of Life." And I would be curious to your comments.

Regards,

Tyler C said...

I found Jennifer Draeger’s article “A Positive Perspective on Palin” to be refreshingly forthright. This is because the liberal media showcases Palin as an out-of-touch, gun-toting, soccer Mom who got “lucky” when she became the governor of Alaska. Her political experience, according to most liberal political pundits, is somewhere between zilch and zero. However, Obama’s political experience as a community organizer and a senator are just amazing! Well, that is how the media portrays the saint-like Obama.
Now the media cracks jokes at the way she speaks. Sure, her accent and language is a little folksy. But she is admittedly candid with her remarks and it is obvious that she does care about the issues most conservatives care value. When Palin said, “Oh, Joe. There you go, again!” I found her light-hearted commentary rejuvenating. We are usually subjected to spiteful comments, but Palin has shown tact can be shown in our political system.
Hopefully more of a Palin’s positive attributes will shine through the liberal media. Obama is a great orator, but he may not be the best president. Time will tell. Remember, we can thankfully vote every four years

Carmine said...

Lack of clarity in language--or folksy talk--as some might call, is the carcinogen of democracy that Eric Arthur Blair wrote of years ago when he coined the term 'new-speak.'

This tactic, commonly employed by business negotiators and used car salesmen, seeks to reduce and simplify vocabulary and grammar in attempts to obfuscate one's agenda to a target audience.

New-speak is described by Blair as "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year."

Are your thoughts the master of the words you use, or are the words you use the master of your thoughts?

Moreover, what if you have a thought that cannot be 'thunk' by the 'truthiness' of 'folksiness'? Well then, I guess one would just vote for Sarah wouldn't they. Wait...that doesn't makes no sense, Dat done matta its folksy :)

Language can represent culture, but only after one buys a dictionary, otherwise it just represents ignorance--not much of an aspiring quality.

Jennifer Draeger said...

Dear Carmine,
Hi! Sorry for not responding to your comment sooner. I'll start off with answering a few of the things you posed in your second comment to me, and then I'll offer some feedback on your "Sanctity of Life" post. You make an excellent point when you say that the member of a particular religious group may not in fact act in the interests of the group to which they belong. Joe Biden is a prime example. If I were to vote for him solely because he and I are both Catholic, I would in fact be supporting a position that is contrary to the Church's teachings on the right to life. Indeed, Biden has articulated that although he is personally opposed to abortion, he does not plan to take this into account in the way he governs our nation. As for the analogy of the mechanic, while I would not expect a Catholic mechanic to necessarily be more skilled than say, an atheistic mechanic, I would expect the Catholic mechanic's faith to come into play in his business dealings and the way he treats his customers. To return to Palin, I agree that she is trying to appeal to religious groups of voters. While some may see this primarily as a political tactic, I think that it does stem from a genuine religious commitment that shapes the way she makes decisions both in her personal life and on the public stage.
Now onto your post! On a side note, since you brought up secular humanists, I would recommend looking at Jacques Maritain's essay on Christian Humanism if you can find a copy. It's really good.
I think that your post is very intelligently written, and you make some good points. I agree that there is a distinction between "substantitive active freedom" and "formal freedom." The situation of racism in our country is a great example of this. While the Civil Rights movement undoubtedly made a great deal of progress in changing laws, discrimination is still alive and well in our nation both in interpersonal relations and even in some government policies.
There are some parts of your post that I do disagree with, however. Religion is by no means "the curse of mankind." I know that religion has been used to justify atrocities (the crusades, Muslim extremist terrorism activities, etc.), but I would argue that the religion that is used to justify violations of human dignity is not religion at all but a distortion of it. You do not identify yourself as a religious person, and I understand that we are coming from different backgrounds. For me, religion is not merely a stiff set of regulations or principles that is used to advance one agenda over another. As a Catholic, religion is a means of connection between us and God. It is a communication of the truths about who we are, who God is, and what that means. It is about an ongoing relationship with a person, Jesus Christ, the love of my life. He is the ultimate source of life, love, and salvation, and He shows us what it means to be truly human. You characterized religion as "dogmatic and rigid" and politics as "dialectic and flexible." Dogmatic, yes, but there is more. In terms of sticking with the truth, you can describe religion as rigid, but at the same time there is also a very organic, dynamic faith that goes along with these beliefs and moral codes. To be honest, while flexibility can be a very good thing, I don't think this is always the case. The "flexibility" associated with politics results in a lot of flip-flopping, beating around the bush, and obscuring of what is really going on. Where is the truth in that?
I agree with you that we have a right to a life free from oppression. I think that we differ on how religion and politics come into play. Separation of religion and politics to some extent is essential to guarantee the right of religious freedom, but this separation should not be absolute.

Thank you again for your comments. Hope to hear from you soon. God bless and have a great day!

Jen :)

Carmine said...

Jennifer--
You mention that religion, for you, "is a communication of the truths about who we are," this is exactly what can not be transposed autocratically, at least not in anything less than a society that adheres to such qualities.

If we are to label ourselves as liberal democracies--meaning we care for the minority, and make exceptions for them, to the best of our abilities--than we must bring to our dialectic questions of "truths about who we are." Indeed, we must allow consideration of those who make truth-claims that contradict our own "truths," which as you demonstrated with reference to extremism are quite malleable and not so clear from one faction to another.

Moreover, the fact that these truths are so malleable is desirable insofar as they allow for reinterpretations of it--like say your understanding of Catholicism, which may not fit with Jesuits or Greek Orthodox...ect.

Now, the moment we start imposing systems of belief by allowing faith into politics is the moment we lose our own faith, whatever it may be, by allowing politics to intervene in our faith. Ultimately, politics must intervene to an extent that it ensures survival of the State, and therefore the rights awarded by that state. Where this line is drawn is currently up for grabs.

And I ask you why should it be any other way, really. For should any one faction have such authority? Should this mechanic be able to impose his own flavor of Catholicism onto you and charge you more for believing the pope to be infallible?Or fallible?

The only real question one need ask on election day is which candidate will support the freedom that enables my "truths about who we are" to flourish, and allows those claims to be communicated--also known as freedom of choice and speech. HOW the mechanic translates this freedom should be of little concern, so long as it does not infringe on one's own rights.

Hence, a Muslim mechanic should be considered over a Catholic one if that mechanic adheres and understands my, and their, freedom of choice and speech, regardless of religion.

Carmine said...

PS
Kind Regards,
-C