In Ralph Peters’ article ‘Our Sister Sarah Palin’s Anti-Elitist Charm,’ he argues that it is Palin’s “American” upbringing that makes her so appealing. She is one of “us”, not another elitist candidate who hails from an Ivy League school. He considers Palin the ultimate Republican candidate because she is the antithesis of the “gilded leftwing” Democrats who can have their decadent seven layer cake and eat it too. Peters is not strictly partisan in his article, though his bias for the Republicans, or against the Democrats, is clear. At one point in the article he even characterizes George W. Bush as having “disappointed our low expectations.” I understand his argument but venture to ask whether likeability should really be the ultimate factor in deciding eligibility.
Palin is credited with appealing to the “Americans who go to church and actually pray” (Peters). She may very well be an appealing, charming candidate who speaks to the Christian Right, the small-town worker and the conservative mother, but it doesn’t change the fact that she has very little experience. She served on the city council, and was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and served one term as the Governor of Alaska. She has no experience in the federal government, nor does she have any foreign policy practice.
Another candidate of the people was Richard Nixon, who went to Whittier College and grew up with “financial hardships” (Wikipedia). He too attracted the Evangelical Christians and small-town citizens. In fact, William Martin writes in his book, With God on Our Side, that Nixon was the candidate of the religious right, with Billy Graham as his biggest supporter. Graham, the ultimate leader of Peters’ “American people”, never officially endorsed Nixon, but “continued to offer his friend advice and to work on his behalf” (Martin, 49). In one article that Graham drafted for Life magazine he addressed Nixon’s economic status by alluding to his opponent, John F. Kennedy, and saying, “it would be inappropriate for a candidate to win because…he happened to be richer” (Martin, 54). Nixon was the antithesis of John F. Kennedy, a wealthy prepster from New England who summered in Massachusetts and had a winter house in Palm Beach, who attended Choate, Harvard, and Stanford Graduate School of Business (Wikipedia). However, while Nixon did not come from such a lofty background, he was in fact qualified and experienced. He graduated second in his class from Whittier and received a full scholarship to Duke University Law School, where he graduated third. Nixon held a position as a Representative and Senator of South Carolina, and was the Vice President (Wikipedia). He may have been a candidate of the people, but he was highly educated and trained. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is merely one of the people, and not worthy of being the vice presidential embodiment of American values.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I absolutely agree with the poster. To claim that someone is the perfect Republican candidate because she comes from some typical American background, is to fundamentally misunderstand the job of President or Vice President. We have seen this recently with George W. Bush. People liked him because he seemed like on of them. He was the candidate you might prefer to hang out with at a barbecue. Have we not learned from that mistake? What is so wrong with having a President that is more intelligent than the average American? That is not elitist, it just makes sense!
Furthermore, since when does growing up in Alaska qualify someone as being a typical American and growing up humbly in Chicago qualify someone as an elitist? We have our priorities completely messed up here. There is no doubt that the media contributes to these absurd story lines, but we as Americans need to take it upon ourselves to look at the real issues.
I also agree with the poster in the analysis of the article and the current perceptions of Sarah Palin in the United States. Yes, everyone would like a governing body that understands their needs and mirrors a little piece of themselves, but this is the Vice President of the United States of America, not a best friend or a student council member.
The remark about Palin representing the "regular American" who actually prays in church is just a little absurd. Since when does having an education revoke ones ability to connect spiritually with God? I find it interesting that her normalcy is actually making her superior to anyone that has an elite education.
As more video clips from her interview with Katie Couric become available, it is becoming so apparent that she is absolutely not qualified to hold that high of an office at this point. I just simply do not want someone who cannot name a supreme court case other than roe v wade, cannot name a single source of news that she reads, and cannot form a cohesive sentence to be second in command... but maybe thats just me.
I agree that it does not make sense for the people to cast their votes simply because they think the candidate would be fun to hang out with. As the poster says, it may be well and good that she is charming and represents the small town worker, but the fact remains that she has “no experience in the federal government.” Yet, Peters’ motivation to write about his desire to have a candidate the he can relate to is a strong motivation among millions of voters. Unfortunately, many people (including many of my own family members) also would not be able to name more than one Supreme Court case or any if at all. Does that mean they are not qualified to vote? Rather, despite many voters’ lack of knowledge about the candidate’s experience, they still form solid and real opinions of which candidate would best serve them. Therefore, the problem is not in Palin’s lack of experience or the voter’s desire to have someone who is more like them, but rather the inability for millions of less educated voters to access accurate and unbiased information to make responsible voting choices.
I completely disagree with the poster. No president or vice president has ever been anything more than “merely one of the people” who happened to have the right connections and made a good case for their election. We have yet to see America elect a president with more intelligence than the average American. Leaders only develop a reputation for exceptional intelligence after they take office and begin to handle challenges. Even then, their reputations are often made fifty years later, when history has proven the wisdom of their actions. If you want to argue that experience should be a necessary qualification for president and/or vice president, then this election should be between John McCain and Hilary Clinton, not Barack Obama. Obama and Palin have both capitalized on the fact that Americans are not interested in experience or intelligence. They rally behind a leader who excites them, either by stirring rhetoric or personal outreach.
W. Bush serves as our immediate example for why we should take a person's real-life ability or knowledge into account as a higher priority than their joviality, or even their religious inclination. Just compare the performances of George Bush, a supposedly religious man, with that of Bill Clinton, an overtly no-so religious man.
Being the president or the VP is a job. A person is either qualified or not for that job. If i needed brain surgery and i had two surgeons to choose from: An unlikeable, atheist who has a track record of being a great brain surgeon or a likable Christian who has never been employed as a doctor, but claims to be a brain surgeon because she has a bachelor's in pre-med, i would obviously pick the former.
Post a Comment