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?

Reverse Endorsements?

Earlier in the semester Gabriela posted about pastors’ inability to endorse political candidates based on the non-profit status of their church. This led to a string of comments and an interesting discussion in class. It seemed to me like the consensus in our class was that if pastors wanted to formally endorse a candidate in their church, they needed to be ready to give up their tax-exempt status. But what about what I call “reverse endorsements," or pastors and churches that condemn voting for a particular candidate either through word or action. For example, there was an article about Sarah Palin’s former pastor who questioned the salvation of citizens who do not vote for George Bush in 2004. Furthermore, an article from U.S. News and World Report discusses how the Catholic Church frequently denies communion to politicians who are pro-choice, including John Kerry in 2004 and most recently Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden. Many have questioned whether the Catholic Church is overstepping its boundaries with these types of decisions and I question how this action is any different than endorsing a specific candidate. By saying you shouldn’t vote for candidate A, aren’t you saying vote for candidate B?

This is not the first time bishops have denied communion to Catholics over a political issue. In the 1960s, Catholics in New Orleans and St. Louis were refused communion because of their rejection of integration in Catholic schools. The bishops of these dioceses at the time tried to work with the dissenters, but to no avail. Because of their support of segregated schools, these people were not allowed to join in full communion with the church.

These scenarios are not exactly the same, mainly because the events in the 60s did not focus on a single political candidate. However, they both demonstrate the Roman Catholic Church influencing politics and the thinking of the members of the church. This is obviously not an isolated event, so I think the government needs to reconsider its policy on only banning churches from actively endorsing political candidates. In no way do I want to completely remove the discussion of politics from the pew, as I think it is essential to be able to share political opinions with those who have a similar core system of beliefs. However, I think churches, especially those with as much power as the Catholic Church, need to be held in check. Attention should not be brought to specific candidates, whether through word or deed.

Head of State, Not of Church

In an opinion piece posted on the “About Faith” forum, a group managed by Newsweek and the Washington Post, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, an influential seminary in the Southern Baptist Convention, defends the position that it is not hypocritical to believe that “a woman could lead a nation, and not a congregation”. This question was raised by the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention asserts:

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation".

Additionally, the SBC asserts that only “qualified men” are called to serve as church pastors: “This conviction was not invented by Southern Baptists. It was, and now remains, the honest conviction held by most Christians around the world, and for good reason.”

Which begs the question: if SBC members believe that it is not a woman’s place to lead a church or to be head of a household, why then would they support a woman in a bid for the (Vice) Presidency? Is an exception being made for Gov. Sarah Palin because her politics are in line with theirs, or could they wholeheartedly endorse any woman’s decision to run for office?

Mohler defends the SBC statements on wifely submission, and on women’s inability to serve as church leaders, by stating that they are drawn from the Bible and are widely accepted among Christians. Because the Bible gives explicit teachings on the issues of women’s roles in the home and church, evangelicals support these positions. However, according to Mohler:

“Our confession of faith does not speak to the appropriateness of women serving in political office. The reason for this is simple -- the New Testament does not speak to this question in any direct sense.”

This line of reasoning seems to make sense within the framework of the SBC assertions, but I don’t believe that it is strong enough to hold up against outside arguments. There are too many logical gaps and questions which remain unaddressed for Mohler’s statement to be accepted at face value. For example, if Palin were to become the President, and thus the head of the nation, under the SBC guidelines, wouldn’t she be ultimately accountable to her husband, and under his leadership? Isn’t the office of President a post with moral and ethical dimensions, similar to a pastor, on a much larger scale?

Additionally, drawing such a distinct line between the role of women in church and in politics seems a bit crass given the religious right’s fervent interest in policy and the national moral agenda; they rally voters around hot-button moral issues with religious implications (and thus are attempting to violate church/state separation). It is opportunistic to embrace Palin because she can (a) further their agenda, and (b) put a compassionate face on a movement which is frequently viewed as patriarchal and in favor of strict gender roles. If there is a public showing of support for Palin, it makes the right seem progressive and stereotype-shattering for embracing a woman in power.

While Mohler’s arguments for supporting a female candidate for the White House are logical within his framework, I do not believe that the support for Palin is motivated by any larger purpose or great desire to see a woman in office. It still seems very hypocritical to deny so much power to women in other aspects of their lives, and then to make a public show of rallying around one particular female candidate who can help to further their interests.

The Right Rage

Most Americans would probably agree that rage is generally unfavorable. But these days, someone brand new to the national spotlight is all the rage, and she finds her bandwagon a bit fuller with every passing day. Not that Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin minds the rampant characterizations or barbs about inexperience that are being thrown her way; she’s happy to be raging against Barack Obama’s well-oiled political machine of astronomical fundraising and registering unprecedented numbers of new voters. McCain may claim to be the Maverick himself, but it’s Sarah Palin who is inspiring as much rage from the other half of America as we all felt when sweet ole’ Goose died. Now that’s saying something.

Newsweek columnist Lisa Miller is saying something, too. The selection of Palin, she claims, flies in the face of recent evidence that evangelicals have been turning from their hard-line socially conservative obsessions and “divisive religious rhetoric” toward things like “global warming, Darfur, illiteracy, human trafficking, preventable disease.” Had the change been made in earnest, these “softened” evangelicals could make political hay, potentially altering the identity of the Republican Party or swaying in large numbers toward Obama’s camp. But what Palin lacks in experience, she makes up for in zeal and focused ideology. She was raised Pentecostal and, if her politics are any indication, still espouses a strict moral code of behavior. Most importantly, though McCain struggled early on with the Republican Party’s evangelical base, Palin has announced her presence with the loud, angry beat of a very familiar drum: a rigid, aggressive pro-life platform.

Many of the young, reform-minded evangelicals might have been able to look beyond this utterly polarizing debate this election year – or at least see and clearly evaluate the issues surrounding it. It nearly goes without saying that evangelicals are pro-life, but it seems they were ready to turn the corner on their evaluation of its importance. After all, McCain doesn’t exactly stoke the spiritual fires that keep his base warm and active. Now, with the focus squarely back on a debate that essentially posits one candidate against the entire corpus of old-time religious values, abortion is returning to its status as the great wedge. While it may be true that change is coming no matter what ticket is elected come November, Sarah Palin aims to use one tried and true method to boost McCain into office: just the right amount of that same old, pro-life, right-wing rage.

Ave Sarah, Dominus tecum

The American public’s fascination with the intersection of sex, politics and gender has found a new expression during this election with the vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin. In this editorial by Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, he presents the Catholic counterpoint to the Evangelical’s warm acceptance of her candidacy. Stevens-Arroyo warns his readers not to indulge in the canonization of Palin, and contrasts her actions, particularly those involving sex, marriage and children, with the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom he considers to be the true role model for American women. Stevens-Arroyo’s accusations against Sarah Palin indicate that neither debates between Catholics and Protestants, nor disputes concerning sex, gender and women’s roles have changed significantly in over a century.

Stevens-Arroyo brackets his article by contrasting the Evangelical and Catholic viewpoints. He begins by noting that Palin left the Catholic church when she was twelve, and argues that her “conversion” from Catholicism to the evangelical tradition may “contribute to the favorable frenzy” surrounding Palin’s nomination. Contrasting the Catholic “natural law” with the Evangelical emphasis on private revelation, Stevens-Arroyo concludes his article by forwarding the argument that Palin’s religious views are dangerous to the American political system.

His comment that “Evangelicals like to boast of an ex-Catholic who renounces our faith” is a reflection on America’s anti-Romanism which began in the late 1800s. At that time, Josiah Strong, a Congregationalist minister, denounced Catholicism for the “irreconcilable difference between papal principles and the fundamental principles of our free institutions.” Over one hundred years and one beloved Catholic president later, a blatant distrust of Catholics is no longer tolerated in the mainstream media. However, as Stevens-Arroyo points out, many Evangelicals still privately maintain the belief that Catholics are not truly Christians, and therefore warmly welcome those who renounce their allegiance to papal authority. In a reversal of Protestant claims about Catholicism, notably Strong’s comment that “the Pope has ‘full and supreme power’ over politics as one of the ‘things which belong to faith and morals,’ ” Stevens-Arroyo argues that today it is Palin’s uninformed version of Christianity which threatens American government.

Continuing his critique of Palin’s “canonization” by Evangelicals, Stevens-Arroyo notes that Evangelicals seems to place more emphasis on repentance after sexual sin than on continuous purity. Moreover, he argues that “the Evangelical fascination with forbidden sexual fruit” has led to more support for Palin because she is considered attractive. He concludes his critique of the evangelical attitude towards gender and sexuality by pointing to Palin’s decision to give a political speech in Seattle after her water had broken as an indication that she values her own prestige more than the health and safety of her child.

A century ago, Stevens-Arroyo’s critiques would not have been unusual coming from the lips of a Protestant minister. The same themes, including lax sexual morals and permitting women to engage in activities which compromised their families, were fiery issues in Victorian era. Morone notes that throughout American history, “there was hell to pay whenever women ventured from the private sphere into the public (or male) realm.” The only difference between Stevens-Arroyo’s arguments and those made in the Victorian era is that Victorians cited Catholics as part of the immorality problem. Stevens-Arroyo reverses that claim, instead blaming Evangelicals for being too lenient on the moral failings of their beloved saint and denigrating the family by holding Palin up as a model for motherhood.

In addition to the long-standing conflict between Catholic and Protestant traditions, Stevens-Arroyo’s opinion reflects genuine concerns about sexual behavior, women’s roles and gender issues. Although his attitude is not reflected as broadly in mainstream culture today, Stevens-Arroyo draws on a historical undercurrent of American society to forward his arguments against Sarah Palin.