Sarah Palin. The gift that just keeps on giving… but to whom? And what’s this? Spirits of the Gulf Coast. September 2, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in US Politics.trackback
One wonders if there is a certain trepidation at McCain Central after the weekend. For while it is clear that the selection of Palin was of considerable help in reshaping the media agenda after a broadly successful Democratic Convention there is a certain unpredictability about events centered on the putative VP from here on out.
Some interesting micro-events that might give a read on the future. Note how:
After appearing with McCain at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, on Friday, Palin made her second campaign speech on Saturday near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Her stop in Pittsburgh showed a vulnerability that could be a worry for McCain. Some of the audience left as she was speaking and there was booing when, in an appeal to Democratic voters to switch to McCain, she mentioned Hillary Clinton.
There’s a trope abroad that Hillary Clinton had some near-magical ability to connect with elements of the electorate. One wonders. That analysis ignores a massive antagonism on the part of ‘elements’ of the electorate to Clinton and all her works, including her husband, an antagonism built up over a decade or more. The unpleasant thought also strikes me that her support in the recent campaign may well have been assisted marginally by an Anyone But Obama tranche of voters. And that’s before we get to Republican voters and activists proper. The boo’s above show how difficult it can be to reshape such opinions even for short term tactical gain.
Indeed, what we’re seeing in the Palin candidacy is an attempt by McCain to cover two bases. The first and most important is his own party. They don’t trust him, have little enthusiasm for him and find his supposed ‘maverick’ nature an abomination (in that he is regarded as having been disloyal to the party) – whatever the truth of his voting patterns. So much of this is about his teaching the Republican party to love him. Well, Palin certainly appeals to a number of key constituencies. Pro-life. Fiscal conservative (in Alaska though, that semi-socialist redistributionist paradise of the North – I joke, but only slightly). Evangelical Christian. Hunter. It’s perfect.
Except that it isn’t. The Republicans are doing a trojan job of attempting to argue that her ‘experience’ is equal to that of Obama, or rather vice versa. But it doesn’t really wash. Obama is by far the more experienced candidate. And as they saying goes when you’re explaining, or comparing, you’re losing.
The second area McCain hopes to engage with is that of (largely) women voters unimpressed by Obama being candidate. Those boo’s are worrying if he is even half serious. The welcome for former Clinton supporters in the Republican party might be less wholehearted than some delude themselves. Indeed there might be no welcome at all, and no attempt to massage egos, something that might take some of the gloss off the tactical cleverness of the selection of Palin. Incidentally this works both ways. Michael Tomasky in the Guardian argued that Clinton’s statement about Palin was lacking a certain something:
We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin’s historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.
Important and wrong? That’s quite a combination.
Tomasky argues that:
Once again, Hillary has leverage and can hold Obama over a barrel for a while here. Basically, there are three categories of people who voted for Clinton in the primaries. First, those who affirmatively adored her (mostly women but many men also). Second, those who wanted a woman president and may have had mixed feelings about her. Third, those who wanted to vote against “the black.”
The third category will vote McCain and over them she has no sway. But she has sway over groups one and two, and she has the power to depress significantly whatever votes Palin’s presence on the ticket may be able to deliver to the GOP. She has clearly decided that she’s not ready to do that yet. She will be at some point, but you can bet she’s going to make Obama wait, and make him ask her.
Without doubt that’s true up to a point. But, Palin is not an emollient figure with all the problems that entails in any bid to reach out to the centre ground. There is some support for the contention that she is one of the most right-wing figures to seek national office in the US in recent times, and that – surely – is saying something. So her power to appropriate those floating Clinton supporters is perhaps less than has hitherto been proposed, and Clinton’s leverage less again.
It’s getting a little blurry around the margins. For example, the news that her unmarried 17 year old daughter is about to have a child is a little too left-field, a little too uncontrolled. Perhaps the McCain campaign knew this when she accepted the nomination. Or perhaps it didn’t. But the way in which the truth came out suggests the latter, or at least a rather forlorn effort to control that news. There is something a touch chaotic about all this, not assisted by the shambolic start of the Republican Convention and the reprise of memories about Katrina (for my money the single issue, way ahead of the Iraq War, which sunk Bush) best left forgotten.
And if it’s blurry round the margins, perhaps it’s blurry at the centre.
Slate notes that:
The NYT and LAT both have Page One pieces that question just how thoroughly McCain’s campaign looked into Palin’s background. All signs point to one answer: not very thoroughly at all. The NYT says the team that was sent to Alaska to look into Palin’s background didn’t arrive until the day before McCain was scheduled to make the announcement. The NYT says that it’s becoming “increasingly apparent” that Palin was actually picked surprisingly close to the last minute.
And astoundingly, if true:
Until the middle of last week, McCain was still hoping for Sen. Joseph Lieberman, or, at the very least, former Gov. Tom Ridge. But the campaign changed track after it became clear that conservatives would have been outraged if McCain would have picked a running mate who favors abortion rights. “This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn’t get what he wanted,” one of the NYT’s sources said.
You know, any of us who’ve worked on any political campaign of any sort will know that corners are cut, that the structure of these entities, for want of a better term, are much more amorphous and contingent than those outside them think. But it’s pretty remarkable to discover that an attempt to take the White House by the incumbent party could be so… so… weirdly diffuse. That’s not just a touch chaotic. It’s the real deal. And it gets better again.
The LAT talks to one Republican who says McCain’s staff “vetted her through Google and clipping services.” That sounds like an exaggeration but the NYT talks to state leaders and local officials in Alaska who say none of them were called by McCain’s campaign during the vetting process.
So in a way it doesn’t sound like an exaggeration at all. What sort of vetting process is it that doesn’t actually, well, vet people.
This was at least partly because of a desire to keep the selection secret until the last minute, but some now think McCain could come to regret this focus on secrecy, which may have come at the expense of more thorough vetting.
Yeah, great. As well use a ouija board considering the nuggets of interesting information that are coming to the fore.
Then, and hat-tip to Splintered Sunrise for the link, as noted on the fascinating Mudflats blog, Sarah Palin has been a little economical with the actualite about her staunch opposition to the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’. She wasn’t, then she was. And then in a way, as Governor, she wasn’t. Which means she’s taken at least three sides of the issue. How very good of her. [for a very revealing insight into the selection, the mind of the selectee and indeed the selected, can I recommend Mudflat's photo safari of Wasilla, Alaska, the town of which Palin was Mayor for most of the past twelve years... that's executive experience you can depend on!].
Or how about her youthful indiscretion, also noted by Splintered Sunrise, in being a member, apparently, of the conservative Alaskan Independence Party from 1992 to 1996? The AIP looks for a vote on Alaska’s status, whether as state, territory, commonwealth or independent nation. The clue, incidentally, as to their outlook on these issues is in the title. So, let’s get this straight, the VP nominee for the Republicans was once a member of a broadly secessionist party. Surely, no contemporary candidate can have had a more exotic political pedigree (incidentally the AIP is quite a machine in Alaska). I mean had she been a member of the SLA it could hardly be, in conceptual terms, more unusual.
As John Dickerson noted in Slate today:
Each new fact we learn about Sarah Palin—her reversal on the bridge to nowhere, her disagreements with McCain on issues from windfall profits to global warming, emerging facts about troopergate—contribute to the feeling that this whole Palin thing is being made up as we go along. It may be fun to read about, and it sure is fun to cover, but it also supports the judgment of the Palin pick that I first heard from a Republican veteran shortly after the announcement: “Reckless.”
Made up as it goes along.
It comes back to an issue noted here before… when the Vice-Presidential choice starts to make their own news rather than enhance the news the Presidential nominee is trying to shape, then someone is in some trouble.
How much trouble? That remains to be seen. Perhaps McCain will do his magic (which tends to be a tad more credible than Clinton’s) and give this a charming and lovable makeover. But it appears like a shambles in contrast to the rather grimly efficient Democratic push to retake the White House.
Meanwhile, back at the convention heartening news to see how a bit of nifty rebranding can do the trick:
All but two hours of the conference were cancelled today. A cocktail party planned for tonight, named Spirits of Minneapolis, was renamed Spirits of the Gulf Coast, with a fundraiser present to help bring in cash for the the American Red Cross hurricane effort.
You. Cake. it. Have. And. Your. Eat. Can’t.
Who says?
For an overview of these issues I’d recommend, as always, NPRs To The Point. Their last two programmes have been particularly informative.
Ah, and the latest scandal – from being ‘anti-corruption’, it now appears she was the director of Ted Stevens’ (the Senator currently under investigation for corruption) 527 group. The same 527 groups McCain wants (rightly) to do away with.
I was worried on Friday. But as Labor (looks so wierd without a ‘u’) Day weekend polls show Obama bumped up to 6-9 points ahead, Palin looks like a bad, bad choice. She could still be made to step down for ‘family reasons’ – hey, she has a great excuse. I don’t think it’ll happen – but it might.
It’s just baffling that the Republicans could be so disorganised. He’s had MONTHS to pick a VP. This is embarrassing.
WbS
The linked Guardian story at the start doesn’t seem to include the reference to a speech by Palin in Pittsburgh as quoted.
Was it somewhere else?
Oops Pete, my mistake. I’ll go searching.
Claire, that’s true. Isn’t it weird? To The Point suggested that as close in as 24 hours prior to the announcement it wasn’t a done deal. What gives?
Thanks WbS. I see the new link.
Not sure it’s such a weakness in that particular instance though. No doubt a rally of Republican voters. Booing a mention of Hillary? Surely not.
They’ll not not vote McCain/Palin on that issue.
Personally, I think the Alaskan Independence Party issue is a complete red-herring.
Not being a life-long dyed-in-the-wool as-was-my-grandfather Republican Party member could work in her [and McCain's] favour.
I also like the bit where they had to admit that she had never vistited Ireland
http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/palin-lied-about-visiting-ireland-as.html
She is the gift that keeps giving, isn’t she? I would tend to agree with Wednesday that if the Reps really wanted to appeal to Clinton voters they would have picked the very able and centrist Olympia Snowe, but then of course the evangelicals would have gone buck mad.
The bridge thing does reflect on McCain though, as it seems to be the issue that sold him on Palin. Lord knows, it’s the only domestic issue he seems to care about.
Yeah, Reps couldn’t go with Snowe because she’s pro choice. That said, she WOULD have brought over a lot of Hillary voters – not all, but many. Evangelicals are never going to endorse and vote for a pro-choice ticket (in their minds, McCain is pro-choice – they don’t trust him).
However, the evangelicals are never going to vote for Obama. They’d either go a bit mad (Ron Paul, the Constitution Party) or not vote at all (which could be a worry). Still, I think Snowe, or Lieberman, would have won him the middle ground.
“Personally, I think the Alaskan Independence Party issue is a complete red-herring.”
Pete in principle I agree with you (indeed, on many levels one can see why Alaskans, and Hawaiians, would want independence). But actually I think this could be one of the most damaging things that’s come out about her. Americans do NOT understand why someone wouldn’t want to be American. It is anathema to them. I don’t mean that insultingly – they’re not stupid, it just never comes up. They don’t have debates about national identity the way we do. They ARE Americans, and they love being Americans, and they would never want to be anything and can’t imagine being anything else. (I truly don’t mean this in a bad way, I’m not trying to insult their intelligence or their imagination.) The issue just doesn’t feature on their political radar, if you know what I mean.
So to lower-48ers, the idea of a state wanting to secede from the Union is like kicking Abraham Lincoln in the face. They don’t understand it. I really think, if it’s true, it has the potential to REALLY damage her.
Claire
“So to lower-48ers, the idea of a state wanting to secede from the Union is like kicking Abraham Lincoln in the face. They don’t understand it. I really think, if it’s true, it has the potential to REALLY damage her.”
I do get that. But “if it’s true”? If it’s true that over a decade ago she was a member of that party?
She’s campaigned as a Republican since then.
It’s part of the current Democrat desperation to find some dirt on her. Anything at all will do at the moment.
There’s a long way to go. And there’s no way of knowing how any of this will play out in the longer term.
At the minute there’s a lot of wishful thinking going on about the result of an election that is many weeks away.
The AIP do seem an interesting bunch. As far as I can figure, they just want to sit on their porch and shoot any moose or bear that passes by. But yeah Claire, I see what you’re saying.
It just looks more and more like a completely bizarre choice. Alaska is traditionally one of about the three reddest red states (Utah being reddest of the lot, and I think Idaho is up there somewhere). So you’ve a state where people would elect a parrot on a stick governor, as long as the parrot had the Republican nomination. And Palin wins on an anybody-but-Frank-Murkowski ticket, when Alaskans reckon Murkowski to have been the worst governor in history. So having won a basically unlosable election, she barely has time to get her feet under the desk and start firing state troopers before a man she’s met twice offers her the Vice Presidency. I know McCain likes his maverick image, but this is just bonkers.
“So you’ve a state where people would elect a parrot on a stick governor, as long as the parrot had the Republican nomination.”
Slight kink in that theory, Splintered.
List of Alaskan Governors.
That final link might not work – for some reason.
Here’s the url
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Alaska#Governors_of_Alaska
Pete – quite right about the wishful thinking, but sure isn’t that half the fun
Splintered is right about Alaska never having been a battleground. Indeed you may have underestimated it somewhat – Wikipedia tells me it’s the reddest state: “No state has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate fewer times”.
I would hazard a guess (though I can’t claim to be an expert in Alaskan state politics) that given the very small population of the state, Democrats that get elected do so on their personal qualifications, and it’s more of a personality contest (Miss Congeniality?
) than an ideological battle. But that’s just a guess.
Claire
“Wikipedia tells me it’s the reddest state: “No state has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate fewer times”.”
I seem to be having a problem with my links but here’s a good one on the history of the governors of Alaska.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Alaska#Governors_of_Alaska
How that election for Governor went
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Alaska#Governors_of_Alaska
Governor Took office Left office Party Lieutenant Governor[8] Terms[9]
1 William A. Egan January 3, 1959 December 5, 1966 Democratic Hugh Wade 2
2 Walter J. Hickel December 5, 1966 January 29, 1969 Republican Keith Miller ½[10]
3 Keith Miller January 29, 1969 December 7, 1970 Republican Robert W. Ward ½[11]
4 William A. Egan December 7, 1970 December 2, 1974 Democratic H. A. “Red” Boucher 1
5 Jay Hammond December 2, 1974 December 6, 1982 Republican Lowell Thomas, Jr. 2
Terry Miller
6 Bill Sheffield December 6, 1982 December 1, 1986 Democratic Stephen McAlpine 1
7 Steve Cowper December 1, 1986 December 3, 1990 Democratic Stephen McAlpine 1
8 Walter J. Hickel December 3, 1990 December 5, 1994 Alaskan Independence[12] Jack Coghill 1
9 Tony Knowles December 5, 1994 December 2, 2002 Democratic Fran Ulmer 2
10 Frank Murkowski December 2, 2002 December 4, 2006 Republican Loren Leman 1
11 Sarah Palin December 4, 2006 Incumbent Republican Sean Parnell 1[13]
All right, I throw up my hands. It is possible for a Democrat to be elected to statewide office in Alaska. But it doesn’t happen very often, and, coming back to Claire, when it does it seems to be very much personality-driven as often happens in these small states. Plus, many of these Dems are extremely conservative Dems by lower-48 standards. Not unlike (in days of yore) UUP people who were effectively DUP.
The second Hickel term is a case in point – the guy never ceased to be basically a Republican, but for some obscure reason didn’t get the Reps’ nod, so the AIP gave him their slot on the ballot.
It’s also the case that Alaska almost never votes Democrat for the presidency, and in recent contests has gone Republican by enormous margins. The fact that McCain (prior to the Palin nomination) only had a single-digit lead in Alaska was suggestive. And it’ll be interesting to see if this helps or hinders him up there.
I see Maman Poulet has done her bit to scupper Palin’s biog…Shannon Stopover Alert!
Pete, that’s true that November is a long way away, but it’s not so much desperation (after all in the polls that matter – those of individual states Obama/Biden is ahead) as bemusement and incredulity. In a way its true the AIP is a bit of a red-herring, and yet, and yet. I don’t think it feeds into the larger picture in a positive way, any more than a Republican rally which is meant to underpin the McCain/Palin tickets outreach to disenchanted Clinton supporters does much good by booing her very name. But look, I covered myself by calling these micro-events
splintered and Claire, I’d agree with that. Democrats can make an impact but usually on personality rather than policy grounds.
At the minute there’s a lot of wishful thinking going on about the result of an election that is many weeks away.
My personal contribution to wishful thinking is the wish that they’d bloody get it over with.
Incidentally, I don’t suppose the reason Alaska is so Republican is that it’s very largely populated by pissed-off white men sitting in bars?
Seems as if the AIP story was a red-herring..
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/palin-and-the-a.html
“Dexter Clark, husband of Lynette and a vice chairman of the Alaska Independence Party, said that when his wife told reporters that Palin had been an AIP member she was “acting on information from Mark Chryson,” the party’s regional chair for Wasilla, Palin’s hometown. The 1994 convention was held in Wasilla, where Palin was a city councilmember at the time. Chryson “has repeatedly said to me personally and my wife, Lynette, and groups of party members at large, that at that 1994 convention, Sarah and Todd Palin attended and registered as members,” Dexter Clark told Mother Jones.
Asked how Palin could have been a member, when state records did not indicate Palin ever registered as an AIP member, Chyrson, in an interview with Mother Jones, backed off his account. “What could have been the confusion—her husband was a member of the party. He was at the convention. She could have been considered—it might have been thought she was a member then.” Talking Points Memo has reported that Todd Palin was a member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002, with the exception of a short period in 2000 when he was undeclared.
Chyrson said he did not remember seeing Sarah Palin at the 1994 convention: “I don’t, no. I was working behind the scenes. Back then I was only vaguely familiar with her. I would not have recognized her. I had just met her. I probably would not have recognized her.” He added that Sarah Palin did not play “an active role in the party” or to speak out for its causes.
Not being registered as an AIP member did not keep some Alaskans from being supporters of the party and its aims. Jack Coghill, the lieutenant governor of Alaska from 1990 to 1994 and a candidate for governor in 1994 on the AIP ticket, told Mother Jones that being friendly with the AIP and a registered Republican was “common” in the 1990s. Might Palin had had a similar relationship with the party? Given her husband’s long-time membership in the group, Palin was likely aware of the group’s tenets. And in 2008, as governor, she submitted a welcoming video to the AIP convention in Fairbanks. “Your party plays an important role in our state’s politics,” she said. “I’ve always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well… We have a great promise: to be a self-sufficient state.” She closed by saying, “Good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you.”"
I don’t think the Palin pick was really an act of desperation so much as the act of McCain shooting from the hip again. This is one great positives/negatives about him: he can be daring/reckless. He could have gone for a safer choice, but that’s not his style. {And, let’s face it, there was nobody “exciting” in the Republican ranks and no governor or Senator from a swing state available. By all accounts the choices were: Lieberman, Pawlenty, Huckabee, etc.}
I kind of like McCain’s almost wacky devil-may-care attitude to risk-taking, but it can burn him. Might have with Palin.
but it can burn him
And indeed everybody else, if that’s a consideration.
Pete,
If Palin were ever a member of the AIP it was when Governor Hickel took over the party in the early 1990s. Apparently a lot of disaffected Republicans made the switch at the time. From wiki:
Although he had common ground with the Alaska Independence Party in fighting restrictions on land use imposed by federal environmentalism, Hickel had been one of the most influential historical proponents of Alaska statehood and never endorsed the AIP’s secessionism, prompting some party faithful to petition for his recall. Completing his term as Governor, he rejoined the Republican Party in April 1994.
Hickel also supported Palin in 2006. I doubt he’d have done so if she were ever committed to secession.
All the political stuff seems like pretty small beer to me. BUT, Palin’s home life will be her ruination. The pregnant daughter should have been an alarm if McCain was aware of how it would look to centrist women voters that Palin was willing to put her daughter through this.
I’ve also seen photographs of Bristol Palin with bottles of beer and liquor. Again, not all that unusual in a teenager, but if those pics get more airing (and they will) it will further add to the sense that this woman’s family needs her. Is it right? Doesn’t matter. It will undermine support for her ticket.
Eagle
Thanks for the additional historical background.
Looks like she was never actually a member of the AIP, so far as anyone can tell, and regards them as political competition.
Hmmm… Pete, I think if her husband was a member we can safely say she had more than a passing knowledge of the AIP (and it’s a bit more than a ‘group’). She certainly did attend the 2000 convention of the AIP. But look, why would you defend someone whose approach to science is clearly off the scale?
WbS
“we can safely say she had more than a passing knowledge of the AIP”
Yes. And she still didn’t become a member. And she has referred to the AIP as her political competition.
“why would you defend someone whose approach to science is clearly off the scale?”
Because, not only is she entitled to her opinions, but she’s entitled to be judged on her actual opinions – Not on the half-baked accusations that have been thrown in her general direction thus far.
Importantly, she’s entitled to be judged on her actual policy platform and record of what she did when in office.
Do Alaskan schools teach Intelligent Design as science, for example? Has she attempted to force them to do so?
WbS
To add.
After all, is Obama less of a supernaturalist?
Firstly I should preface this by saying I’m not attempting for a second to be antagonistic to you and my phrasing earlier in asking you the question was a tad unfair. I would say that while there are people out there who hold conservative positions that I might disagree with but yet would respect, such as say McCain for all his faults or indeed Eagle for all his virtues
, there are those whose positions are very clearly either opportunistic and/or simply wrong (and hey, I’m making an unpaid career of doing the same to those on the left who take a similar approach). She did have a public policy of having Intelligent Design taught along with evolution. That her position in office changes is neither here nor there, systemic blocks to such nonsense presumably came into play, she held that position in the first place. That puts her right outside my comfort zone full stop. I’m not particularly exercised about other aspects of her policy positions. I disagree with many of them, but they’re issues that people of goodwill can take opposing sides without rancour, but that? Uh-uh.
WbS
I don’t wish to be seen as antagoinstic either, but Palin does deserve to be judged on her record.
“She did have a public policy of having Intelligent Design taught along with evolution.”
Not according to the quotes I’ve seen from her.
Yes, it’s a clarification. But it is from before her election as Alaskan Governor.
Well there we’ll have to differ. To me it seems that her approach was at the very least opportunistic and her clarification equally so. I dislike intensely the politicisation of this issue in the US. She was clearly willing to run with it when it suited her and drop it when it didn’t.
After all, is Obama less of a supernaturalist?
She’s not a supernaturalist, more a ‘naturalist’. She openly believes that God takes an active role in the running of things, expressing his will on matters such as gas pipelines, and planning the Iraq war. Any being that performs such mundane feats could not be reasonably described as ’supernatural’.
Yeah, that seems about right Hugh. I really think the Church video tells us more than we would like to know.
Hugh
That’s a crap argument.
If WbS will pardon my language.
To clarify the “crap argument” point.
It fails to address the quote.
“After all, is Obama less of a supernaturalist?”
Is he?
“Any being that performs such mundane feats could not be reasonably described as ’supernatural’.”
Which fails to address the nature of the “being” referred to.
Or the degree to which either of the candidates are themselves a supernaturalist.
So, once again, is Obama less of a supernaturalist?
Well, I didn’t realise I was making an argument. I outlined what I perceive as the substance of Palin’s beliefs.
Which fails to address the nature of the “being” referred to.
Well, Pete. Are you familiar with ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits?’ Supernatural is as supernatural does. And there’s nothing supernatural about planning gas pipelines and wars.
I can’t answer how one can be ‘more’ or ‘less’ of a supernaturalist, because I don’t accept the term ’supernaturalism’ as a reasonable description to be applied to all religious faith since not all manifestations of faith are the same.
In particular, there’s no reason why Christian faith, which as I understand it Obama professes, ought to require a belief in otherworldIy essences, which is what I take you to mean by ’supernaturalist’. Belief in resurrection need not involve belief in clouds and pearly gates. But anyway, I don’t know what the precise character of Obama’s beliefs are, and I don’t care.
“But anyway, I don’t know what the precise character of Obama’s beliefs are, and I don’t care.”
And yet you do care about the precise character of Sarah Palin’s faith?
Why don’t you care about Obama’s beliefs?
And yet you do care about the precise character of Sarah Palin’s faith?
Not particularly, only her public pronouncements on the matter (but I don’t care about the fact that her my-God-is-a-corporatist-racist-sadist views are hers, rather the fact that they are shared by millions.).
Why don’t you care about Obama’s beliefs?
See above.
I think that Hugh’s point makes sense. The issue of supernaturalism isn’t the central problem, it’s the impact of the specific beliefs of particular supernaturalisms which are of concern (to me at least). A political view that is shaped in part by, say an End Times worldview, is going to lead to significantly different outcomes across a range of areas from one (social policy, international policy, etc, etc) which isn’t – even if in the second instance that belief is equally irrational.
WbS
I’m just not that keen on anyone relying on simplistic caricatures to criticise a politician rather than their policies.
It’s apparently enough to identify them as believing that “my-God-is-a-corporatist-racist-sadist”.
Even if she did believe that she was beckoning on The Rapture that, in itself, doesn’t preclude anyone being a beneficial influence on human progress – Sir Francis Bacon being a perfect example of that.
“But anyway, [Hugh doesn't] know what the precise character of Obama’s beliefs are, and [he doesn't] care.”
It’s apparently enough to identify them as believing that “my-God-is-a-corporatist-racist-sadist”.
It’s true, and it’s not a caricature. Her God -as she publicly declared- wants people and companies to unite to build gas pipelines. She declared the Iraq war to be part of God’s plan, which means that whatever has happened to the Iraqis as the result of the American invasion is part of what God intended.
As for whether such views ‘preclude them from being a beneficial influence on human progress’, you’re right, they don’t. The same is true not only of Francis Bacon but also of people elsewhere who express the view, for instance, that God intended planes to be flown into the World Trade Centre. It’d be odd, though, if your primary concern is human progress, to consider such people’s potential for advancing human progress without examining their publicly declared views on such matters.
Hmmm… I’m not as sanguine as you Pete about these things. The obvious problem with Francis Bacon is that he lived in a very very different time and wasn’t a prospective nominee for the office of Vice-President of the United States. And it’s not that I’m instinctively antagonistic to religious belief. Quite the opposite, but simply that some belief systems, and particularly eschatological (or near eschatological) ones are simply too loaded with socio-political freight to be beyond serious consideration in specific contexts. One where one has executive power, both formal and informal, is precisely that sort of a context.
But there’s another issue, even if we put the end times stuff to one side. Scientific American some years back had a rather fine editorial about the naked politicisation of science and science issues under the Bush administration noting that in areas as widely divergent as the EPA, social policy administration, bioethics and so on there had been a chilling effect upon whistle blowers and scientific consensus. Palin is a tribune of precisely that sort of effect. I think another four or eight years of that would have significant effects on the position of scientific research (and education) in the US. Sure, it might not happen. Palin might do what she did in Alaska and back away from contention, but the record of Bush administrations 1 and 2 don’t give me any great optimism that the risk is worth taking.
If it’s important to them, and they’re standing for high office, surely it’s important to us?
Absolutely.
Absolutely indeed.
But let’s be sure that we’re talking about their actual beliefs, and not just ones which make it all too easy to demonise them for.
And when there’s a record of their time in office, that should be checked against what any actual beliefs identified might suggest they could act if elected elsewhere.
There are already plenty of myths out there about this particular candidate.
The NYTimes tries to get a handle on those actual beliefs – but spends more time discussing the beliefs of others.
And the same scepticism is needed of claims about the presidential candidate.
I’m absolutely not starry eyed about Obama. For many reasons. Indeed I’d be pretty cynical. But it does strike me that Palin goes across a line at that ceremony that he has not, or at least not until we see him participate so publicly in something similar where he gives his full throated validation to the particular church, the prayers, etc, etc. And while the Rev. Wright issue is problematic, it does not appear to have the same traction, and one might suggest that Obama – rightly or wrongly – threw him under the proverbial bus in a bid to distance himself from Wrights rhetoric.
WbS
I never said you were starry-eyed, and I never believed that either.
But, on Palin, do you mean the “a task that is from God” quote?
Or, more fully, that they should pray “that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.”
Or, to paraphrase, let us pray that we’re doing the right thing.
I can certainly imagine many christians saying that.
I’m no apologist for supernaturalists of any creed – as my posts on Slugger should attest to – but, given that religion is an individual’s way of interpreting and understanding the world around them, those of us without religion should attempt to understand what they’re actually saying – rather than ascribing apocalyptic connotations to those words.
Better that those with belief are honest than for them to hide behind an understanding that, by being honest, they will be seen as “nutters” – in Tony Blair’s words.
And Palin’s a non-demoninational christian. So whatever her current place of worship’s representative says doesn’t, necessarily, represent her beliefs.
Btw, on the gas pipe-line, here’s an interesting view in the Washington Post.
-”Does Sarah Palin govern the most secular state in America?
Many conclusions can be drawn about the kind of state Alaska is given that they elected a governor who self-identifies as a “Bible-believing Christian.” But a quick look at the statistics from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Landscape Survey quickly show that the people who elected her as governor, with the highest approval ratings in the nation, are not very religious….
Alaska ties Oregon as the state with the most people who are unaffiliated with any particular religion.
Alaska also has one of the lowest rates in the nation of people who believe in a god or universal spirit. The national average is that 71% believe in God or a universal spirit, while in Alaska that number is only 61%. In addition, more Alaskans say that religion is “not important at all” in their lives than people in any other state. Thirty-one percent of Alaskans said that religion is not too important or not important at all, compared with 16% of people nationally.”-
http://election08.secular.org/node/63
It’s a tough one Pete. I’m still not convinced that we can’t look at her, her participation, etc and have significant queries, whether we’re theists or not. Taken in tandem with CLs piece above I think its reasonable to suggest that she has a fairly cookie cutter right wing evangelical outlook and is at the very least happy to swim in the waters with those who believe profoundly noxious stuff (after all, what else is end times but noxious?). But moreover she is willing to mix temporal/political and spiritual in a way which I thought was breath taking both for its cynicism and its inappropriateness. Sure, she’s honest – on one scale. But she’s horribly wrong just doing what she did and if an Irish, Northern Irish or indeed British politician did likewise they’d be rightly lambasted (and yes a certain I Robinson sailed close to that wind…).