Is Palin the GOP leader of the future?

Rod wrote in part: "It's like this: my folks are proud of me for having written a book that the Wall Street Journal loved, but -- and they love me too much to put it this way -- they think I'm full of shit. My kind of conservatism makes little sense to them."

I loved this line, Rod, because that is the essential flaw in the Crunchy Con program. I am fully sympathetic to your concerns and your approach, but there are times when it seems as though it is cooked up in the library, or maybe in reaction to a few years in the big city -- and in nostalgia for small town life that is only in partial congruence with reality.

I grew up outside of a small town in Vermont, and I know that, at least when I was growing up, people liked having jobs, and that meant being connected to a larger economy that created a market for the books, the paper napkins, the optical equipment, and the other paper products that local plants produced. They liked to be able to see the Red Sox on TV, or to hear them on the radio. We liked to be able to drive down to Springfield or to Hartford for a rock concert. And when Wal-Mart came to town (actually, across the river in NH, as a result of NIMBYism in the town itself, and the opportunity to take advantage of New Hampshire's lack of sales tax), these people patronized it because they could get some of the essential stuff that day to day life calls for, and for less.

My hometown has changed a lot since I graduated from high school, and is now far more crunchy than con. But there are a lot of places that are still like my town used to be, not only in Kansas (and there is not so much the matter with Kansas), but in places like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. I bet Governor Palin has a lot of appeal in places like that. It's going to be interesting to watch.

Was your sister tryng to hunt deer with a shotgun?

Yeah, a 12-gauge, in a small field. When I was 12, I brought down a big buck once in the swamp with a 20-gauge.

"We are as fully committed to the Information Revolution today as were to the Industrial Revolution in 1896."

I'm intrigued by this. Isn't it at least possible that the Information Revolution permits some of the social changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution to be reversed? What I mean by this is that, by having had my eye on the "main chance", and thus having my own (small) business tied into the Information Revolution, I have achieved a crunchy-ish lifestyle, growing much of our own food, living a few miles from where I was brought up, and with ancestors in 15th-century graves a few miles up the valley. This would have been much more difficult 20 years ago.

Two things:

First:

"People like me see Palin as a culture warrior, but only because she's drawn so much incoming fire from her cultural enemies." (emphasis mine)

I don't think the record reflects that. See this NYT article about her initial race for mayor, in which she injected abortion and religion into a nonpartisan local election that usually turns on techocratic service-delivery issues:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

If someone chooses to vote for Palin based on "culture war" issues, so be it, it would be in keeping with Rod's beliefs for him to do so, but don't try to tell me she hasn't actively sought out a "culture warrior" role.

Second:

"She's my sister, actually, and I find that admirable..."

No, she isn't. (Except maybe in the Christian sense, but that would include a whole lot of other people as well, and I'm pretty sure that's not what Rod's getting at here.) She's not your sister, she's an ambitious and calculating politician who is deliberately playing up her superficial similarities to people like your sister so that people like you will support her bid for power. Of course, that doesn't make her different from any other politician in the race, but that's my point. We see this same narrative play out again and again. (Clinton is a guy like me while Bush I is an out-of-touch member of the elite! Bush II is a guy like me while Kerry is an out-of-touch member of the elite!) It only bears the slightest resemblance to reality, and Rod, I hate to see you swallow it so uncritically.

rod, my impression of manzi's piece isn't that palin's speech was particularly comparable to the jennings' cross of gold speech in substance, but in its audience. manzi is noting that the kind of small time ruralism/populism exemplified in palin's speech appeals to a shrinking subset of the overall population and will become electorally anachronistic, as did jennings' appeal to the farming community that shrunk in half over the course of his adult life.

manzi, i think, is saying that if this is the GOP electoral strategy it will soon become ineffective because of population trends.

I'm going to split the difference a bit here. She may have similarities to your sister, but she probably also has real differences.

Palin is in some respects a curious and ambivalent figure to me at the moment. In image she is seen both as "one of us" and rather strange or exotic. I don't know about you, but I do not know many women who

Eat moose
Were voted Miss Congeniality at a statewide pageant
Worked as a sports reporter
Married a man of Eskimo descent
Held political office while pregnant

Certainly not one who is all five of those things. I think most of the people chanting "Sarah" don't know anyone like that either. Yet they do know working mothers of rural backgrounds who did sports in school or hunt. So they're embracing both exoticism and ordinariness in a curious way.

I suppose it's also a form of narcissism to paraphrase Northern Exposure. People don't really know this woman so they're projecting things onto her. Or, in the case of some women, things they might desire in themselves. (I just mean being a successful and "gutsy" working mother, I don't want anti-Palin women railing at me. I use "gutsy" as the anti-Palin e-mail agrees to that) Whether these things are real or not is unclear to me. I think some of them appear to be the real thing. However I think she probably is, as well, intensely ambitious and controlling. At the moment I find her both inspiring and slightly unnerving. In an odd way it's similar to how I feel about another "Feminist for Life", Patricia Heaton.

"People like me see Palin as a culture warrior, but only because she's drawn so much incoming fire from her cultural enemies." (emphasis mine)

I don't think the record reflects that.

Well, there's this article from the Washington Post (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26616212/) - "Palin bills state for nights at home, kids’ travel: Officials defend reimbursements, but trips with children raise questions", but what's fascinating is a) the story doesn't actually quote anybody raising any actual questions, only people who explain that yes, what she's done is within policy boundaries for the state and that she's a lot less expensive on this front than her predecessor, and b) they run it with what is clearly intended to be an unflattering picture. The story is a very interesting example of how editorializing occurs in ostensibly straight news reporting. The headline is clearly calculated to put a negative spin on what would be otherwise benign data. I'd say the piece qualifies as "incoming fire from a cultural enemy".

Richard

It's like this: my folks are proud of me for having written a book that the Wall Street Journal loved, but -- and they love me too much to put it this way -- they think I'm full of shit.

I guess this more or less says it, huh? I am from a small, rural, economically depressed, moribund town which I had to leave for any job prospects. I am in sympathy with much of the cruchy agenda, but my family (to some extent) and many friends and others who still live back home also tend to view me as "full of shit".

I think perhaps this is the source of some of what you erroneously identify as "Angry Left" stuff. Many of us grew up in very red, traditional regions, loved our homeland, our families, and our people, but grew up (for whatever reason) with values that marked us as "different". I never was into hunting or shooting (though I have no moral problems with them, and got into target shooting as an adult); I never was into sports (which I do have moral problems with, since many families in Red America would rather have a kid who is a football captain than an academic achiever); etc. etc. Moverover, as an adult I have come to see the real devastation modern, Wal-Mart economics has wrought on the town of my youth. For all that, though, the people back home are cheerfully content to destroy themselves by their choices in a region whose economy is unlikely ever to recover, and to deride a native son as "full of shit" because his priorities were different; never mind that he wants his home region to survive.

I don't hold this view, but I think it's understandable that people like you or me who have had this experience sometimes take it out in anger, taking a "well, fine! Destroy yourselves, you idiots, see if I care! You never liked me, anyway!" attitude.

I think there is a definite tension in holding together the "crunchy" with the "con". Most of the real, small-town people whom the GOP courts have no interest in the "crunchy" agenda, and seem genuinely puzzled when things get worse and worse. They keep voting GOP and blaming the liberals, when they are in actuality shooting themselves in the foot again and again. Remember the post on Patrick's blog where the man from Carolina told how it was always the local Republicans who were impeding the crunchy agenda.

On the other hand, I think those who are crunchy often don't share many key aspects of the "conservative" worldview. Or maybe it's like this: so much of what passes for "conservatism" is actually the American ideology, bought into by so much of the populace, Left and Right. This is as follows: you can have as much of anything as you want, you can have it all, and you don't have to make sacrifices or trade-offs. That seemed to work for a long time, but we are now at a point where we are realizing, kicking and screaming through it all, that the world is not that way. It may be that it is harder for traditional, down-home, small-town America to see some of this, because one has to distance oneself, psychologically, to see some of this (e.g. that even though Wal-Mart has better prices, it is bad in the long run for the local economy; or that deveoloping huge tracts of land might make money for the town today, these may be empty McMansions tomorrow, something that is happening in my town). Thus, for now, there may be a necessary dialectic between "cruncy" and "con".

This is why I think we need a third-party movement in this country, and why I think crunchy cons need to be far more skeptical of the GOP than it seems that many of them are.

"Here on my planet, which Rod has so kindly dubbed "Zork"--"you're full of shit" does not equal "I love you, man!" Even if you don't actually say it, but just let it be known that's what you're thinking, but you're too nice to say it. It ain't love if you can't even get a respectful hearing."

Posted by: sigaliris | September 9, 2008 9:53 AM

Sigilaris, I think you're misunderstanding Rod, here. I think he's making the point that his family love him unreservedly, but don't always buy into his "high falutin'" ideas, mainly because they aren't professional intellectuals, like Rod is. I'm sure they've given him a "respectful hearing," but perhaps they're not equipped to completely understand his philosophy... or maybe they're just practical folks who find it silly... or theoretically sound but unrealistic in the "real world." I can't begin to know what Rod's family is like, but based on what he's written here about them, I think you're off base suggesting their attitude implies a lack of love. But then, I'm not from Planet Zork, whatever that means. Guess I missed that post!

Sig:

Here on my planet, which Rod has so kindly dubbed "Zork"--"you're full of shit" does not equal "I love you, man!" Even if you don't actually say it, but just let it be known that's what you're thinking, but you're too nice to say it. It ain't love if you can't even get a respectful hearing.

Things are different on Zork. Where I'm from, "I love you, but you're full of shit" is par for the course. Nobody would think it odd in the slightest. But we're different that way on Planet Louisiana.

Rod, back to the assertion raised in jim Manzi's column -- are Sarah palin's speech and her political persona a throwback to an irretrievable past, like William Jennings Bryan -- the answer is (as it usually is) "it depends".

If the Right attempts to shove the Sarah Palin persona into a box that is in the Ozzie and Harriet and Up with People continuum, they will fail. Directionally, the culture is moving away from anybody's past -- it always does so.

A thought: maybe sincere "critics" (in the classic sense of the term) of Sarah Palin and what she supposedly represents truly need to spend some field anthropological time in Alaska. In Alaska one will find a strong influence of what some have termed the "leave us alone" coalition. For some on the right, that's all good in the context of guns and taxes, and something to be feared when it comes to two gay ladies buying the house down the street. In Alaska's small towns (and I lived in one), places that are relatively new and raw, one certainly finds intolerance, and suspicion of change that threatens, especially if seen as imposed from above. But, because you also find neighbors who depend on each other, and who encounter each other in the stores and at high school basketball games, a person has experiences that bring them into direct encounters with people with whom they might disagree, or with whose values they might believe to be alien, or wrong. This is a piece of the "Last Frontier" experience that is as old as the Comstock Lode, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Mohawk Trail.

What most often results -- from my years of living up there -- is that those who come into those encounters with strong Christian principles (or for that matter, strong principles of many other kinds) make the decision that the key to life is to live those principles, not simply to proclaim them. Now, don't get me wrong. People are imperfect, and Alaska has its share of fallen Christians, hypocrites, and all the other sociological subgroups anyone on this blog could name. What I think is different is that the greater intimacy of life in a community where one has a deeper understanding of "who is my neighbor" compels a deeper encounter with what one professes to believe. In a smaller and less anonymous community, it is much more difficult to proclaim one thing in the church hall during adult Sunday school, and do another thing in the office, or at the sales meeting, or at city hall. And if you do, you're likely to get called on it.

The combination of a frontier-driven "leave me alone" spirit, the relative intimacy of community, the fact that the place itself -- Alaska -- calls to your attention that you are small and something else is big (whether that something else be God, or Gaia) leads a great many people to a two steps forward, one step back way of life that involves walking their talk.

Please understand, I am NOT saying "as opposed to Barack Obama or Joe Biden". I am just speaking from what I do understand about the place Sarah Palin comes from. Agree with her or disagree with her as you will. I think this is one key to understanding her.

Richard

Rod,

I understand the knee-jerk reaction to seeing lefties pile on Palin, but that says much more about lefties and us than it says about Palin, doesn't it?

What I actually know about Palin, and I've been reading everything I can and trying to sort the voluminous chaff from the sparse wheat, you could fit in a thimble. What are her bedrock values? What are her policies? Her statements are all over the place, and her actions as mayor and governor are so varied as to give no strong indication one way or the other.

There's one thing that stands out, though. She does know how to be dismissive. She was dismissive of Obama at the convention, but with the same tone and voice with which she was dismissive of "what the vice-president actually does all day." That her default seems to be that of a taunt did not warm me to her.

It seems to me that there's a lot of projecting of things on Palin, lefties projecting their darkest fears, righties projecting their warmest desires, but not a whole lot of Palin in that.

"Sarah Palin makes perfect sense to me as the kind of person I grew up with. She's my sister, actually, and I find that admirable, and more to the point, understandable."

Rod, I don't know how thoroughly you're reading the comments these days (I doubt I could keep it up with it, but I've noticed you linking to a lot of "good points" like Larison and Frum yesterday that I had mentioned or linked in the comments days over the previous days) but I hope you see this one.

All I can say is that I really, really, REALLY wish you had told us this over a week ago. It does help put a lot of your reaction in to perspective, and I wouldn't have been so flabbergasted by your tone if I'd known this.

I'd stack my crunchy con sensibilities and philosophy against anyone's, even literally the man who wrote the book, and yet I'm tone deaf to whatever appeal Palin may have. I've had a vague sense that it had to do with cultural touchpoints - Rudy's NY accent gets me every time, and I have to work hard to not see my own biracial sons in Obama's face.

Palin is unlike anyone I've ever known well, although I've known (and never really clicked with) many women like her. But of course if she reminds you of your sister - if she "is" your sister - then obviously you'd leap to her defense if her honor was challenged. No wonder you've called her "our Palin".

I'll lurk occasionally, and if the heat comes down around here perhaps I'll try to engage again. It took me a few weeks to get over my initial entirely culture-based crush on Barack and Michelle. Republicans like you will need a similar curve, I expect, to get over your own groupie phase. Once you and my other Republican Palin-loving friends are able to look at Palin with the same discernment and scrutiny that you have for other politicians, I'm sure this place will get more interesting again.

God Bless,
Doug

Dhris wrote, ""

Amen! Here's a riff from my final Palin opus, back on the "Palin's church" thread a couple of days ago:

"I have very little idea who Sarah Palin is or what she believes, and that bothers me very much. I've gone to the trouble to learn a great deal about John McCain, Barack and Michelle Obama, and Joe Biden, and at least I can say truthfully that my conclusions about them, and their fitness for national leadership, is based on a thorough examination of their words (written and spoken, planned and off the cuff), their biographies, their ideas, and the key influences on their thinking. I very much want to apply the same standard to Palin, and have attempted to begin doing so in a very compressed timeframe. I've spent 10 or 20 hours a week for over a year reading and thinking about this election, because I don't want to be HASTY. (Hoom hom, Treebeard would agree.)
So, I figure I owe it to Palin to work through my thinking on her over the course of weeks, rather than months. I've been reading the positive, the negative, the well-sourced, the gossip, for a week. Little Green Football, The Corner, Instapundit, Ambinder, Sullivan, Fallows, New Republic, Slate, Larison, Obsidian Wings, HuffPo, Pajamas. I'm reading everyone's best case, I hope.

"Yet, I don't have an answer to one simple question: "Why should I support Sarah Palin?" CS Lewis wrote about evangelizing as a team effort, where one speaker goes for the head and one for the heart, because some folks are swayed more by one than the other. I'm a head guy, mostly. Such is life. That's how I came to Christianity. That's how I came to a generally conservative political and economic outlook. That's how I came to conservationism. I need a head answer on Palin. And I feel like when I ask for one, I get appeals to her character. OK, that's a piece of a head answer, but hardly a full case. It would be like describing my upcoming blind date by telling me she's got great eyes. OK, cool. What else you got?

"Before I belatedly followed Sullivan and Rod's turn against the war, I was very much a Guiliani supporter. I gave him money, and would still probably vote for him over Hillary, as I expected this election to go so many long months ago. I’ve still got a soft spot for the guy. Even then, what I most liked was that Rudy seemed like a “change agent,” to use today’s buzzword. I also felt like Rudy would be someone who would spend his administration focusing on effective policy, diplomacy, and legislation, and not take precious political capital and waste it on fruitless culture war pi$$ing matches that don’t have any positive impact on real children of God and their real lives in our fallen, real world, like the federal debate over Terri Schiavo. I am very, very concerned about abortion, marriage, childrearing, education, the survival of religious and cultural traditions, and the rest of the litany of items some folks on this board would probably like me to check off on some Palinesque (sorry, couldn’t resist) written loyalty oath. However, I don’t believe that the federal government is the place to fight these battles. That’s why I’m a crunchy con, ferpetessake!"

Bless,
Doug

Oops, this is Dhris's quote I meant to highlight:

"What I actually know about Palin, and I've been reading everything I can and trying to sort the voluminous chaff from the sparse wheat, you could fit in a thimble."

(Still unlearning Windows keyboard shortcuts and learning Mac ones.)

Doug

Bill: Great comments about "boomer" Palin; tracks very much with my own sense. She really is on the eternal quest for the Big Rock Candy Mountain, isn't she?

(BTW, for anyone wanting a better handle on the psychology of the West that produces folks like Palin I highly recommend Wallace Stegner, if you don't know his work already.)

Bless,
Doug

You guys see the events, but fail to grasp what happened.

When you say that the close to the land people left John Day, ask who they were. They were loggers and miners and the people who supported them. They were ranchers and farmers, too.

You talk about how a NW Montana logging town became a town of shallow and corporate people. Yeah... After there was no longer any means of earning a living except as a corporate employee.

I know these places. I lived (and still do) in these areas. I was there before the change, and I'm still there after. And what brought about the change?

Far away people deciding THEY were wiser than those connected to the land, and taking control away. Environmentalists, liberals, etc. Only the corporations have enough economic muscle to log these days. Only the giants have the punch to bust through the barriers to farm, to mine, to log, to be anything related to "extractives".

Put the blame where it belongs.

My former Montana home is now filled with people who moved in from all over. A bunch of them JUST SO THEY COULD BE "GREEN" and force it on the locals. What have they done? Environmental destruction so rampant it nearly made me cry last time I visited. Why? Because they have a ideology of "natural" and then define it as "never do anything".

It happens to be fine with them that the place is burning to the ground every summer. That's "natural" and they think that's fine. 30 years ago when I was there, we were desperately trying to prevent today from happening. We knew it was coming, but THEY were going to "save the forest" from us evil capitalists. Today there's almost no forest left, after they "stopped" the "loss". And they see nothing wrong with that. Just so long as man isn't allowed to profit from the forest, see the forest, live in the forest, own the forest, or visit the forest, they're happy.

But for decades, we lived and worked and logged and loved and died and we didn't spoil our land. Then the strangers came to town and claimed higher knowledge and now everything lies in waste.

Oh, yeah. And they c all me the ignorant one.

I am well aware of the viewpoint that Watcher voices, and respect his viewpoint. But I stand by my statement that, based upon the experience of my family and myself in the West over the past many decades, it is largely corporate interests that have ravaged rural Western communities and driven many people out. I was deeply involved in the spotted owl controversy here in Oregon, where some people argued that protections for the owl ruined local economies. In fact, its more likely that decades of overcutting undermined the local timber economies before the owl even became an issue. And I worked for farmers and ranchers in Eastern Montana in the late 1970s, who were fighting for their livelihoods against strip mines and coal-fired power plants built by corporations. I know personally of numerous such farmers and ranchers who were forced off the land by those corporations (and most of these farmers and ranchers were grateful to the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations who tried to help them make a last stand). My wife grew up in the Williston Basin oil fields of Eastern Montana, and saw her town boom and bust in sync with petroleum markets being manipulated in board rooms thousands of miles away.

Has the "New West" of recreation- and retirement-oriented business been entirely positive for rural communities? No, and Watcher has accurately described some of the negative impacts. But to blame it on enviros is unfair.

Like it or not, many Western states (including Alaska) have for decades been economic colonies of multinational corporations based elsewhere: in earlier years, oil, mining, agribusiness and timber corporations. Now the corporate interests are more likely to be involved in real estate or industrial-scale recreation. But the underlying problem is the same.

Almost without exception, corporate involvement in the rural West depends upon "booms": oil boom, timber boom, mining boom, ski boom, retirement boom, second home boom. When the boom inevitably busts, locals are hurt. Some blame the enviros; others blame the corporations. Some also recognize that a range of yet other factors (economic, political, ecological, social) can work together to bring about sudden changes in rural communities. Example: right now, many ranchers recognize that lack of competition in livestock markets (where meat packing corporations try to dominate) is a major reason why ranchers don't get fair prices for their cattle. That's why its simplistic to blame enviros for the economic ills of the rural West.

I have a serious question for Christians who regard Sarah Palin favorably and a separate serious question for Christians who regard her unfavorably. (I find her appalling -- but then, I am not a Christian.)

To those Christians who regard her favorably: Sarah Palin has made a huge thing about her religion. She is also a documented liar on that matter of federal funds for the Bridge to Nowhere; a documented hypocrite in going along with the preposterous claim that as commander of the Alaska National Guard, she has experience in confronting Russia across the Bering Straits; a documented thief in billing the state of Alaska for travel expenses while she was home. Jesus said that ANYONE can cry "Lord! Lord!" and it means nothing; that we are known by our fruits--how we live and what we do. So I am seriously inviting a Christian supporter of Palin to explain to me on what basis you regard a liar, hypocrite, and thief as a "good Christian."

To those Christians who regard her unfavorably: Please explain to me why you are not issuing public statements, either as individuals or as whole church communities, explaining why you regard Sarah Palin as anything but a "good Christian."

Sarah said:

"as a Christian, I am sure this information you state and judge about Sarah Palin will appear. politics....I am sure if this is true as u have so strongly stated, and you are extremely judgmental, let God handle this......the media, and others will, bring it out.....by the way, only one who makes judgment is God.
Peace be with you, and may God Bless you...remember, he see and hears all......"

My apologies to Christian sensitivity but this is exactly the kind of "goofy-think" Evangelicals and conservative Christians spout that the rest of us have come to expect. It’s the kind of rhetoric that shuffles the issues to one side, tosses some holy water on them, denigrates the political opposition on religious grounds, and places the ultimate responsibility on God rather than the voters of this country.

The previous post to which Sarah responded raised exceptionally valid points. Rather than addressing them Sarah dismissed them in typical Christian Right fashion and went for the religious jugular.

The first thing Sarah did was place doubt where there is none: "if this is true...." It IS true, it is documented. I want to know why we should vote for someone who has proven deceitful and has used a position of power not merely to shove policies through but destroy the lives of people with whom she disagreed.

The next thing Sarah did was pull out the "judgmental" word. Christians are extremely adept at wielding that sword at those who disagree with their point of view but are, in fact, some of the most judgmental people on the earth. THEY are of the opinion that we (non-Christians) are ALL going to hell, unsaved, unworthy, etc. If that is not judgmental I do not know what is. Specific to Palin, for example, her A/G pastor made it clear that I am hell-bound because I have been an opponent of Bush since he wrecked Texas as governor. (Another issue here is the one where Palin changed churches because of political expediency rather than a change in belief. Is that part of Christian ethics?)

The last thing Sarah did was to invoke God... "He sees all," and implied: He's "in control." This, too, is a judgment. It sounds as if Sarah is leaving the "sinning" of Palin to God and accepting her anyway, even when that "sinning" is well documented, totally relevant, and extremely important as an example of how she might perform as vice-president or, God (the Universal Creator one) forbid, president.

I live in one of the most conservative towns in the world. This town is run by "Christian" good'ol boys (and gals). It's a horrid place to live for someone not part of the club. Previous responses here that talk about Palin is "one of us." To me that is the worst possible endorsement. I shudder to think one of these local good'ol boys could be a national leader!

Even if Palin had a perfect record of honesty and integrity (which she certainly doesn't) she is hardly qualified to lead this country. First, being able to use looks to gain public office in a very unpopulated state and the ability to make a good speech are hardly reasons to vote for anyone. Foreign leaders pay no attention to looks. They only care about speeches when it says something about the U.S. and it’s relation to them or when the policies promoted will affect them. Third, the budget of Alaska (or that of an Alaskan household) has no relationship to that of the U.S. economy. Fourth, the cultural environment, social climate, racial makeup, among many other things in Alaska are far, far removed from that of the rest of this nation. Even rural areas differ greatly from region to region as attitudes, ethnicity, and local religions differ. A pretty face and svelte body will go nowhere in helping a president deal with the incredibly complex issues a president must deal with.

Palin's particular religious point of view is obviously something religious conservatives can latch on to. To the rest of us it is horrifying. A president who believes war and oil pipelines are mandates from God is a very frightening thought. A strong conservative Christian viewpoint which Palin apparently has (and, unlike Bush, lives by it) would skew her viewpoint and make her entirely unable to relate to many Americans who profess Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism or other faiths—or no faith. The Christian “turn or burn” mentality is one that is fine for the church house. It does not belong in the Whitehouse.

Another important issue is her motherhood. Being the mother of an infant is a liability, not an asset. (And considering McCain’s age, it’s a good probability that she will become president.) How well could a president perform when that president is a parent with responsibilities to an infant? Infants are all-consuming. Small children demand a great deal from parents. I am not a natural parent but I have been a foster parent of children from five days to thirteen years and I am now foster-adopt parent of three. How could a president with a crib in the oval office perform the duties of office? The idea might make a cute Disney movie but the Whitehouse is not Disneyland. The reality is that the infant would be placed in the care of others most of the time and be without the kind of nurturing it needs. In essence, Palin would either neglect the country to nurture a child or neglect the child to run the country. Is that what Christian mothers are expected to do?

Finally, what of the rest of Palin's family? Her husband has a questionable political past to say the least even as he proved a close adviser to her as governor. He's not even a registered Republican. Where would his loyalties lie?

Palin's pregnant underage daughter is also an issue. I disagree with those who say “a candidate’s family should not be drug through the political muck.” Such might be so if Palin didn't claim allegiance to conservative Christianity. As they say on Law & Order: “Goes to character, your honor!”

There are two points to be made. First, flaunting the pregnant teen is slighting the abstinence only standards of the Christian Right. I’ve heard the argument that the girl “made one mistake.” But is this true? Are we to believe the young woman gave into the “lusts of the flesh” only once or that she was sexually promiscuous as an UNDERAGED CHILD and the odds caught up with her? Modern culture dictates teen sexuality is perfectly acceptable. In conservative Christian circles (and in Palin’s religious viewpoint) it is not.

The second point is that parading the pregnant daughter before the public as if all is fine is an insult to the thousands of struggling young women who made the same "mistake" but were not lucky enough to be the daughter of a governor. I worked as a welfare caseworker for over three years. I dealt with my share of hardship cases. As a foster parent I held the infant of a teen mother in my arms and known the heartache such a "little mistake" has brought upon so many people. This point is even more relevant since Palin is on record as denying funds for pregnant teens.

Like other candidates whose qualifications and ethics are very questionable the Christian Right has latched on Palin for the single-minded (and closed-minded) reason that she "talks the talk." One of the reasons I am no longer a Christian is because I've met countless Christian leaders who "talked the talk" but behind closed doors paid no attention to the words. One pastor I had in an Assembly of God church to whom I was at one time very close told me of how he found adult magazines stashed in pastoral offices he’d occupied left there by the previous minister. This pastor preached fervent, tearful, emotion-filled sermons about sexual sin. Behind that closed door he had an affair with a member, got her pregnant, and destroyed his family, her family, and a whole church congregation. “Talking the talk” means nothing.

Locals write letters to the paper in support of right-wing causes and candidates. They’re always quick to condemn those who do not agree as “liberals” or “sinners” or even “communists.” They virtually always play up the “morality” of Christians and decry the immorality of non-Christians, liberals, etc. It’s always, without exception, an “us vs. them” point of view with not a single opportunity or offer for compromise. They, and Palin, inhabit a different world than we who do not accept their religion. It’s a closed world that prohibits them from ever reaching beyond the boxed-in theology of their faith.

The Creator is real to many more than those who profess Trinitarian Christianity. The earth's beauty, the grandeur of the universe, the magnificence of human love, compassion, respect, these we appreciate and understand to be gifts of our Creator. In war all we see is pain, suffering and destruction. In rampant capitalism and oil riches all we see is greed and the suffering of the poor at the hands of the wealthy.

We also see in the words of Jesus the son of that God Christians worship a call for peace, love, forgiveness, respect for others and the importance of sharing wealth and eschewing riches. We are confused how his words can translate into policies that are bellicose, promote greed and wealth, and demean anyone who does not believe.

We see the contradiction between the words of the Christian Christ and the actions of the conservative Christian church. Palin exemplifies that contradiction in a way few candidates ever have. Clearly Palin’s religion is of equal value to her pretty face in reaching conservative protestants. Christians should try to understand, however, that her religious convictions are the single most disturbing thing about her candidacy. I, personally, shudder to think that a person who is a living contradiction with all the liabilities described above could ever sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. Coupled with the political position of her running mate I am convinced that Americans can expect nothing less than the complete destruction of America if that ticket wins.

I have not only found this article interesting but the comments that have followed as well! I think there is so much to discuss and debate about Palin but I have found most interesting is her emphasis on her Christian background and the questions that should raise in us on how we should come to conclusions on our thoughts about her. I read a really interesting article earlier (I will put the link below) that focuses on Palin and the Church. I thought it gave another interesting perspective to the topic.

http://www.neueministry.com/2008/09/palin-and-church-leadership/

Ted G.

Excellent post.
It was long, yes. But dont apologize for that. I feel it was spot on target. I actually feel bad for the few evangelicals out there who live and speak the truth of Christ, which is LOVE. That is the bottom line He preached, and expected all to emulate to the best of our abilities.
It is really too bad that the enlightened few are so poorly represented by their political and spiritual leadership. It makes me feel even more strongly about choosing to stay with my Catholic faith, in which I was raised from day one. Believe me, I am the last one who whishes to be labeled as judgemental, especially of another's religious beliefs, but it really seems that Catholics as a whole seem to be more tolerant, forgiving, loving, and HUMBLE than their protestant siblings. (and Im referring to everyday believers, not necessarily arrogant members of the papal authorities or corrupt, pedophilic priests).At least this is the feeling I get from observing the current representation of evangelicals and fundamentalists out there right now. Maybe more of them need to stand up and say "NO!" to those who would speak falsely for them, but if they don't then all I have is the info in front of me to go by.
Anyways, I am truly sad to see how you lost your faith in Christianity, but having encountered similar situations as a teenager, I cant say as I blame you. You have your reasons.

the republicans are in sore need of heroes in order to consider this person one! A woman less than honest and totally obtuse, corrupted, in bed with the oil companies that we are told she went out reform, using her office to enact revenge, with children out of control, pretending to have given birth to her teen's child, totally in the dark about anything outside her very narrow realm of dubious experience. A woman with no morals whatsoever, now trying to impose marriage on two teenagers. A son made to enlist in the army to make her look good and patriotic, the same son who was so deep in drug abuse that he tried to mainline Oxycontin. The daughter who would made up with the brooms in the closet after a drink and a toke. This hickster who tried to ban books, including the dictionary, who had public affairs known to everyone in the small town of Wasilla that has the largest number of meth labs in Alaska, who tell us we "Can pray homosexuality away" HAH! well she didn't pray hard or at all for those wasted teens. She has no knowledge of anything, and looked like a startled moose in the headlight during the Gibson interview. You republicans have no class and no sense of self respect otherwise you wouldn't have this woman and that doddering old man as your candidates.