Is experience really necessary for a running mate?
Posted on Sunday, September 7, 2008
Politics ought not to be so interesting in a country like ours, where the only real arguments are over whose lobbyists get first crack at the honorable ladies and gentlemen who debate and decide whether we ought to tax the rich a little more or a little less. For better or worse, Americans are at a consensus on how their country should operate. For the most part, genuine extremists never make it onto the ballot and truly creative thinkers—like erstwhile Arkansas gubernatorial candidate Rod Bryan—are dismissed as colorful, unelectable characters. While there are real differences between John McCain and Barack Obama and genuine consequences to the looming election, less depends on its outcome than some partisans would have us believe. Whoever wins, there will be foreign and domestic challenges. We are infidels, the Chinese are coming, American influence is being diluted and our planet may be changing in ways that are disadvantageous to our species. Take a long enough view and there is much to be sober about—a billion years means nothing to a void; who will remember your heroes and histories when the earth is an anonymous ball of ice ? That’s not to suggest politics doesn’t matter—if all we have is the moment then it is especially important, though not in the way the playby-play boys and color commentators suggest. Politics is another way we can express ourselves—it allows us the chance to dress in our colors and declare our support for high principles we may or may not live by.
Mostly politics is another way we contest for those tangible things that are always in play—a little discretionary money, a flattering title, the chance to be envied and kowtowed to by favor-seekers—and only sometimes a difficult and noble form of public service. Someone has to be in charge, we ought to offer those who’d take it upon themselves to lead a reasonable incentive.
I have followed the game for 40 years—I remember Chicago in 1968 and the surreal 1972 campaign when Muskie wept and McGovern had to cut loose Tom Eagleton —and my attitude has evolved from hopeful enthusiasm to what I hope comes off as bemused detachment. (Or as Elvis Costello once said, I used to be disgusted, now I try to stay amused. )
That isn’t always easy. Everything I know about Sarah Palin I’ve learned in the past 10 days, and very little of what I’ve learned suggests that John McCain took the selection of his running mate very seriously. The most reasonable explanation for the choice I’ve heard is Sidney Blumenthal’s contention that Palin was a kneejerk response to Karl Rove’s insistence that McCain choose Mitt Romney as his vice presidential candidate.
McCain preferred Joe Lieberman, but recognized that choosing a prochoice, pro-gay rights senator from Connecticut whose voting record has been graded F by the National Rifle Association wasn’t likely to shore up his support with the conservative wing of the party.
So Palin got the call as an apparent sop to the conservative wing. Then things started getting interesting—for all the wrong reasons. At the very least, Palin’s selection raises some interesting questions about McCain’s vetting process and the tensions within the Republican party.
How can the Republicans criticize Barack Obama for his lack of experience when Palin has been the governor of Alaska for less than two years ? (And despite Cindy McCain’s claim that Alaska’s proximity to Russia somehow gives Palin foreign policy experience, Palin reportedly didn’t even have a passport until 2007, when she needed one to visit Alaskan reservists serving in Iraq. )
That’s not to suggest that experience as an elected official ought to be a prerequisite for high office—we might be better off if more presidential candidates look to especially gifted and able people who achieve things outside politics for their running mates.
(George McGovern just revealed in The New York Times that Walter Cronkite’s name came up as a possible veep candidate in 1972—an idea the candidates and his handlers laughed off. Cronkite later told McGovern he would have accepted the position had it been offered, which leads us to wonder how different the past 36 years would have been had a McGovern / Cronkite ticket prevailed. )
But all it seems that Palin brings to the table is her standard pro-life, proguns positions and her attractively colorful, if short on substance, biography. Apart from the weirdness and rumors surrounding her teenage daughter’s pregnancy and the way Palin handled the birth of her fifth child in April, there are some questions surfacing about her record in Alaska.
What were McCain and his handlers thinking ? It’s not unreasonable to guess he anticipates the choice will be well received by some of the socalled family values crowd, and that it doesn’t hurt that Palin is a nice looking woman. It’s not unreasonable to think that the McCain camp thinks she’ll bring some sizzle to the campaign, and that her relative lack of qualifications won’t hurt him. Maybe they think some Hillary Clinton supporters, feeling disenfranchised by the Obama usurpation, will see Palin as sufficient reason to vote against the chosen one. They may be right—as I’m writing this (a bit earlier in the week than usual because I’m traveling ) it looks like Palin could be another Eagleton. I wouldn’t be surprised if her candidacy doesn’t last the week. Maybe by the time you read this she’ll be gone. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if she not only survives as the vice presidential candidate but actually makes a difference in the campaign. I wouldn’t be surprised if Americans embrace a relative newbie, if her lack of experience and cavalier (or cynical ) attitude toward first principles isn’t rewarded by a voting public that prefers photogenic “straight” talkers to less interesting, less certain, more considerate minds. After all, it’s only politics.
pmartin@arkansasonline. com
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online