Palin’s Choice: an Afterword

In light of the comments and responses to my WND piece on Sarah Palin's resignation, I think some further observations and reflections are in order.

First it's important to remind everyone that I have never accepted the notion that Palin somehow represents adherence to the moral principles of republican, constitutional government. In a WND article right after McCain selected her as his running mate (Gov. Sarah Palin: Unequally yoked), I gave the reasons why. Later, when Charles Gibson asked her about Roe v. Wade she declared "I think that states should be able to decide that issue." In reaction, I wrote another article (Sarah Palin: Already compromised?) in which I observed that "Palin is being touted as an unequivocally pro-life politician…Her words suggest that, on the contrary, she regards the issue of respect for innocent life as a matter of personal opinion rather than public principle…." I went on to point out that "making a pro-life icon of someone who takes this falsified "states' rights" position and who, at the same time, relegates her pro-life views to the status of "personal opinion", places the pro-life movement firmly on the path of self-destruction." I cautioned that "If the issue of respect for innocent human life is simply a matter of "personal opinion," what justifies government interference (at any level) in the personal decision of the woman carrying the child, or the parents who provided the genetic material from which its life derives?...Where no overriding public interest can be ascertained, the state cannot impose its moral opinions upon individuals without infringing the freedom of conscientious decision essential for the free exercise of religion (which is also counted among our unalienable rights.)"

In these past writings, as in the latest one, I have tried to reason clearly and carefully about the issues of public principle and policy raised by Sarah Palin's words and actions. Unfortunately, both Palin's fans and the leftist media hacks who act as her detractors have focused on her personal life. The fans want people to accept her loving commitment to her Down syndrome child as conclusive evidence that she is a pro-life champion. Her detractors snipe about her temperament, or make reprehensible so-called jokes about her family members, trying with ridicule and character assassination to manipulate public opinion against her. Meanwhile, her fans respond as if these rabid attacks conclusively prove that she is the conservative champion of principled morality they so desperately want her to be.

Unfortunately, as I argued in the articles cited above, ugly media attacks don't' alter the facts that show, logically and conclusively, that she is not such a champion.

Now I find readers like David, who left a comment on this site, declaring his view that my latest piece "is what I would expect from the mudslinging left." This reaction exposes the insidious nature of this whole contrived situation. Once we accept "personal" matters (of action or opinion) as the basis for our support or rejection of political leaders, anyone who opposes them can be accused of mudslinging and slander, even when their opposition is based on careful reasoning about public policy and constitutional principle.

Like so much else going on in our public discussion these days, this makes fear rather than truth the standard of our public discourse. In my case it would be fear of being unfairly attacked as an un-Christian replicant of the left-wing character assassins. This reminds me of what liberal blacks have tried for years to do on account of my rejection of their leftist cant on welfare issues. In both cases my response must be the same, precisely because of Christ's example. I will try to follow what careful and conscientious reasoning from right principle leads me to believe is true. I will leave in God's hands the integrity of my identity. In the end, he knows the right name for me and will recognize me for what I am.

I could of course simply say nothing as others promote Palin as a representative of the constituency of moral principle. Unfortunately, when she proves inadequate to the task, human vanity will lead many to doubt the viability of the moral cause, rather than their own lack of discernment about the flaws in her public policy stances on the key moral issues. Such doubters will sow confusion and demoralization in the ranks of moral conservatives. This may in fact be the result intended by some of those who helped promote Palin to national prominence, though they tacitly despise the moral constituency she is supposed to represent. By speaking out, will people like me help to mitigate this bad result? Will our warnings prevent well intentioned people from relying too much upon a false hope? If so, it's worth the risk of being unpopular with Palin fans who insist that reasonable criticism of her public policy views and actions is no different than the partisan media's malevolent personal attacks.

Does Palin have integrity? Sure she does, globs of it. She also stands up to her guns, and is willing to make and take decisions that many others would not even dare think of. Furthermore, in the election she single-handedly made the atrocious McCain campaign not go down in history as the worst landslide defeat ever!

Mrs Palin is an amazing woman, and she has tremendous potential to become NOT the second coming of Reagan, but rather the first coming of Palin (every era needs its hero, and while Reagan was great, it may soon be time for Palin to come to the fore and lead the nation).

HOWEVER, I am troubled by what appears, to me at least, like some level of Palin worship has been going on here on FR. If not worship outright, then at the very LEAST the insinuation that Mrs Palin is infallible, she can do no wrong, and any one who does not recognize that fact is a Leftist aggitator. Where Mrs Palin makes a decision (e.g. resigning from her post), and before she even says why she did so people are already saying what a great master-stratagem that was (it probably is a terrific master-move from Palin that will ensure she garners the Big Seat come 2012, or it could simply be she wants to step down from the limelight and spend time with her family! I would personally rather wait and hear from Mrs Palin herself rather than people who probably have only seen her on TV, and read about her from other commentators).

Do I doubt that she is capable to be president ...yes, more than anyone I can think of right now. Do I doubt her integrity ...not one bit, and I admire someone who will look you square in the eye and say the darn truth for a change!

However, we are becoming like some of those people on DU who will swarm over anyone saying anything negative about Hugo Chavez. Where someone's personality eclipses other issues at hand.

I know we have a dearth of people who can be president (and win), and that makes Mrs Palin even greater for us because the other people are either too compromised (RINOs like McCain ...actually McCain is not a RINO ...he is a DUC - a democrat under cover ...and quacking all over), too emotionally-saitized (e.g. Bobby Jindal ...nice guy, true conservative, could stop a world war simply by talking the fighting forces to sleep), or apparently or actually hypocritical (e.g certain conservatives who preach the Bible but fly to Argentina for explicitly non-Bible purposes). With such a situation, Palin becomes even more important, and it is easy to understand why.

It is just that reading some threads on FR regarding Mrs Palin, and some threads of DUmmie land on Hugo Chavez, brings very close parallels that in some aspects are exactly the same, apart from the posters and their subject. Rather than overriding issues, it is instead more of the personality and the hope. While for Mrs Palin that may not necessarily be a bad thing - as I mentioned I think by 2012 she could be an amazing leader and president - it does induce myopia where all people see is Palin, and not other people who are still unknown as of now but could be even better come then. People have already corronated Palin, which is ironic considering how we were saying the same thing had happened to a certain person with the last name of Obama.

That myopia not only makes other potential candidates (and I am NOT talking about people like Huxy et al ...please!) invisible, but it also opens people up to disappointment! Think of Bobby Jindal ...he was not on my radar until a time came when every other fifth thread was about him, and how he is this and that. Well, he seems to be a true conservative, and his heritage would have tapped people who may have thought Conservatism is for old white people. Then he spoke on TV, and I immediately knew that he would never be able to win a debate, even at the VP level. Soon after that his movement on FR fizzled up.

Anyways, I like Mrs Palin, but I think that has to be a decision that each Conservative makes for him/herself, and that is based on a critical and careful assessment of what the Party needs in terms of direction and leadership, what the Country needs in terms of defense and economy and a dozen other issues, whether the person in question can deliver on that and a whole other issues, and deliver while receiving hellish amounts of attack from all sides (I will always respect President and Mr Bush for his resilience in what must have been quite hard for him ...I was not always with him from an economic point of view, and some of this actions were honestly Liberal, but he was a strong president on defence, and a man of such integrity in the face of withering fire that my respect for him on that front couldn't be higher ...Mrs Palin NEEDS to be able to withstand the same), and at the same time keeping an eye out for any other candidate, even if none is apparent now, who may be able to deliver in a better way.

I have the highest hopes for Mrs Palin, and if what she did was a master-stratagem then she will be, as mentioned, the first coming of Palin rather than the second of Reagan. She would be head to head with Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher ...easily. Even though I cannot vote (not a citizen) I feel that she would be an amazing candidate, and she is a breath of air in a party, and a country, that seriously needs to get its second wind. However, there has been a spot of Hugo Chaveism going on with regards to support for her, and while she may be all she is said to be and a can of fried beans, it does expose one to risk and myopia. If she is as great as I think she may be, then she will rise up to the top anyways.

Flame away.

It’s funny when people call many who talk about Governor Palin as the future of the conservative movement “cultists”.

Certainly, there are some who take their devotion a bit far and rightfully earn the title, but for the majority, they just like what she says and has not found anyone in the last few years to articulate it. They effectively “get it”.

The people favor her because she makes sense. She doesn’t beat God into people, she doesn’t force her opinions on others. People like that.

Likewise, there are those who follow Ambassador Keyes. Some are people who like what he has to say, believes he has the right idea for what is to come. That’s all well and good.

However, to put the Ambassador as a paragon of holiness and the only right person on the face of the planet, such as what the chairman of the America’s Independent Party has attempted to do tonight, is cult-like.

Both are believers. And both of them have different roles to play. Favor, however, goes to the one who is able to articulate things simply for the people, who desire something new.

Governor Palin does that. Ambassador Keyes and his lap-dog, don’t.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted omong men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It would appear Dr. Keyes has a point. While kicking the decision on abortion back to the States may be a start, thus breaking the grip of Roe v. Wade, it would only stop the slaughter in some venues. That is far from securing the unalienable Right to Life of which the Founders spoke.

I would love to see the voting/signing records of the candidates posted before the election without noting the name, gender, race, or so much as party of the candidates, just how they have stood on the issues, or in the case of those who have no track record, how they claim to stand.

Such might enable Americans to make a better decision in the voting booth.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.