With the selection of Sarah Palin as the Republican VP, we are witnessing an extraordinary surge of creative ways to shore up her experience quotient in order to avoid being asked in a debate, “Where’s the beef?” While the efforts swing wildly from the sublime to the ridiculous, one of the best I’ve seen and perhaps the most revealing is “Conservative credentials trump experience.” (Just aside for a moment, would we ever here a liberal say, “Liberal credentials trump experience?”)
So lets look a little deeper into this thought process. First there seems to be a joining at the hip between conservative and religion as “conservative” in this usage is obviously elevated above mere political convictions. This is like saying faith trumps experience, or God trumps experience. (I’m reminded of the finger game where rock trumps scissors.) And this trump card is being played on the political game table from Palin’s conservative hand that so far shows Guns, Abortion, and Creationism as the only face cards. Until more is revealed, these are the only credentials we have so far upon which to base our argument that conservative credentials is the trump card.
But lets take a look at the meaning of “credentials,” since so much weight is being attached to them. First, credentials mean that one looks at reality through a particular set of iron clad convictions, and that you dare not flip-flop if you don’t’ want to have those credentials become a burning tire around your neck. So no matter what comes up on the river of life, you experience life from and through your past convictions. Everything you think and do is constrained by your conditioning, which are your credentials. You can’t change. We are all held hostage by our credentials and our convictions.
Now here is the problem. Life IS change. Life is changing faster than we can barely tolerate, given that we all have our convictions of how things should be. So why do we want a leader that can’t change, that can’t adapt and find new policies that fit the new world? Why do we want a leader that when stuck in the mud just keeps spinning the wheels deeper and deeper? Credentials, no matter of what kind, won’t allow us to find a creative way out of the mud. When we are imprisoned by our credentials, we keep doing the same thing hoping for a different result. When we value credentials over experience, we value image over substance, fear over courage, and security over freedom.
We take refuge in our credentials, our labels and self images. We find a safe harbor among like minded credentials. Credentials are the uniform of our tribe. They are the flags under which we march to war. Credentials tell us who we are. Credentials try to control our experience and keep us safe from life’s change and challenge.
But are we real? Only experience can tell us that.
Posted under current events
This post was written by ed on September 1, 2008
Conservatism is NOT closed-mindedness. But one’s declared beliefs serve as a guide to us voters, as to how they would handle problems/crises in the future.
I want someone who values life, who believes government should not continue to take more from those who are successful, that government should not celebrate when a rich person dies and takes half of their estate. I want someone who understands that force is sometimes the only option.
Obviously, conservatives can change their mind. Look at George W. Bush. In the 2000 foreign policy debate with Al Gore, he said the U. S. should never engage in “Nation building.” Unfortunately, situations changed after 9/11, and he totally changed his mind (I happen to wish we had never invaded Iraq).
LIFE indeed does change, but all of us must have rock solid principles which serve as the foundation for us to deal with that change.
This is far different, however, from waffling and CONSTANTLY changing positions to satisfy the polls.
Conservatism is NOT inflexibility. It is a very liberal (open) minded ideology… it is being optimistic and believing that through hard work and creativity, all hurdles can be overcome.
The main issue for “preparedness” to take over at 1600 PA Avenue is knowing who you are, what you stand for, and how you address issues. Sarah Palin knows who she is and what she stands for.
Actually, while using the political war as an excuse, I’m really looking at the statement “credentials trump” psychologically. This whole conservative vs. liberal duality to me is a metaphor of our own divided mind and how clinging to “credentials” or a self image—whether right or left— limits our freedom to look at reality directly instead of through the filter of frozen convictions. Convictions, conventions, credentials, and traditions are all past tense. Yet the present moment, the reality of change is present tense. If we meet the present with the past we can’t be free of the past. For me this political campaign is just a good way to look at the way the mind works and how we can be free to change. Without change we are stuck in Groundhog Day (the movie).
You’re trying to paint conservatism as rigid, pessimistic, and a thing of the past. You’re better than that, Ed. It’s morning again in America–we have a maverick Senator and an inspiring woman to lead our country.
This election–like it or not–indeed is a battle of two ideologies, two parties with two different visions of where America needs to go.
The national Democratic Party–whose nomination Obama eagerly sought, earned, and accepted–is moving toward Socialism. Letting government do everything is the easy way for a pessimistic society. Conservatives believe in optimism and the power of the individual, and individuals banding together for a common cause WITHOUT government meddling. The government is not as efficient as the private sector, except perhaps against invading armies..well, scratch that—look at the illegal alien problem….
This belief that government is the enemy began with Goldwater, was ritualized with Reagan, and passed into absurdity with Bush. With FDR government was seen as a partner with the individual, and with Obama that belief is coming back. If you listen to Obama’s message he repeatedly points to the people as the real power and government as the partner that creates the conditions for the full flowering of the power. If you look at the way in which Republicans have governed and not at what they say, you will notice that they place power in corporations and call them individuals. A republican president has been reduced to little more than a CEO wearing the robes of a minister. And corporations are, as you know, driven by profit for the corporation and not service to the good of the whole. Only government can do that. Every thing, every movement, every belief has its time, and 40 years is about all history is going to give to this extreme conservative belief that our government by the people is against the people. How can we survive in this new age if we fear our own government. A divided mind cannot stand, nor can a nation.
Liberals view the capitalist way of life as evil. Your entry confirms that you are a liberal, Ed.
Here’s where you are big-time wrong–”Corporations, as you know, are driven by profit for the corporation AND NOT SERVICE TO THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE.”
Corporations that are successful meet both criteria. Many of them are doing so today in this nation.
You want a King, and you want his name to be Obama. The founding fathers wanted a weak executive branch–except for the role of Commander-in-Chief.
The belief that government was evil began NOT with Goldwater, but with Ben Franklin and the other framers, who worried about centralized power.
Under FDR, there was no option–we had to “partner with the government” (MANDATED rationing), or we would have lost the war. The unfortunate legacy of FDR is that he gave us a paternalistic government–and we are still dealing with it…example–Social Security, the biggest lie of all.
The only way we survive in this new age is to KEEP AN EYE on our government–but the masses are not doing that today. It’s all about pork barrel spending and what’s in it for me…
What in the world ever happened to individual responsibility and consequences for one’s actions?
Ed, you loathe the corporations, the corporations that hire Americans and give us the products that we need and want. Start butchering the corporations with the Tax Code and expanding the government, and watch where we end up.
By the way–all who loathe the big oil companies–quit buying gas!
“The founding fathers wanted a weak executive branch–except for the role of Commander-in-Chief.” So Bush/Rove/Nixon is an example of a weak executive? I don’t loathe corporations or consider capitalism evil. Never said that. What I am saying is that ideological thinking can never find balance because it is bound to seek profit for its own belief. Ideology’s primary interest is its own survival, therefore it will only perceive what it good for it. So Sarah Palin is good for the right, no matter what experience proves, says the ideological mind. You see, ideology also trumps empirical evidence (science). Ask Bush about that.
You’re a little deep for me, Ed…
I wish we did have a weaker executive–instead of Presidents promising to repair every domestic woe. That’s supposed to be Congress’ job. But we have allowed/encouraged them to do that. We the American people have come to expect/demand pandering, which was mastered by Bill Clinton. Thank God some of us are still repulsed by it. I’m surprised McCain and Obama aren’t both on different sides of the storm right now, bragging about who filled the most sandbags…the sad part is that whoever lifted the most sand would be rewarded by the media and many voters.
You see those of us with firm principles (”ideologues”) as trying to always be right–even though facts may prove us wrong. I for one am not like that, and neither are my conservative friends.
I just want respect for life, reduction in federal spending, securing our borders, and a national sales tax or at least a lower cap on the capital gains. This isn’t a “Game” for me…I don’t mind being proven wrong…happens quite a bit actually.
That’s what we al want.
I predict this:
A very close election, and if it’s close like in 2000, there will be even more division than present, perhaps even unrest.
I also predict the highest voter turn-out in history on both sides.
But let’s get back to the issue at hand–both VP selections were about politics.
It just seems like the left is whining because they wanted Hillary for a sure win in November–but Obama figured the “neanderthal” GOP would never pick a woman, so he went with the safe white guy.
The Dems. never dreamed that McCain would pick a girl, and that the selection would go over so well with red meat conservatives.
The Dems. now realize they should have picked Hillary, and they are alarmed that Governor Palin has been so embraced by the right, which is what McCain needs to win in November. Both parties are political (they’re “political parties” for crying out loud), and neither holds the high ground.
Saying that Palin is where she is only because she is female is like saying Obama only won because he is black. Such a statement is a disservice to both candidates’ accomplishments and how far we’ve come as a nation.
let me join in if I may…as i stated before, this pick just shows what poor judgement that McCain has. And (as I said before) I will have to agree with Rove on this one, and I don’t agree with Rove much. Sara Palin might be a wonderful person, but McCain hardly knows her. Hell, he only met here once before offering her a spot to become (potentially) the second most powerful executive in the world…say what? I wouldn’t hire a babysitter after just one meeting…
It is my opinion that one’s views on abortion, guns, gays, god. etc. may fire up folks on the extreme, it will do very little for winning those crucial undecieded voters. Thus, why McCain should have chosen Rommney….
As of now, Palin is being vetted by the internet…what comes up next will be anyone’s guess…and it appears this is a risk that McCain is willing to take..hence, why he shouldn’t be trusted at the Presidnet…
I’m actually starting to believe that McCain could be worse than Bush, and that is scarrrry….
oh, last point: remember whether you’re one of the 10 people in the USA whoe actually like (or hate) Dick Cheny, his lasting legacy will be that the VP office has now changed due to his example…now, some of this is due to Bush’s incompetence, and Cheney’s “beltway” experiece…therefore, I believe in 2008 the VP office might not be a place for any more Dan Quayles or (for you Billy) Al Gore’s….
Given that one of the candidates is a 72 year old cancer survior I think it makes it even more important…
Yeah, if McCain had picked Romney…I’m sure the Dems wouldn’t raise questions/fears about Mormonism…Ha!
Why don’t we all wait for the debates? I have a feeling that the two best performances are gonna come in the VP debate.
Look who Romney picked–a guy who voted FOR the war in Iraq, and a guy who chastised Obama on the depth/experience issue.
Oh yeah, let’s remember Biden’s offensive remarks about Indians and 7-11s. ANd not to forget how he told African-Americans to wear condoms and get tested for AIDS. Yes, Biden–a remarkable pick.
They picked Biden because he’ll go have beers at rural blue collar pubs, brag about Scranton, and act like he’s one of them. Another sham. You’d think the Dems would remember what happened the last time they ran two liberal Senators together….hmmm…2004.
In number 12 above, I meant to say, “Look who OBAMA picked” not Look who Romney picked…too much bloggin’…..
I actually think the Rommney mormanism would have been more of a problem for the religious right, than say liberal democrats. I, for one, could care less….
I thik the general rule of the VP pick, is that it shouldn’t hurt you - that’s it. Time and time folks vote for the top of the ticket…but (as I stated before) for better or worse we can think Cheney for the newly evolved role and view that a VP now has…can we atleast agree on this?
DEAR WILL:
As a famous politician once said (Clinton compared him to a “Chicago thug”), “YES WE CAN!”
Billy C.
OH WILL: I just found and read the following message you posted several weeks ago to Ed Conley: You’re a really nice fellow: FYI–I didn’t write the Editor’s note on the end of Ed’s letter in the Courier-Record. Next time you want to talk, come visit me and get your facts straight first.
–Billy Coleburn
“Hey, I wanted to drop by and tell you this editorial in the Courier record was awesome! Great job. I’m a native of Nottoway County, but haven’t lived there in over 25 + years…
In my opinion, you took Coleburn to “the cleaners” and exposed him and his talking points for what they are (simple minded, shallow, with a touch of good ole boy election year fear mongering)…Once again, kudos. Of course, Billy (being Billy) had to get in the last word..as he does with every editorial. But, we know journalitic ethics is not one of Billy’s trong suits…after all - if he had any ethics - he wouldn’t be the Mayor…”
you’re so full of bravado! Funny! “Next time you want to talk, come visit me and get your facts straight”
“Mayor” Coleburn = a loose cannon
Great qualities for a public official…take note folks…
Okay, I feel like the editor of the Courier-Record during the Otto/Conley forum argument over the Bible vs. Yoga. Enough!
Too bad we don’t have someone in charge of the battle between the Dems and the Repubs, someone who looks over the battlefield and says WAR OVER! Make friends and work together for the good of the whole instead of shooting down the other half. The only way out of our current civil war is for both sides to see a common thread of goodness in each side and to follow that thread out of this labyrinth.
Will, I just wanted to set the record STRAIGHT, that’s all.
I’m not anonymous–who are you does matter–or you would sign your name.
Some might say a loose cannon out in the open TRUMPS one hiding in the closet.