I was first surprised, then stunned, then astounded at Senator McCain's choice for vice-presidential nominee. I couldn't believe that anyone could think that someone with these positions could actually appeal to anyone who would vote for Senator Clinton, that anyone with this paucity of experience could not be called out by the media as inexperienced and hopelessly unready.
Then I heard the callers on NPR's Talk of the Nation on Tuesday. They were genuinely excited about her! They thought she was a fine pick, that it was enough that she followed her principles in private after espousing them in public, and that the fact that she did so was enough information for them to decide in her favor.
I started wondering about what, exactly, these callers were using to make their decisions.
It was clear that experience was, at best, a secondary criterion.
That her "principles" and her dedication to them were of more importance than whether those principles were sound.
I asked a colleague (known for relatively intemperate conservative views). My question:
What do you look for in a presidential or vice-presidential nominee? What do you look for in a President?
His answer:
Character and leadership.
I asked what exactly his definition of character was.
It boiled down into two main characteristics: the possession of "morals" and "values" (or "principles"), implicitly aligned with his, and consistency in attempting to live by and adhere to those principles.
I asked what he meant by leadership.
Leadership included both goals that served the best interests of the entire constituency (in this case the country), and the ability to take whatever actions were required to attain those goals. I mentioned persuasion as an example of something that someone might do to attain a goal and was met with extreme discomfort. Leadership also included the ability to inspire followers.
So. Let's look at the candidates in light of this, and maybe we'll be able to use this to change someone's mind.
****************
First, you'll notice that experience does not figure into this mindset. Experience is only valuable insofar as it offers a guide to a politican's (or person's) ability to transform ideals into actions, a guide to a politician's steadfastness and adherence to principle.
Second, a politician doesn't have character if they are not consistent in the application of their values, their morals, and their principles. Further, the politician doesn't have character if they are steadfast in adherence to the wrong principles. If they begin with the wrong principles, and are later converted to the right ones, I would guess that they are viewed with suspicion until they manage to demonstrate adherence to the new principles.
Third, a worthy goal is a goal that benefits the country as a whole, not just the special interests. However, the group to which the voter belongs is, by definition, "most of the country," not a "special interest" group. In the words of my colleague, african-americans and homosexuals both count as "special interest" groups. Furthermore, worthy goals should also put the country ahead of all the other countries.
******************
Looking at the McCain/Palin ticket through this lens, Governor Palin is actually a reasonable choice. She has "strong principles" (extreme pro-life, supports creationism in the classroom, ethics in government), she is perceived to act on them and adhere to them even when it might be easier not to (her baby son and her daughter's pregnancy, filing ethics complaints against coworkers on the Oil and Gas Commission), and she sets goals that "benefit" her entire constituency, even those who disagree with her (Wasilla's new sports arena), and is able to achieve them (the arena's been built; ignore the fallout).
They don't care about whether the goals were actually a good idea for her supporters or anyone else. She thought that they would be good for the constituency as a whole and she managed to carry them out, and that makes her a good leader.
And because she has character, and is a good leader, she is by definition a smart choice.
And this is also why Senator McCain is viewed with such suspicion. The very "maverick" status that makes him potentially tolerable to the greater american public renders his character credentials suspect. Either he has a regrettable tendency to compromise to achieve a portion of his goal (violating the character constraint) and he remains steadfast on principles that conflict with desirable goals (leadership). He has poor stage presence and, at least on television, is not a particularly inspiring figure (violating theleadership constraint).
Governor Palin gives him the credibility he needs with this voting bloc.
Now, from our perspective, to say that Governor Palin (pre-announcement link) gives anybody credibility is ridiculous. She is one of the most un-credible nominees we have seen, admittedly lacking in foreign policy experience, unformed positions on most issues, and only 18 months in office as Governor (significantly shorter than President Bush's 6-year stint in Texas).
If we make this an argument of experience vs. experience (Biden vs. McCain) and inexperience vs. inexperience (Obama vs. Palin), we come to the conclusion that Obama is a significantly more impressive candidate.
But how can we convince someone like my friend that Obama and Biden actually possess character and are outstanding leaders?
Obama is right. We need to do it by noting where our principles overlap ("We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country."). We need to do it by being explicit about how our shared principles result in shared values, and how our candidates are steadfast in adhering to those shared values. We need to do it by demonstrating that our candidates have the ability to achieve their goals. And we need to do it by emphasizing how his goals benefit the nation as a whole.
This diary is already a little long, so I'll forgo the specific ideas for how to achieve this until tomorrow. Contribute yours below!