McCain’s Choice and Our Response

To borrow a football metaphor presented by MSNBC's Chuck Todd, the ball is in the air, thrown from the thirty-yard line in the closing seconds of the game. The result will be either a winning touchdown or a disaster for which the quarterback will be praised or vilified. John McCain's move in choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate is either daring or reckless, and opinions fly on both sides of the question. Her performance in debates and campaign appearances will show McCain's choice to be either wise or irresponsible. There seems to be little room here for a middle ground, certainly none if Palin does not continue to boost McCain's ranking in the polls.

Scurrying to avoid the mounting charge of tokenism, McCain campaign spokes-people now rush to downplay Palin's status as a woman, emphasizing instead her professed record as a "maverick." This tactic has been successful to the extent that McCain once again finds himself referred to as a maverick who seems to be slipping clear of the clinging Bush specter at least for the next few days.

The ominous possibility of McCain's selling out to the religious right in making this choice may soon eclipse any newfound maverick appellation, however, and the senator might best enjoy a fleeting sense of freedom while it lasts. Constraints imposed upon him by the religious right coalition can hardly be described as anything like liberation. In linking himself so strongly with this group, it is possible that McCain has constrained any freedom to follow his individual nature even more than did his predecessor.

His new running mate supports the teaching of creationist theory in schools and proposes legislation to have creationist ideas taught alongside evolution. Palin opposes abortion in any circumstance. Her selection seems designed to shift the upcoming debate toward these hot-button issues so treasured by the religious right and away from economic and international issues where McCain risks losing ground. Right wing supporters responded to Palin's appearance on the Republican ticket with a four million dollar contribution day for the McCain campaign, even though Palin remains virtually unknown as a political figure. Mere word of her creationist pro-gun and anti-choice stances seemed sufficient to finally gather flagging religious right supporters around McCain.

At the very least, McCain's Friday announcement provided him with a few day's breathing space. The unexpected choice took press attention away from Obama's stunning speech delivered the previous night, halting tendencies by some commentators virtually to award Obama the election with no further contest. The announcement came just in time for McCain and Palin to head off toward Mississippi to look presidential in surveying preparations for Hurricane Gustav's imminent arrival. Perhaps memories of McCain's sharing his birthday cake with President Bush while Katrina crashed into the Gulf coast three years ago can be covered over by this attempted show of active leadership.

Palin's selection will certainly provide ample fodder for press discussion during the coming week, taking attention away from the Obama campaign and from a steadily mounting sense of economic, energy and foreign policy crises upon which it is centered. Issues supported by the religious right may appear simplistic, and they are certainly treated as such by their supporters in debate. However, assertions of an inalienable right to bear arms, assertions that life begins at conception and that the fetus has rights that supplant those of the mother, and assertions that creationism deserves equal time with accepted scientific theory in our nation's classrooms are far from simple issues.

We are indeed in jeopardy as a nation when an unsubstantiated assertion: "Life begins at conception!" seems more indicative of leadership than a considered response reflecting the inability of philosophers and scientists throughout history to specify the specific point where individual life begins. Obama's calls for unity in addressing the causes of unwanted pregnancy rather than arguing over differing views on abortion; his suggestion that community conditions may mandate differing legislation regulating weapons; and his support of a wider view of community that embraces a multiplicity of religious, political and cultural backgrounds may seem too complex for a public hungry for immediate answers.

We pride ourselves on living in a democracy, but democracy brings responsibility to each of us to become fully involved in the process of government. Each member of the public has the responsibility to consider issues with care in deciding how he or she might vote for anyone seeking office as our elected representatives. We all lose to the extent that we abrogate this responsibility in favor of simplistic explanations or when we prefer to abstain from the voting process. Life is not composed of simplistic answers on any level, and political campaigns bring our entire life experience to bear on issues and electoral decisions. To revert to oversimplification, slander, misrepresentation and, finally, tokenism to sway public opinion is reprehensible in itself. Such tactics, however, are effective only to the extent the public remains ready and willing to accept them.