Thursday, September 18, 2008

Deceit and Outrage

Guy walks into a job interview. Interviewer asks if he feels he's sufficiently educated for the job.

GUY: "Well, I grew up in Oakland. Berkeley and Oakland are neighbors."

INTERVIEWER: "What knowledge did you obtain due to your proximity to Berkeley?"

GUY: "Oakland and Berkeley are neighbors, and there's even a hill in Oakland you can climb and actually see the Berkeley tower."

INTERVIEWER: "What knowledge does that give you?"

GUY: "Well, it means it's a small world."

Does he get the job? Of course not. Even if the job required no special schooling, the sheer audacity of the bald deceit involved in Guy's claim to education would disqualify him from any job in the eyes of a self-respecting interviewer. It's downright offensive. If Guy expected the interviewer to buy that, what does he think of the interviewer's intelligence? And can the interviewer expect him to be an honest employee?

Here's another story, even more ludicrous, you may have heard this one:

SARAH PALIN: "...And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor."

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS: "What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?"

PALIN: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

GIBSON: "What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?"

PALIN: "Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia..."

Before you rush in and claim that these two stories are not perfectly analogous, let me say that you're right. Palin is much much worse than Guy. There is a decent probability that Guy, growing up in Oakland, benefited from some small cultural trickle-down from the [relatively] nearby university. It is even likely that Guy has been to Berkeley. But Palin has never seen Russia, she's never been there, she's never interacted with diplomats from there, she's never dealt with Russian-American common interests in the region, there is no Russian foreign policy trickle-down floating across the Bering Strait, and she surely hasn't picked up any clues to Russian motivations for the invasion of a small democracy 5,000 miles away. Guy was just trying to deceive the interviewer to get a job. Palin? The entire country.



Before I analyze her comments further, let me make one thing clear: I'm not currently interested in the question of whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be VP. What interests me is the culture of deceit in the McCain-Palin campaign that this story symbolizes. The campaign and even John McCain himself have repeated this exact same argument on national TV. This is not a poor choice of words by a candidate under duress; it is apparently a coordinated talking point within the campaign designed to convince voters that Palin is experienced enough in foreign affairs to be VP and, by extension, P. Yet it would be safe to claim that both Palin and McCain understand the deceit inherent in this claim; Palin certainly understands that she never interacted with Russia in any way as Governor of Alaska. But she apparently has no qualms feeding this story to the public. America hasn't seen somebody this comfortable deceiving us since... well, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.


Let me be again be clear: I'm not accusing Palin of lying. I'm [re-]documenting her deceit. Let's analyze her claims in detail:

Start in Sarah Palin's hometown of Wasilla. Drive to Anchorage and board a plane. Fly 500 miles over completely uninhabited wilderness to the town of Nome on the remote western coast of Alaska. Hire [at great cost] a helicopter to fly 120 miles to Little Diomede, a small island in the middle of the Bering Strait. This is the only way to get to Little Diomede; it has no port and no airport, the population of about 170 Inupiat Eskimos isolated from the rest of the world but for a weekly mail helicopter and a single cargo barge each year. If you're lucky and the weather is good, you can now look west and see another island on the horizon. This is Big Diomede which, for historical technicalities, is actually part of Russia. Big Diomede has a permanent population of exactly zero. Beyond Big Diomede, over the Bering Sea, lies the Chukotka Autonomous region of Russia, with a population density of 0.18 per square mile; less than 1/6th that of Alaska, which is by far the least densely populated state in the country [Wyoming, the next lowest, has 5.4 citizens per square mile]. Chukotka is so remote that its large oil reserves and other resources are largely untapped. See this map: Alaska on the right, Little Diomede and Big Diomede in the middle, with Chukotka on the left.

Furthermore, Russia is so big that Wasilla is barely further from the business end of the country--Moscow--than Boston is, via a Great Circle route. You don't hear Mitt Romney touting his foreign policy experience because he was the governor of a state only 4,500 miles away from Moscow. In fact, to fly to Moscow from Anchorage requires flying down to the lower 48 and flying east over Europe. So Wasilla--in practical terms--is as far from the heart of Russia as any place you can find in the Northern Hemisphere.

The point is this: While it is technically true that it's possible to see part of Russia from an island in Alaska, this fact is irrelevant to Palin's foreign policy experience in the following ways:

1. Sarah Palin has neither seen Russia nor traveled to Russia

2. The region of Russia adjacent to Alaska has negligible strategic importance

3. Palin has never met with official Russian delegations

4. Alaska is functionally further from the Kremlin than almost anywhere else in the Northern Hemisphere.

Unless foreign policy experience is acquired through some kind of bizarre geographically selective osmosis, Palin can claim exactly none due to her home state's proximity to Russia.

Some cite the fact that Palin was commander of the Alaska National Guard. Well, this is true, but any time National Guard troops are used for international issues they are federalized under command of national military leaders. The frequently-cited Alaskan National Guard troops in Iraq are not commanded by Sarah Palin. Executive experience [whatever that means, and why it's suddenly the only kind of applicable experience, is another question entirely] maybe, but foreign policy experience? Hardly.

Let me get back to the point. This little deceit is a microcosm of the McCain-Palin campaign. They have shown an epic degree of comfort with deceiving the American public for political gain. Sarah Palin and John McCain both know that there is exactly zero substance behind the some-Alaskans-can-see-a-remote-part-of-uninhabited-Russia-sometimes-and-therefore-the-Alaskan-Governer-is-experienced-in-foreign-affairs claim. When they use this argument, they are consciously trying to deceive the country. That is terrifying to me, as an American citizen. And, truth is, this isn't even close to the most egregious example of McCain-Palin deceit. Check any one of the non-partisan fact-checking sites like FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com. It's shocking: full-up straight-faced pants-on-fire lies.


Having foreign policy experience with Russia may or may not be a legitimate mandatory qualification for VP candidates; I haven't argued either way. But the willful, persistent, coordinated deceit that the McCain-Palin campaign is willing to feed the American people signals a moral corruption and deep cynicism that profanes the offices they are running for. This isn't politics as usual, this is the politics of change: change from fibs, exaggerations and disinformation to dirty, filthy, brazen lies.

14 comments:

Real said...

Huh. Well, I don't know what exactly you are taking that from since I don't follow politics very much--even presidential campaigns.

But you haven't made your point for me because I'm missing some important information. In your scenario, guy is in a job interview and you tell us the that interviewer asked about his educational/academic qualifications for the job. So obviously, his answer is exactly what you said it was.

However, from the snippet you gave it doesn't sound to me like Palin is claiming that her Alaskan proximity to Russia gives her any special insights into what's happening in Georgia. It just sounds to me like she is avoiding the question. Specifically NOT answering what insights--if any--it gives her. (I might add, this is not new to politicians. It happens all the time when they are asked direct questions. They just deflect it.) And her deflection is to just point out how close the United States actually is to Russia and that we share a border with them and therefore, how important it is to remain allies. Which is actually something that I forget all the time because in my mind's eye I only see the 48 contiguous states when I picture I country. So I would have told you we only border Canada and Mexico.

I also have seen other non-partisan sites that show exactly how terrible Obama is, how little experience, things he has lied about, etc... I don't think that just because the source of information is "non-partisan" means it's "non-biased" or doesn't have an agenda or ulterior motive.

Surprising quite a few .02s from a self-acclaimed political idiot. But there ya go. Flame away.

Anonymous said...

I agree wholeheartedly that Palin is inexperienced and has no foreign policy experience, which I think is the subtext here. I'm not sure I really see any deceit or grand plan to deceive, though. Seems pretty tame to me, especially by political standards. I've just been through around a year of members of both parties launching bombs at their opponents, misrepresenting their positions, dodging questions, inflating experience, self-congratulating and aggrandizing. So I really don't see an issue on this interview. No denying your passion, though!

On the underlying stuff: I think the voters have the information they need on the subject--she's got no foreign policy experience and is largely an unknown entity.

So I take it you're voting for Obama? :)

C.

trogonpete said...

First: The McCain-Palin campaign has in fact made it quite clear that they consider the proximity of Russia to constitute foreign policy experience for Palin. Probably the most sound-bite-able version is from Cindy McCain BEFORE this interview with Palin. She was asked whether Palin had foreign policy experience. Her answer:
"She is heavily experienced in what she has done. You know, she -- the experience that she comes from is with what she's done in the government, also, remember, Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. So it's not as if she doesn't understand what's at stake here."

Logically deconstructing the statement: she has foreign policy experience because [A] what she's done in government and [B] because Alaska is near Russia. There are several other uses by the campaign all in response to questions about her foreign policy experience.

Second: I think you'll find if you reread both "stories" that they are equivalent. I lifted the dialog from the real interview to construct the fake one, and they are logically and structurally identical.

Third: Palin is asked what foreign experience she gains from being near Russia. Her response was to emphasize how close they are, not to deny that the geography plays a factor. If she was honest about it she'd immediately admit that the proximity of Russia is irrelevant to her foreign policy experience.

Fourth: The reason why Charles Gibson asked the question in the first case was because the claim had been repeated so many times by the McCain campaign. So Palin didn't claim it expressly in this interview, but she's defending it.

Fifth: Yes, polititians deflect questions all the time. This is totally different: she is deliberately trying to perpetuate an absurdity for political gain.

Sixth: I hope I succeeded in explaining in my post how completely irrelevant the US's border with Russia is. There wasn't even military buildup along the border during the Cold War. You mentioned that the border emphasises how important it is to remain allies with Russia, but I completely disagree; it's irrelevent. This isn't a US/Mexico border with fences and guards. There is a wide, treacherous, cold channel of ocean separating two large masses of completely impassable and mostly uninhabited tundra. There is absolutely no threat of violence over this border. The bombers stationed in Alaska are there to be closER to the strategic interests in Russia, mostly in the west--over the North Pole. So, yes, functionally we only border Canada and Mexico. If you count maritime borders like Russia we also border Cuba and the Bahamas, and for both of those cases the strategic locations are near the maritime border, not 4000 miles away like in the case of Alaska/Russia.

Seventh: name an Obama lie. Honestly, I'm not saying the man is perfect but the most I've ever seen proven against him is that he exaggerates and hand-picks facts. That's politics. As far as I can tell, the man does not believe in lying, and the McCain campaign uses strategic lies as part of a formal plan.

Eight: You're right that these non-partisan sites aren't necessarily unbiased. In fact, one of the ones I gave you is from a rather conservative organization. The great thing about their method is that they look up facts and compare them to the rhetoric, and that method is impervious to bias. The same two sites I gave were used by Bush against John Kerry in 2004 very publicly and effectively.

Ok, here's an example: John McCain says every day "Obama will raise taxes on the middle class." He says the same thing in adds. Obama's tax plan has forever been very specific about his tax profile, and unless you define middle-class as people who make more than 2.5MILLION dollars a year, Obama will LOWER taxes for the middle class MORE than McCain. This is not opinion, it is fact, the tax proposal is in the public domain. McCain keeps on repeating it even though he knows it's a lie because he knows people will believe him because he's a republican, and a lot of people think that's a certification of moral rectitude.

But my goal wasn't to compare Obama to McCain. It was to compare McCain to fact. I've been reading tales from very experienced polititians who all seem to believe that the McCain campaign is the dirtiest and most dishonest presidential campaign in modern American history. And the Bush-Cheney-Rove team set a very high bar [intentionally leading southern voters to believe [falsely] John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child, for example, which cost McCain the primaries].

One last thing. I'm not a Democrat. I have no partisan motivation for assuming McCain and Palin are always wrong. I supported John McCain in 2000. The reason I came to this is that I saw Palin at the RNC and found her to be offensive and needlessly derogatory. But I didn't know much about her so I anxiously looked up the ABC interview. She looked like a jr. high student in there; claiming Ronald Reagan was in office when the cold war ended [Bush], never having heard of the Bush Doctrine, the single most important historic development in US foreign policy in our generation, refusing to answer any question and repeating the same talking points over and over and over because she had no idea what to say that she hadn't memorized. It terrified me, the thought that she could be a heartbeat away from being president. So that's what motivated this.

your favorite brother-in-law,
p

trogonpete said...

C: I'm not even making a judgement about whether Palin is qualified or not. The importance of this is that the McCain campaign has been repeating this claim over and over and over. People on TV buy it [see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwWGS73v4_k&feature=related ]. I tried to explain in my post that it's not this issue that I think matters, it's what this issue symbolizes. The McCain campain repeats the same lies over and over and over [which indicates coordination and plan]. I think most voters DO understand that Palin is not experienced, but the absurdity of it is that the McCain campaign refuses to aknowledge this and uses all of these fantastic tales to try to prove it. Your experience in the Arizona legislature [am I right?] isn't too surprising--who's going to make a fact-checking website for state legislators? When the race is the presidential election and when the lies are repeated so much even when everybody knows they're lies; that's a different issue, I think. Like I said in the post, it symbolizes a cynicism about the American people that is very dangerous to have in the White House.

Yes, I am voting for Obama, but it has nothing to do with this. This issue is more about not voting for McCain.

your favorite brother,
p

Real said...

Well, all the points in your comment are of the sort that I couldn't possibly reply to. Like I said. I know that I don't know that much about "politics". Most of my political decisions are based on moral issues.

I still think that what Palin said (that you initially quoted) was completely harmless. Kind of like how in a job interview when they ask you, "What are your greatest weaknesses?" You don't answer, "I really like to sleep in a lot and I have a hard time making it to work on time." You just turn the question into something else.

Are there really people in the country who think Sarah Palin is experienced in these matters? Obviously she's not. Still, I wouldn't expect her to say, "Gee, Mr. Gibson. It gives me no insight at all. I really have no experience in these matters whatsoever." Even though it's true.

Real said...

Maybe all this global warming will change the importance of sharing a border with Russia...

trogonpete said...

Most of your political decisions are based on moral issues. As it turns out, so are mine. Isn't lying a moral issue? Isn't feeding and clothing the starving and naked a moral issue? What about respecting our stewardship of the earth? Educating our kids? Is there a greater moral issue than war?

The scriptures do talk about lying [liars are thrust down to hell], war [members are to renounce war and proclaim peace] and feeding and clothing and our stewardship of the earth. They don't talk about gay marriage or abortion--for understandable reasons. The point is that "moral" issues inclues a LOT of issues, and a true Christian has more than one option come election time.

My rule of thumb is that I expect Jesus would be an independent, since I seriously doubt he would vote party-line with either Democrats or Republicans.

But my worry is that we, as members of the Church, buy into the fundamentalists's rhetoric. We are told that only Republicans support life and marriage. The truth, as it happens, is so much more complex. Obama is very moderate on both abortion and gay rights, and cites his Christian faith as the rationale for it. Obama believes there is a moral dimension to abortions and that they should be rare and difficult to obtain. McCain's stance has recently radiacally shifted [from so-called "pro-choice"] and is now in agreement with the Church but Palin's is significantly more radical and counter to the church's position. Obama and McCain are basically identical on gay marriage. So the old ideas about morality and politics are bogus.

Politics is BIG. The next President will affect the education of your kids, the moral standing of our country, our safety, financial security, access to medical care. He will make choices that will affect your grandkids. His stance on the war will have the potential to save or take several thousand lives, including potentially people you know. Politics is BIG and I don't think it's reasonable for 2 issues to dominate the entire discussion.

So take the time to go to BarackObama.com and JohnMcCain.com and click on the issues tabs. I'm not telling you to vote for Obama, but I'd be happy if I knew you understood what implications your vote carries.

[wow, it almost sounds like I'm ACTIVATING, doesn't it?]

Anonymous said...

I just lost my whole long post. Argg. Oh, well--I have no concise way of saying what I said.

But I'm glad you're back up and writing. (And, no, I was not referring to the AZ leg, but to the primaries/pres. season.)

C.

Real said...

What I mean is that certain moral issues are just that. Right/wrong or black/white. Like abortion or gay marriage. Those are obviously the two big ones at the top of the list.

But things like stewardship of the earth and war... I think that there are many possible solutions to those things and that the problems are very complex and there isn't a right/wrong. There are just different ways to go about reaching a certain end. And that is what I'm calling "politics". I'm not sure where I stand on the war. On the one hand I want out. On the other hand I can see why it's important to stay. I'm not convinced either way and so in light of the fact that I don't have a strong opinion, I'm fine with letting people who have more information than I do make that decision. That might change in the future, who knows.

So anyway--just to clarify. Moral issues for me means the things that are clearly right or wrong based on prophets/scriptures/church stance. Things like abortion, murder, stealing. Those are things that are definitely not done or are done only in a very few limited circumstances. Things like clothing the naked and feeding the poor are also important. But there are many ways to go about doing that. And as I think about it, it's more important to me that our government not allow those bad things to happen while allowing the people to make their own decisions about how to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, not having it mandated.

trogonpete said...

C: That's not fair! You know what you said but I don't!

I just read a commentary from a guy who has been involved in presidential campaigns for decades and fought tooth-and-nail agains Karl Rove in 2000 and 2004. He thinks the McCain campaign is far more comfortable with lying than any campaign he's ever seen.

Real: I strongy disagree. The Church is pragmatic and sensible and rarely takes a black/white approach. See:

Abortion.
WHITE: The Catholic church believes that a fetus is exactly equivalent to a grown human life. To them, abortion is forbidden in any case because murder is forbidden in any case. Any and all abortion is murder.

BLACK: Many feminist groups believe that abortions should be casual, easy, no-questions-asked affairs paid by the government. No abortion is a sin.

GRAY: The Church's stance is that abortion is not good, but it's not equivalent to murder. We allow abortion in rare cases of incest, rape, and when the mother's life is in jeopardy. This is hardly a hard-line approach.

And, again, gay marriage:

WHITE: Fundamentalist Christian groups believe that homosexuality is a grave sin, exactly equal to adultery. Anybody who feels same-sex attraction is a sinner and needs to repent, regardless of their actions. They marry homosexuals to heterosexuals in an attempt to cure them of their attractions, and, needless to say they are against all gay rights.

BLACK: Many Friscans believe any and all sex is good, should be done anywhere by anybody and it's all fine. There is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage.

GRAY: The Church does not believe that homosexuals are sinners. Homosexuals are held to the same standards that heterosexuals are in terms of sexual behavior. Gays cannot marry but they can attend Church and take the sacrament.

Further complicating the issue is that the candidates don't have black/white positions. Both Obama and McCain are gray on the issues above. Both believe that states should determine whether gays should marry but are personally against it, for instance. So voting black/white gives you absolutely no options in general elections. What you CAN do is vote for a gray candidate and make sure you vote when the state ballot for the ISSUES arrives.

Furthermore, the scriptures do contain guidance on war, feeding and clothing by the government, civil rights, stewardship of the earth, etc. And--of course--they're all gray. I've always felt there's danger to making a hierarchy of commandments: deciding to pick and choose which commandments take precedence over the others. Besides adultery, murder and love I can't think of any time the scriptures rank commandments. And when the choice is made for you by corrupt and incorrect churches--which is how gay marriage and abortion became the only two issues that matter [the Church has certainly never explicitly stated it]--I'm very leery of it.

What if a candidate agreed with the Church 100% on abortion and gay marriage but wanted to conscript your sons to fight foreign wars for power, disband the government and create a fascist state, send all the poor off to work camps and arrest and hang all dissenters. Would you vote for him? If not, you really do believe that there's more than just the two issues that matter. That may be an extreme example, but at what point do you draw a line in the sand and say, "nothing else matters"?

One last thing: When you say maybe it's best for governments to get out of the feeding and clothing business and leave it up to ourselves individually, it seems like a double standard to say that abortion should not be a personal choice, but mandated by the government. I would think that the principle of collective worthiness and communal good are just as applicable in all cases. You may have a different philosophy about the role of government--I'm not aware of the scriptures talking about it--but it seems odd to pick-and-choose which choices it's OK for the government to make for you and which ones it's not. Again, it seems to come down to a hierarchy of commandments.

So, if you don't mind me asking, are you going to vote? I don't see many options for black/white abortion/gay marriage candidates. And if you did vote, who would you vote for?

Real said...

I don't see abortion as a gray issue at all just because it falls between two very extreme ideas. It is what it is, regardless of the positions of people on other ends of the spectrum.

From the church website: In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

So that's my moral stance that I'd like to see upheld in law. Abortions only available "when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth." Anything more or less than that is wrong. I don't care when the fetus is viable or what the Catholic church thinks or anything. I agree with the above statements and that's what I want the law to be.

I think that homosexuality and gay marriage are two totally different things. And the church has taken a strong stance against the establishment of gay marriages and has encouraged its members to do so, too. And since I don't have much of an opinion on other policy matters and political things, this is an issue that is easy for me to judge because it's simple and black and white. A particular candidate may be wishy washy on the issue, but the one who says they support it probably won't get my vote.

I do think there are other things that matter than just the above issues. But I also think that a president isn't a king and just because he/she WANTS to change something doesn't mean it gets changed.

In simple terms, the two big powers that the president has are the whole war thing and picking supreme court justices. I don't know where I stand on the current war issue. And definitely as long as our president is going to be setting up the supreme court to interpret the laws of the land, I want a morally conservative president picking morally conservative judges to do that interpreting rather than moral liberals.

And I absolutely believe that we have a responsibility to make sure that we stand up for morality to make sure it's legislated. As with abortion. Or gay marraige. Or murder. The big seduction today is to say "I personally believe this thing is wrong, but I also believe in freedom and so everybody should just be able to make their own choice. It doesn't affect me." It assuages us and makes us feel "open-minded" or "politically correct." We don't have to be laughed at while others call us self-righteous, religious fanatics.

But we have a responsibility to make our voices for righteousness be heard. We live in this god-given country with the incredible privelege of being able to have a say in our laws and the way our country is run. And it's a shame that we might be soft on some of these moral issues. In Mosiah 29: 26, 27 it says, "Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land" So I feel like it's my responsibility to stand firm for things that are good and right--marriage between a man and a woman-- and to oppose things that are wrong--same sex marriage. If I don't, then that's one less voice that desires rightesousness amont the onslaught of people desiring wickedness. When the majority of people in this country are choosing iniquity, then we are ripe for destruction.
I regret saying anything at all about governments feeding and clothing people. It's an idea that wasn't well thought out. What I was thinking is that I wouldn't want the government to institute a program whereby 10% of my income automatically was spent on government programs for the poor and needy. But I'm not opposed to anything like having the federal government helping people across the globe after natural disasters or things like that. Absolutely not opposed.
Still, I think it's our national right to pick and choose what the government can and can't do. That's the beauty of our whole system. We get to have a say. I want the government to ban elective abortions and same sex marriage. I also want the government to keep their nose out of where I have a baby. What's wrong with that? I also wan't the government to punish murderers and sex offenders. I bet the murderers and sex offenders don't. And some day if there are more murderers and sex offenders than good, righteous people. They'll probably get their vote, the laws will change, the country will be wicked and then destroyed.
I don't think that's a hierarchy of commandments. Things like murder, gay marriage, abortion, fraud. These are simple right/wrong issues. I have a stance. Things like whether or not a president should raise taxes on the upper classes....that's not an issue of right/wrong for me. It's not morally wrong to raise taxes or morally right to lower taxes. It's just a policy issue. It may be good. It may be bad. It may do the job. It may have effects we never palnned for. Frankly, I'm not fit to judge it. I mean, I have my ideas. But they are soft and I'm easily swayed in either direction depending on the argument. And so I just don't base my vote on those issues. I base my vote on the things I have a strong opinion about.

I am definitely going to vote. Since the primaries, I tended towards Obama. But then I've had people make convincing arguments to me and I was on the fence. I didn't want either candidate. Obama is likeable. McCain is so not. When McCain picked Sarah Palin, that knocked me over softly to that side. I really like Sarah Palin and I love the idea of her being in the white house. I like her better than McCain and Obama put together. But I also realize that just liking her isn't a good enough reason to vote for McCain/Palin. So right now you could put me tentatively down for McCain, but honestly I'm still in the gathering information stage.

trogonpete said...

Let me make it clear that I agree with you on abortion and gay marriage. I'm getting the impression you may not believe that. I don't think we need to be "soft" on moral issues, though I consider most issues to be moral in nature. I don't give a hoot about political correctness. In fact, I'm pretty much a hard-line moralist when it comes to politics. But I'll repeat again that the scriptures move me to see beyond [but not necessarily above] gay marriage and abortion.

And I completely agree that the government's role is to codify the personal morality of the masses. I wasn't arguing against it at all.

When a government lies to its citizens to justify invading a country which poses no threat to our families and homes, so many firm scriptural principles are violated that it's impossible for me to see it as anything but a moral issue. Yes, it's more complicated now that we're in, but the issue should be frame in morality, I feel.

Maybe my "gray" argument makes more sense when I say that the Church is between the traditional "pro-choice" and "pro-life" positions. John McCain has always been rather pro-abortion until he realized he needed to change his position in order to win the primaries. That much is well-documented. Who knows what he'll stand for as president? So there is no such thing as a black/white choice when voting for president.

You mentioned taxes. This is a good example where morality plays basically no role. Economists have known for a long time that somewhere between "low" taxes and "high" taxes there are "just right" taxes that stimulate the economy as well as maximize government revenue. The current tax code shifts all the wealth to a few corporate managers and away from the government and the "middle class." McCain's tax code will increase that effect, and Obama's is designed to generate revenue by taxing the very wealthy and giving a tax break to everybody else. I support Obama's plan because I think it's fair, equitable, and based on sound economic principles as opposed to McCain's which is based on ideology and politics. Anyway, the only reason I mention this is that I agree that there's no moral "right solution" to taxes. I don't think McCain's tax plan is immoral, it's just [in my eyes] unfair and likely to perpetuate the economy's woes.

For me, one of the beauties of the restored gospel is the rejection of black/white distinctions. No more heaven/hell. No such thing as saved/not saved. No more believer/heathen. I have a philosophical allergy to the idea of black/white issues. The truth in almost every case is that there is a continuum of options, and when you choose between two you're almost always judging between two different shades of gray. Maybe this is too philosophical to be of any practical interest, but I really do find almost every black/white argument--meaning one lacking aknowledgement of nuances--to be fraud. So when you say "Things like murder, gay marriage, abortion, fraud. These are simple right/wrong issues. I have a stance." I find it hard to swallow. The law has all kinds of technicalities, degrees of murder depending on a continuum of malicious intent, and these nuances reflect the grayscale nature of killing. How sinful is it to be listening to the radio too loud and accidentally kill somebody in your car? You get charged with a lesser crime [negligent homicide, maybe? I dunno] than if you strangled somebody because you were mad. Murder is grayscale, and the law admits it. Gay marriage? Well, what about domestic partnership, medicare coverage, adoption? There are a lot of issues PERTAINING to gay marriage that are not gay marriage for which the Church, to my knowledge, hasn't said anything. And abortion? Again, grayscale: what if you take a hot bath when you're 2 months pregnant and kill a fetus? Are you guilty of murder? Surely that's not "as bad" as a partial birth abortion. And abortions in case of rape--that's a whole nother pile of nuance depending on the age and social situation of the victim. Fraud? Well, some people consider any MLM to be a fraud, is it just as bad as Enron? I asked a guy here how much he was willing to pay for my bike and he said $30 even though it was hardly worth $15. I gave it to him, then felt bad. That's fraud, but I imagine not quite the same as the conflict-of-interest land deals a real estate lawyer in SLC might have to deal with. Defrauding a neighbor out of 10 bucks is a different shade of gray than ripping ten million customers off in a large corporation.

So I'd love for you to tell me what you find attractive in Palin. You know my feelings, I'm interested in how you came to a different conclusion.

Later!

Elizabeth said...

I think the best part of all of this is how you both are drawing into knowledge and your minds, using the intelligence that God gave you to try to find the right path.

What we NEED is more people like P in politics, which, as the right person for the job, he has no interest in.

Intelligent, morally upright, firm, well-educated people are who we need to run this country.

Anonymous said...

I cannot express the relief I feel at finding this "debate" AFTER it unfolded! Pete, I've got your back. Heaven save us from whatever that other person meant by "morality", which appears to be a synonym for prejudice or certainty.