As one wit put it, if the Democrats wanted to burn down the Capitol building, the Republicans would counter with a proposal to do it over the course of three years. Or, to use my own illustration, the Democrats are driving us toward the cliff at 80 miles an hour. The Republicans want to go 50. McCain, a maverick man, wants to go 65. Over a century ago, R.L. Dabney described a certain kind of conservatism as the shadow that follows radicalism to perdition.
As I have made plain in my political writing, I am done with that kind of incrementalism. But an incrementalism that represents a genuine reversal of course, however slowly that reversal might be going, is another thing. For that kind of incrementalism, I have a lot of time — which is good, because it almost certainly will take a lot of time.
All my “thinking out loud” about Sarah Palin basically revolves around this one question. Does her presence in this election represent driving toward the abyss a little bit slower, or does it represent something fresh and different that will help bring about about a real change in direction? If we are driving away from the cliff, I don’t mind if we are going 5 miles an hour.
That said, part of thinking out loud should include the mental exercise of giving both sides an equal shot. So here I am in the role of devil’s advocate. I think there are decent responses to these questions below, but I am not going to mention them here. Let’s just throw these questions into the crock pot and let them cook overnight.
* * *
As as been noted in our discussions, Sarah Palin really is conflicted and inconsistent at various points. The Christian faith and feminism go together like oreos and mustard. Feminism and respect for unborn children don’t go together either. Now various inconsistencies and ambiguities afflict all of us, but for someone in Sarah Palin’s position, don’t these tensions at least have the potential to resolve themselves in a direction that we don’t want? Thus far they have not, but as long as the tensions remain, they are available to be exploited. As long as they are there, we should be aware of what might happen with them.
Second, pinning all our hopes on Sarah might be a bit injudicious. When we consider what reports the media was willing to pass around concerning her with no substance whatever, what would they do if they ever seized on anything with substance? If they ever come up with anything even remotely plausible, they will beat that thing like a red-headed stepchild. Having been embarrassed on this once, the media will not be at all forgiving.
Third, what might happen is not the same thing as what will happen. Christians who keep going back to the Republican Party are like a sweet little girl of very little brain who keeps going back to an abusive boyfriend. It is true that he might be different this time, but what, really, do we have to go on?
Fourth, how can Sarah Palin represent a fundamental volte-face when she is in the number two slot as a new-comer to Washington? She can inspire and encourage the conservative base, but how difficult could it be for a politician with McCain’s knowledge of all the secret levers and pulleys to keep her influence marginal, if that is what he wanted or needed to do?
And last, we should at least consider the possibility that the abortion is not the only high-stakes moral issue confronting our nation. With the abortion issue, we know what is up and what is down. But war is a blood issue as well, and on this issue evangelical Christians are not nearly as checked out. With the abortion issue, the murder victims are all children and the perpetrators have all been to med school and live on the respectable side of a town near you. This appalls us, as it should. But in foreign policy, life is a lot more complicated. And “more complicated” does not translate to “less important.” How many Iraqi Christians have been killed in the war? Anybody care? When it comes to foreign policy, Sarah Palin and McCain both know whose side they are on, and I think they are right about two thirds of the time. But that remaining third covers a lot of moral territory that we need to get a lot more familiar with.
And here is just a throwaway reason, not a serious one. Make sure you are not giddy over the prospect of voting for sexy Sarah. Sure, she has better legs than Dick Cheney, but there is more to the job than that. Double-check that you are not simply yearning for the prospect of voting, as one wag put it, for a second Babe-raham Lincoln.