This election is groundbreaking and historic. We are all well aware of the obvious reasons for this–first black presidential candidate, first female VP on the Republican ticket–but there are others. And some of the reasons are less cause for celebration than for caution.  For one, this election marks the moment when cynicism and fear came to be viewed as virtues. 

It used to be that those who made decisions based on the worst of reasons–fear, bigotry, ignorance–kept their voices low and spoke of their opinions only within the familiar walls of their own living rooms. The intrinsic sense of shame that accompanies certain statements–namely, uninformed, unfounded, hateful statements–prevented those who made them from publicly declaring them. People seemed to understand the general idea that, if someone challenges your opinions or beliefs, it’s best to have facts and rational thought to back you up. Contrarily, it’s a bit hard to defend yourself when you rely mainly on fear of the “other,” incendiary rumors, or false information. So those with the least-defensible, most ill-begotten opinions most often kept quiet, not because others demanded that of them, but because of a very basic instinct: fear of embarrassment.

Yet this election seems to have encouraged many to wear their fear, bigotry, and ignorance like so many badges of pride. Sentiments that were once whispered or circulated only among the closest and most like-minded of friends and family are now outrightly and confidently stated in public. There has emerged a noticeable sense of impunity and righteousness among people who put forth opinions regardless of their truth, fairness, or rational basis. Sadly, we have seen numerous instances during this election in which ignorance has been not only tolerated, but outright supported and encouraged. 

McCain-Palin Rally in Ohio

To be sure, we have seen ignorant and ridiculous comments from all sides during this and past elections. But this phenomenon is happening on a scale that most certainly has not been seen before. This is not one or two people from the fringes who have happened to get in front of a camera. This is a trend that has emerged with a particularly alarming virulence in the course of this election.

McCain-Palin rally in Pennsylvania 

It should be obvious that I am not implying that all who do not support Barack Obama share the sentiments of these people. I am aware and respectful of the fact that people have well-informed, rational, fair reasons for choosing not to support the democratic nominee for president. The people in these videos don’t speak for most Americans. I acknowledge that.

But that does not mean that we should pretend not to notice when groups of people become more and more comfortable making false, ignorant claims, designed to fan flames of fear, in public. Brazen statements devoid of substance and fact are not impressive or courageous; those who offer them should not be encouraged. 

We should all–each of us–examine our own ideas about virtue and vice. What is really deserving of our cheers, hurrahs, and email forwarding button? Statements like those in the videos here? Surely not. Though it seems that increasing numbers of Americans would have us believe otherwise, it is not a virtue to be ignorant, in this election or ever.

If two teams in a competition follow different rules, I’m not sure that anyone can win. Even if there can somehow be a victor, it is bound to be a messy, maddening affair.

This is what is happening with twenty-odd days to go before the presidential election. The McCain campaign seems to have created one set of rules for John McCain, and another for Barack Obama. Here’s how.

McCain Rule #1: You are responsible and may be implicated for every action ever taken by anyone you have ever served on a board or committee with

The McCain campaign announced their new rules with one name: Ayers.

As messenger, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has delivered dozens of speeches in which she uses Bill Ayers to raise questions not only about Barack Obama’s motives, but about who the democratic nominee for president even is.

The argument from McCain and Palin goes as follows: Barack Obama and Bill Ayers served on the same board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Also, Ayers, thirty years after ceasing his despicable ways, and many years into his post as a professor at a respected university, hosted a fundraising meeting for Obama toward the beginning of Obama’s political career. Thus, according to the McCain-Palin logic, Obama is “palling around with domestic terrorists” and can’t be trusted.

The major logical flaw here is this: The Annenberg Challenge was a non-profit organization whose goal was to promote public school reform in Chicago. Its parent organization was founded by a woman named Leonore Annenberg. Leonore Annenberg is a vocal supporter of Senator John McCain.

So, just to make the irony and the connection clear: a prominent endorser of Senator McCain created the education foundation that had Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (as well as a number of Republicans) on one of its boards. Were the number of Republicans on that board, and is Leonore Annenberg herself, “palling around” with Bill Ayers, too? Or is Barack Obama the only one who is guilty by association?

There’s also the very troubling issue of a few of John McCain’s past associations. There’s McCain’s “old friend” Gordon Libby, a felon who spend years in federal prison for his part in Watergate. There’s McCain’s associate Ralph Reed, a key figure in the Abrahmoff scandal. There’s McCain’s associate Carl Lindner, Jr., a man who gave approximately $1.7 million dollars to a paramilitary group that is now designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. By McCain’s Rule #1, we should question and doubt John McCain for each of these shady associations. Because he knows and has worked with these people, he should be held responsible for their actions.

Doesn’t John McCain see that, if a candidate is not only judged by but inextricably linked to anyone who has ever hosted a campaign event or provided major political support for him, then that leaves McCain himself linked to a convicted felon, a figure in one of the highest-profile political scandals of the decade, and a supporter of terrorism?

McCain Rule #2, as recently adopted by his staunch supporters: If anyone you have ever associated with has unsavory, despicable characteristics, then you yourself share these unsavory despicable characteristics

McCain’s Rule #2 has been applied most liberally to Obama’s associations with Ayers and his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. To be clear, Ayers’ stupid, unpatriotic actions should be denounced; this is obvious, and Obama has said so on a number of occasions. Similarly, Jeremiah Wright should be called a fool for his anti-American rants and offensive, hyperbolic rhetoric. Again, Obama has fully separated himself from Wright, and from every anti-American comment this man ever made (even those he made when Obama wasn’t even in the congregation).

Yet this rule requires us to further abandon reason, and believe not only that Obama is guilty by association, but that he actually shares the same characteristics and opinions as any unsavory person he has ever been associated with. McCain’s Rule #2, in spite of being illogical and unfair, has clearly been embraced by some of his supporters, as evidenced by the shouts of “treason!” and “terrorist!” after Barack Obama’s name is mentioned at McCain and Palin rallies.

Did Sarah Palin need to renounce the pastor who made absurd accusations about an Alaskan woman and warned congregants about the dangers of witchcraft, while Palin herself was not only in attendance at the church, but called up on stage as a participant? Would John McCain assert that, because Sarah Palin sat in church and listened to this man, she herself must share his opinions?

We can also go back to McCain’s friend (McCain has called him that) Gordon Liddy. Liddy is most well-known for spending four years in prison for his involvement in the Watergate scandal, but his less-reported behavior is arguably the most troubling.

McCain’s friend Gordon Liddy has asserted that listening to recordings of Hitler’s speeches made him feel “a strength inside [he] had never known before.” Liddy proposed kidnapping anti-war activists during the 1972 Republican National Convention. His documented advice to Branch Dividian cult members about how to fight the law enforcement officers trying to stop them in Waco was: “Give them a firefight. Just remember, they’re wearing flak jackets and you’re better off shooting for the head.” Shooting for the head of members of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms who were trying to protect innocent Americans. That certainly constitutes promoting violence against the government.

Has McCain renounced this Gordon Liddy for encouraging violence against the government, for his participation in Watergate, for his idolization of Adolf Hitler, or for his proposal to kidnap Americans exercising their right to free speech? He has not. In fact, McCain has called Liddy “an old friend,” and said to Liddy on his radio show recently, “I’m proud of you.” McCain has accepted $1000 in campaign donations from Gordon Liddy this year alone.

That should be bad enough, but McCain Rule #2 leads even further. McCain has applied this rule to Obama on a regular basis, so let’s see what happens if we apply it to McCain.

By McCain’s own rule, McCain not only “pals around with” convicted felons who in their past have plotted and incited violence against the U.S. government, McCain himself has plotted and incited violence against the U.S. government. By McCain’s own rule, because one of his associates wanted to shoot government officials in the head, so too does John McCain want to shoot government officials in the head. By McCain’s own rule, because he knows Liddy, McCain must sympathize with every past or present bad deed done by Liddy, and thus McCain must also draw strength from Adolf Hitler and advocate the kidnapping of dissenters. Treason! Terrorist!

Does the absurdity and unfairness of this argument make your skin crawl? It should.

McCain Rule #3: This rule does not apply to John McCain or Sarah Palin

Well, shoot. Never mind, then. Silly me, thinking that John McCain’s own rules should apply not only to his opponent, but to him as well.

I am the last person who will say that we shouldn’t ask questions of each other and of our leaders. We have every right to seek information and to hold our candidates accountable, and to keep pressing at those gnawing questions until we are satisfied. That is one of our responsibilities as voters.

Yet an equally important responsibility is to be fair enough to ask those questions of both sides, and to accept that some questions may not lead to the exact answer we were hoping for or that will help us make our case. I don’t maintain that every question Americans have asked about Barack Obama has led to answers that cast him in an ideal light. But for the sake of fairness and honesty, we should acknowledge that the same is true of many of the questions Americans have asked about John McCain.

In a divided and frustrated country during what is by all accounts a difficult era, I bet most of us can all still agree on a few things. Like when we set rules, the rules should count for all players in the game. When we set standards, it is only right to apply those standards to everyone equally, and to give honest due to the truth we find, whether is applies to friend or foe.

It may sound quaint, but I think these ideas go all the way back to pre-school for me. It was there that I learned a pledge–one we made every day, to our country, and to each other. That pledge is about the most fundamental elements of America, like one nation, indivisibility, and liberty. It ends with an idea that is as important now as it has ever been: justice.

Justice for all.

Every standard under the sun

How do we judge victory in a debate?

Is the winner the candidate who comes across as most knowledgeable? Most likable? Most clever? Does it matter who is more truthful, or is it more about who puts on a better show? Do we need toughness and fire from our candidates before declaring them winners, or do we prefer that they exude respectfulness and statesmanlike calm?

Knowing us, the tough-to-please, want-it-all American populace, the answer is simple: all of the above.

There are two problems with this. First, we can’t have it all; we have to choose what really matters. Second, when we want so many different things out of a candidate, it’s easy to get swept away by “victories” that have little to do with leadership.

Poised and Fluent

By most accounts, in last Thursday’s debate, Sarah Palin stood her ground and avoided any major misstatements like those that hurt her in her major network interviews. But does this mean she won? 

In browsing the commentary by those who claimed a Palin victory in the debate, it seems that the most often cited arguments were that the Governor “spotlighted her winning personality” and showed “smiling confidence”*, that she “exceeded expectations” and was “much more likable than her opponent”**, and that she was “poised and fluent.”***

Let me emphasize that these quotes are from those who were making the case that Sarah Palin won. These were, truly, their strongest arguments for a Palin victory. This speaks to my point about people being swept away by things that arguably have very little to do with whether or not someone would make a good leader. To demonstrate, let’s take a look at those factors, as named by Palin supporters, that gained John McCain’s running mate a “victory” in the debate against Joe Biden. 

Victory in a debate is spotlighting your winning personality. Michael Barone of U.S. News and World Report named this as a main reason that Sarah Palin won the debate. This does make me wonder why we bother with the whole “debate” format, then. I had assumed that victory in a debate required, well, superior debating, not superior personality spotlighting.

Victory in a debate is showing smiling confidence. Smiling confidence (regardless of how justified or not that confidence is) is not a tough talent to master for most politicians (especially for a politician who worked her way up from the PTA to Governor). To have gotten from where she started to where she is today, Sarah Palin certainly had to muster a lot of smiles and a lot of confidence. Again, I don’t quite see the connection. Smiling confidence certainly made the VP candidate seem personable during the debate, but it didn’t allow her to speak with authority or detail about many of the most pressing issues Americans are facing right now.

Victory in a debate is exceeding expectations. Never has the idea of relativity been more applicable. I had an employee who once exceeded my expectations by working an entire shift without pitching a fit about anything. He exceeded expectations that day, but he was still the worst employee on the team.

Victory in a debate is being much more likable than your opponent. Needless to say, the likability of Joe Biden versus Sarah Palin on Thursday night is up for debate. American ideas of likability are as varied as we are. So it’s a good thing that’s not the point. The point is, do you really need a candidate who you can imagine having a beer with, or enjoying a cup of coffee with? That’s why you have friends. This isn’t a contest for homecoming court, it’s a contest for who gets to make decisions about the future of our country and the world.

Victory in a debate is being poised and fluent. Regarding poise, see above points about personality spotlighting and homecoming court. (If poise makes one a VP debate winner, my friend Colleen wins every Vice Presidential debate from now through eternity.) Regarding fluency, well, yes. I will have to grant the commentators this one point. We most certainly do want our Vice Presidential to be able to speak English. And if this is what determines victory in a debate between two candidates for Vice President of the United States, then I guess we have two things on our hands: a tie, and the lowest standards for leadership that this country has ever seen.

What Matters

Sure, in an ideal world, it would be nice to have likable, smiling leader who you not only trusted, respected, and felt confident in, but who you just plain liked. But by all rational criteria, smiles and poise are not reason enough to support a candidate. 

The purpose of a debate is for all participants to demonstrate with arguments and facts their superior understanding of the issues at hand, and to speak in specific terms as often as possible in order to demonstrate this understanding. Debates are about substance, not platitudes and emotional appeals.

It is up to the responsible, analytical observer to filter through the smiles and sound bytes to determine who truly respected the idea of a “debate,” and spoke to the American people in a real, specific way about what matters. 

View the full transcript of the debate here.

Sources:

*Michael Barone, U.S. News and World Report

**Andrea Tantaros, The Fox Forum

***Gerard Baker, Times Online

I’ll admit it. When John McCain announced at the RNC that he had chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate, I got caught up in the excitement.

As I listened to her speech, I had a number of reactions. I was impressed at McCain’s boldness. I was proud to see a woman on the Republican presidential ticket for the first time in history. I was completely clueless about who this woman was.

The speech Sarah Palin delivered that day was many things: memorable, sarcastic, bold, mean, funny, and extraordinarily well-delivered. I think a lot of us found ourselves liking her, or at least rooting for her, either in spite of or in continuation of whatever other opinions we hold about this election.

The Learning Curve

Since that day at the RNC, we’ve learned a lot about Sarah Palin. And it hasn’t always been easy.

For the first few weeks after Palin’s selection, her public appearances were limited to numerous deliveries of the same speech, almost verbatim, that made her famous at the convention. We heard a lot about her “thanks, but no thanks, for that bridge to nowhere.” We hear about her taking on the good ol’ boys, and fighting earmarks.

It took a good couple of weeks to hear from an unscripted Sarah Palin. First, we saw her interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson; next, with Sean Hannity of Fox News; last (to date), her interview with Katie Couric for CBS Nightly News.

As I’ve mentioned, part of me was rooting for this Alaskan governor who stepped on a stage and wowed us. (I say “part of me” because I had gotten a bit wary after learning more about Governor Palin’s positions on social issues like the environment, gay rights, and abortion.) Still, I genuinely like to see strong, savvy women take the world by storm.

However, as I watched John McCain’s running mate talk to Gibson, then Hannity, then Couric–all journalists known for being, shall we say, gentler interviewers than most–a single, prevailing impression dominated every other reaction I had to what I saw.

The conclusion I couldn’t help but arrive at, couldn’t believe I was arriving at, was this: John McCain can’t possibly have this country’s best interest at heart.

Country First

A Vice President has two primary responsibilities, as outlined in the United States Constitution. The first is to become President if the President becomes unable to serve; the second is to act as head of the U.S. Senate. It is by these standards that a potential Vice President should be judged.

One could make a number of arguments against Sarah Palin’s ability to preside over the Senate (namely, she has never served as a member of the Senate or the House). But that discussion is for a later time. Of much graver importance is the question of whether Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as President of the United States should John McCain be unable to complete his term. Even graver than that is the question of what this indicates about Senator McCain.

What we learned between the Republican National Convention and the interviews was that Sarah Palin had never met a foreign head of state. She did not obtain a passport or travel outside of North America until 2006. She attended five colleges as an undergraduate. Of course, these facts raised some eyebrows. They didn’t seem to reflect many of the traits we hope for in a leader: a wide swath of experience, a commitment to education, a desire to see the world, a history of building relationships with other world leaders. Still, we thought, maybe there’s an explanation. We’ll wait to hear from her.

Yet when Sarah Palin finally spoke without the aid of a teleprompter, we heard the voice of a person who lacks basic command of nearly every important issue–foreign policy, national security, the economy, and energy policy, to name a few.

Palin’s more disappointing moments, such as when the term “Bush Doctrine” seemed to stump her, or when she asserted that Alaska’s proximity to Russia lends her credence in foreign affairs, gained significant media attention. But just as revealing were her “better” moments. Even at her best, Sarah Palin demonstrated an amateur understanding of the issues. She was unable to offer a specific proposal or solution regarding any one of the numerous problems the inheritors of the White House will inevitably face. After her most recent interview, some Republican commentators began calling for her to bow out of the race before more damage could be done.

Judgment Matters

What baffles me is that some voters don’t see McCain’s choice as a game-changer. The logic is: if McCain wins the election, and is able to serve through his term, then his decision to make Sarah Palin second in command ceases to be a problem. Yet this logic is deeply flawed. Because, most essentially, this is not about Sarah Palin. This is about John McCain, and what his choice tells us about him.

John McCain chose as his running mate a person who draws a great deal of attention to his campaign, advances his maverick reputation, and, initially at least, seemed to have the potential to gain favor with women voters. In doing this, however, McCain also chose someone who has demonstrated on a number of occasions that she is fundamentally unqualified to lead this country. McCain made this decision voluntarily and in full knowledge of the fact that, if the worst-case scenario were to arise, his country would be left in the hands a person who is notably unequipped for the job.

Thus, on one side, there is the potential for great political gain for John McCain. On the other side, there is the potential for great national loss for all of us.

To be sure, every man or woman running for president makes decisions that are politically prudent. No one expects a politician to be apolitical. But there are occasions in which a politically advantageous choice is the same choice that has real potential to put our country into one of the most precarious, vulnerable positions it has ever been in. I don’t think my standards are too high if I expect that, on these occasions, a man deserving of the title of President of the United States should side with country.

Make no mistake: John McCain has most certainly put country first many times in his life. But this is not one of those times.

Imagine, if you will, the following fictitious presidential nominees:

Candidate A:

Black male, born in Central America. He has a Bachelor’s degree from the US Naval Academy, where he was ranked 894 in a class of 899. His first marriage ended in divorce (the candidate admitted to having an affair during his first marriage). Second marriage is to a woman 18 years younger than him, whose most notable negative mark on her reputation is that she went to rehab for a prescription drug addiction, in order not to face criminal charges. Candidate A’s most-criticized personality traits are that he is temperamental, aggressive, and “rough around the edges.”

Candidate B:

White male, born in the United States. He has a Bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a law degree from Harvard, where he held the top position on the Harvard Law Review. Candidate B is has been married to the same woman, who is three years younger than him, for sixteen years; her most notable negative mark is that she said, in response to her husband’s success in the presidential primaries, that she was “really proud of” the country “for the first time in [her] adult lifetime.” Candidate B’s most-criticized personality traits are that he is too reserved, intellectual, and “professorial.”

Who wins?

Fooling Ourselves

We hope that American prejudice has diminished over time, and there are certainly significant indications that it has. Yet to claim that prejudice–including, yes, that most-avoided word, racism–no longer plays a role in this country is to belie one’s inability or unwillingness to analyze basic facts.

YouTube videos of outrageous goings-on at Barack Obama’s church that happened on a day when he was not even in attendance dominate the news cycle and elicit outrage for weeks. YouTube videos of outrageous goings-on at Sarah Palin’s church, in which she is an actual participant in the goings-on, get little attention and certainly elicit no calls for a denouncement, public apology, or long, explanatory speech about her faith.

When the black candidate has a law degree and an Ivy-league education, he is an “elite” and “out of touch” man whom Americans claim they can’t identify with. Did we say the same about George W. Bush, who went to Yale? I don’t seem to recall President Bush’s Ivy-league education (nor having attended one of the most elite all-boys private high schools) being cited as a reason not to vote for him as he sought to become the leader of our country.

Differing Standards of Tolerance

Then there is the question of what sort of personality and emotional displays we permit in our candidates. McCain is known for having a fiery temper and an aggressive approach to politics. Lately, his integrity has come into question as a number of non-partisan fact-check organizations have accused him of including blatant falsehoods in his campaign advertising. Would the American people tolerate this in a black candidate?

When asked, “How do we beat the bitch?” in a reference to Hillary Clinton, McCain chuckled and answered the question. To be sure, Senator McCain caught flack for this, but it certainly didn’t do permanent damage to his campaign. Fortunately for Obama, there is no parallel blunder on his side to cite. We can’t be sure how the American people would react if Senator Obama laughed at and responded to a mean and disrespectful attack on a woman. But we can imagine.

Similarly, if Barack Obama stood in front of a crowd and sang about bombing other countries to the tune of the Beach Boys, would most Americans continue to think of him as “presidential”?

American prejudice has not gone away. It has just become more nuanced, more subversive, and harder to identify behind the many masks it wears. Apply the “reverse roles” trick though, and there it is, rearing its ugly and stubborn head right in the middle of the most important election this country has seen in decades.

Want more fodder? Nicholas Kristof’s excellent Op-Ed in The New York Times addresses conservative strategy of “otherizing” Obama.

The latest breaking news is that congressional negotiations of the financial bailout have come to a halt. Congressman Barney Frank announced to the press this evening that Republican representatives refused to continue the process of reaching an agreement on the bailout, asserting that they need additional time to devise a more acceptable plan.

Based on today’s timeline, it would seem that this deterioration is closely linked to Senator John McCain’s involvement in the crisis. Prior to the Republican nominee’s arrival in Washington, most indications showed that Congress was likely to come to an agreement by the week’s (if not the day’s) end.

As the day wore on, however, John McCain became increasingly involved in the congressional process. He proposed the idea of introducing a significantly altered or potentially new plan to solve the financial crisis. Accusations of political partisanship flew from one side of the aisle to the other. Republicans claimed that Democrats were going to refuse to support the bailout; Democrats said the same of Republicans.

Toying with a great American virtue

Americans have an impressive history (recent history, at least) of unity during times of extreme crisis. When our future is tangibly on the line, when tall buildings or centuries-old institutions are collapsing, our collective gut reaction is to face a challenge together, as one group of dynamic, resilient, spirited Americans. In times of extreme crisis, politics play second fiddle to old fashioned American problem-solving. This is one of our great strengths.

The snowballing economic problems we face most certainly qualify as an extreme crisis. Hence we found ourselves, this morning, relieved that politics were not going to get in the way. We were met with the heartening news that our leaders were brokering an agreement that would soon pass Congress.

Enter Politics

As the day wore on, though, speculation and analysis triggered by Senator McCain’s actions began to dominate the news cycle. Quickly, reports about the financial crisis were inextricable from news about political maneuverings. In introducing himself into the process, McCain reintroduced politics into a process that, previously, was largely and necessarily de-politicized

Thus we find ourselves tonight, clicking on the “Economy” page of our favorite news site and reading about the campaigns. We click on the “Election ‘08″ page and find that the top story is about the financial crisis. The two are one.

And in a more dire example of the same effect, politics weaseled their way into the greatest financial collapse this country has seen in nearly eighty years. We find ourselves absorbing the latest news with disbelief, dread.

The deal fell apart?

They want more time? Aren’t most experts saying we don’t have any more time?

What now? What next?