Palin a Dreadful Choice

You raise some really interesting points, Schalk. There's a lot to what you are saying, and it's always great to talk to you. 

"I cannot think of anything that Bush did or did not do that can be attributed to his "not knowing enough" about something. Can you point to anything in this regard?"

1) Perhaps he didn't know enough about Russia and its history of being invaded and also about spiral dynamics to have a sound policy for Eastern Europe. I agree with the Reaganesque approach up to a point--after that it will lead to fear, paranoia, and rash actions on the part of the Russians, and I think we have seen this in Georgia. It is possible that the same basic policy led to a regression with our relations with China and North Korea in Bush's first term. There were also moderate forces in Iran that Bush could have strengthened, but to him they were all Al Qaeda, so they have been sqaushed. The get-tough, Reaganesque policy has worked in Columbia, however. A Green president would likely have made things worse there.

How many presidents have to fail with supply-side economics until Republicans like George Bush stop pushing it? I heard an argument against it in my first class in economics in college. I also noticed how the homeless population exploded under Reagan and the deficit swelled. An adjustment in economic policy? Not with either Bush. Maybe a little study would have lead them to reconsider?

Maybe if G. W. Bush had been studying foreign relations he wouldn't have acted as though everyone in the world were like Crawford. He does! And it cost us a lot of political capital. They could have run the same policy with half the political blowback if they had just done it in a different way. He doesn't know how to talk to Europeans, that's for sure, and a little purposeful travel and study might have helped.

2) The Navy commander might not know how to fix the engine or bring in an airplane, but he knows an awful lot about military tactics, yes, at least in naval warfare? Shouldn't a president know about international relations for the same reason an aircraft carrier commander has to know about military tactics? Sooner or later someone is going to have to make a decision, and wouldn't it be better if that someone could understand what his advisers were telling him? A president has to be able to get into those issues and understand them. Otherwise he's just going with uninformed "gut" reactions right and left, and an informed gut reaction is better than an uninformed gut reaction.

Let me ask you a question: You are Admiral of the U.S. Navy, and you need someone to take charge of an aircraft carrier. Would Palin make your short list? No, of course not. She wouldn't even make the long, long list, and if anyone even suggested her you would probably have him walk the plank. For the same reason, she shouldn't be next in line for the presidency. The next president might have to tell those ships to go into battle, and we want the person who makes that decision to be a competent strategic thinker. Think of FDR, Lincoln, Kennedy, and so many more. FDR had been a corporate lawyer, a state senator, undersecratary of the Navy, governor of New York--would you want someone with Palin's credentials running things during WWII? A president sometimes has to make real decisions--he or she is not always simply a delegator. Someone without any knowledge of naval warfare would not be likely to make good decisions for an aircraft carrier in a naval battle. Similarly with the presidency on several issues, including military issues where the president decides when to go to war (or ask congress to go to war) and when to stop as well. They need to make informed, studied decisions, and the sort of cognition they need to make those decisions is something that has to be developed over several decades. Palin was not developing in these ways as she studied journalism in college, worked as a sports reporter, ran for Miss Walisia (successfully!), Miss Alaska (almost!), or when she was having children. As mayor of Walisia and governor of Alaska she was still not weighing in on national or international issues. 

I believe that is what McCain has traditionally stood for and probably still does to some extent, but Palin was a polarizing pick, a really divisive pick. And I think it was uneccessary--I think the Amber threat of a revolt over a pro-choice VP was a bit of a bluff. They weren't going anywhere. We know that he wanted to pick Lieberman--which would have made a very good ticket, I think--but he caved in and chose Palin. That's a very big thing to cave in on, a person who could turn out to be president. So if he would cave in on that, how about all the rest of his appointments?

Obama probably could be better with the interior-causation stuff. In his speech on race in Philadelphia, for example, he blamed poverty among African Americans on Jim Crow laws, which is debatable, of course. But he is clearly not a knee-jerk exterior-causation person like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader. He is not bad in this regard. He has talked about personal responsibility enough that it has gotten him into trouble with the African American community, for example. At any rate, he seems to be good enough with it that he wouldn't make gross liberal mistakes. 

and they are not doing any better.  So, when we compare the two parties, well, we get the same old status quo:(

Both lines of discussion are important and interesting. It is important and interesting to talk about the merits and demerits of each ticket and about the political battle going on, and the line of inquiry you're taking about specific issues is also very worthy. Some people might prefer to talk about the campaign; others might like to discuss particular issues. I'm finding the discussion you and Jesse have been having very interesting. If you don't want to read about the campaign, you can skip over posts that discuss it.

I'll check it out tonight, thanks!

Schalk, great points as usual.

I've been contemplating the inspiration issue for some time, as I noticed when someone made a critical comment about Obama during the primaries someone would often respond with something like: "I find him inspiring, so nothing you say has any validity at all but in fact is entirely wrong if not criminal!" Now you may be on to something about the conservative mind finding its inspiration elsewhere (Jesus, for example, or the American Dream), and I will have to think about that a bit more. But it's seemed to me that the people who believe so strongly that Obama must be elected just because he is inspiring and that that is the most important qualification a candidate could have are personalizing the whole thing and haven't really given much thought to what a president actually does.

Conservatives found Ronald Reagan very inspring, right? They are still swooning about him. I liked Paul Tsongas, one of the least charismatic candidates of all time. All I cared about was that he seemed to be very sharp and purely motivated, particularly about economic matters. I found that inspiring, the idea that he would actually do the job well in a no-nonsense kind of way. It must be helpful to everyone's UL if they think the leadership is good, but why a person finds a candidate inspiring would probably be a level thing, I would think.

Something like: 

Red: A president like Obama would be very inspiring to me personally and help me get through the day.

Amber: My religion is what I find inspiring, so if the candidate shares my religion and will impose its beliefs on everyone, I will find him or her inspiring too;

Orange: If a candidate will cut taxes, improve the economy, or empower unions, I will feel inspired because my goal is to make money.

Green: What inspires me most is fairness for all people around the world, so if a candidate wants to do that I will find him or her inspiring.

Integral: I'm the best, of course. I value all that is positive about the previous value spheres and jettison all that is negative about them. There really isn't a candidate that measures up to my standards, but if there were I would find him or her very inspiring.  :)

Just a few ideas . . .

Also, yes, it's interesting to bring up Obama's constitutional law background. Bubba also taught constitutional law, yes? That is a fine thing to have in a president, a very strong appreciation for the constitution. A little bit lacking in Bush and Cheney and their lawyers, yes?

Geopie, great to hear from you and great to hear you have such an interest in discussing integral.

1) Thank you for your post-convention poll. That is indeed more up to date than the poll quoted in The Economist article (in fact it was released the day The Econmist article was published, on Friday). However, candidates always get a bounce after their party's convention. The post-convention polls follow four straight days of the Republican convention, so one would always expect to see a bounce there. We have to wait and see how it's all going to shake out. We shouldn't take polls at this early date as conclusive evidence of anything, particularly polls that immediately follow a convention. Also, the only polls that are really worth much are polls of polls, as individual polls can be way off.

2) "Remember the last election, when they attmepted to smear Bush with false documents regarding hi military record?  That did the same exact thing.  It woke up the base and the middle was totally turned off."

If this is true, why wasn't the middle turned off by the Swiftboat attacks, which were every bit as scurrilous?

3) "Not much, but it does appear Palin, Biden and McCain all have more [foreign-policy experience] than Obama.  So, that arguement is one that jut does not seem to hold any water."

You haven't proven that Palin has more foreign-policy experience or interest than Obama. You list a couple of awards Palin established as governor, her recognizition of International Education week in Alaska, an increase in exports in her first year as governor (which is very unlikely due to anything she did considering she had only just taken office), and other things that are nearly as irrelevant to foreign-policy study or experience. What The Economist said--"She has no record of interest in foreign policy, let alone expertise"--still appears to be true. Hosting a delegation from China who came to study rural health care qualifies but just barely--what is more telling is that she has said herself she's been to busy to focus on the Iraq war in a professional way--a war of great complexity that she would inherit leadership of if she became president. Obama, who doesn't have too much foreign-policy experience either, it is true, has at least shown a great dedication and interest in the subject beginning at the very latest in 2002.  

4) Earlier you stated that it wasn't true that Palin had tried to ban books as mayor of Wasilla, that she had only asked the librarian if she would be willing to, so suggesting that Palin wanted to ban books was either a "a flat out  lie" or "a kernel of truth that has been spun into something false." But actually Palin pressured the librarian at least three times on the subject; the librarian resisted, and Palin asked for her resignation. The public came to the librarian's defense; Palin relented and let her keep her job, but eventually the librarian resigned anyway. It's quite clear that she wanted someone in that position who was willing to ban books, and it was only the public outcry that kept it from happening.You can read about it here.

5) You also said earlier: "You also inferred she was a creationist or wanted it taught in our schools (you stated something about Kansas???  Correct me if I am wrong). . . . So, her opinion, shows what I believe to be good judgment: Making room for all world views in the classroom. . . . To much false trash is being spread right now."

Yes, you're right that she says, "Teach both." But before we call that good judgement let's remember that 1) it will likely inhibit the learning of science by a) taking up half the class time, and b) confusing students who aren't sure which creation story has more depth, evolution or creationism; and 2) this creation story that she wants to teach in U.S. public schools is specific to one religion, basically, and U.S. school kids come from many religious backgrounds. So this would be an imposition of one particular religious myth on all school kids whether they were Christian or not. It would be better all around, it seems to me, to teach science in the school and let parents send their kids to Sunday school to learn a particular religious myth if they like. It probably wouldn't even be constitutional to mandate the teaching of creationism in schools.

6) "Now, lets get back to speaking integral!!!"

Let's not buy into arguments that say we are only "speaking integral" when we are employing certain methodologies like spiral dynamics or discussing certain subjects. I think it's great that people want to talk SD here; I do too. The thread can wander way off the subject of the campaign if that's where it authentically goes, but some people do have an interest in discussing the campaign (in addition to these other subjects), and we can do that from an integral perspective as well and--God forbid!--care enough to take a position occassionally.