Mavericism 101 (question & answer)

Question:

I've seen a lot of Palin fans say she is an honest normal person and we are just scared of having a normal person in office. Do we want an everyday person as president? Or do we want a seasoned political professional in office? Why or why not?

Answer:

I think in order to answer this question, we have to define what exactly an, "...honest normal person," and furthermore, how that would impact public office.

More to the point, how would her back ground differ from a politician of typical elitist pedigree? In looking at Palin one has to be impressed--a pretty typical social/family as well as educational background. I personally like this aspect of Palin as suggesting a sort of American normality.

That is, nothing stands out as "extraordinary". However, there is some elitist lineage on her mother's side, but this hasn't bought her any special privilege from what I can tell.

More to the point, what you may be really asking (as so many others) is if Ms. Palin would be "politics as normal" should we entrust her into a position of high leadership...more so than her current resigned position in Alaska.

The comparison you chose was, "seasoned political professional". So again we have to look at definitions. So many US citizens draw sizable distinctions in our two party system. In fact, I think we may conclude that there is a lack of purity in the ideology of said politicians, even when we venture to the far right or left. So cutting through all the B/S we can say that our two party system is but two sides of the same coin. This can be argued; however, the trend of moderate platforms is undeniable to most.

In this regard, Ms. Palin has NOT shown to be distinctive. She has conservative views on the abortion issue (Pro-life to a fault including rape/incest), has claimed that environmental issues are not man made (although she backslid on this issue during the presidential run), and supports oil/gas exploration. This suggests that she she is likely consistent with Bush policy in regards to our interest in the middle east and so suggests that she pretty much totes the company line...however,

her record indicates a trend to buck the system, and one finds contradictions of ideology vs. action. This dates back to her earliest political days and an example is supporting government cuts, but raising taxes when she feels it's appropriate. Palin has signed huge budgets (6.6 billion in state operations) and made substantial budget/funding cuts. She defended funding for the "bridge to nowhere," but churched up that view (to the dismay of Alaskan citizens) during the elections.

So I ask, "Is Ms. Palin enough of a "maverick" to not be controlled/manipulated by special interests?" Does she trust in the tenants of a pure ideology, and is she willing to stick to these guns (no NRA pun), and if she is, will that hold up in the face of what it would take to get her name on a major party ticket in the future, or would she bend & break in a compromised effort to have watered down versions of her agendas implemented?

And if she is, indeed, this trend-bucking maverick, wouldn't special interest groups have all ready sniffed this out and relegated her to the scrap heap?

My suggestion is to follow the media which will ultimately provide the answers to these questions. If the media is building her up and seemingly prepping her for stardom, than it's one's duty to question, why?

If on the other hand, the media exploits her as a freak show, (and truthfully there is lots of fodder, ie her daughter, the Letterman thing, her resignation, policegate, etc) then she may very well be legit and therefore worth supporting--although this will do you no good as the elitist in this country still determine the appointment of important leaders. In the end it may be her unpredictability that is her downfall.