Sticking to their Guns

Well, I took a much needed break after the RNC to take in all that I heard and quite frankly, just simmer down. Of course, I could repeat the many criticisms of the RNC already published in newspapers and discussed on political talk shows over the past few days but I'm not going to for now. Instead, I am going to try a slightly different approach. While there are numerous policy and philosophical differences I have with most of the politicans that spoke at the RNC, I was the most concerned with a general concept underlying the entire convention: the idea that unwavering beliefs and unchanging policy endorsements are the pinnacle of good leadership.

Although the idea of "flip-flopping" was turned into political death during the last President election, I wonder why the idea of holding steadfast to your position no matter what is seen as the opposite- aka political perfection? I am not speaking here of actual flip-flopping which regardless of party is a routine practice. Rather, I am speaking of the common references at the convention to the "idea" that John McCain and Sarah Palin are virtuous leaders as evidenced by their solid commitment to one thing or another. On the face of it, I see why this sounds good- and at times, may even be a positive trait in our leaders. However, this almost sounds like "blind faith" in which one takes something as a given, regardless of facts. I am by no means suggesting that I think a good leader should constantly be changing their positions. However, reevaluating one's positions isn't inherently bad, is it? For me, the question would be why did someone reevaluate or even change positions? Is it because they learned new facts or is it because some lobbyist "paid" them off to change positions? These are two entirely different scenarios that would necessitate two very different reactions in my book. So, why then are we told over and over by the Republicans that sticking to one's position, regardless of popular opinion, is the character trait de jour? Is it merely because the subtle reference to flip flopping may sink Obama like it did Kerry? Or is it because Bush's approval rating is so low that one needs to suggest that going against popular opinion is actually a good thing?

I realize that no one is going to please all U.S. citizens all of the time- not even close. But must we choose instead to elect a President that by definition suggests that we are voting for him because he will stand against public opinion but stay firmly committed to it? This is even more ironic given the McCain-Palin firm belief in the INability for Government to actually improve the lives of citizens. So, if they don't listen to public opinion and they don't trust the Government, who do they trust? Only themselves? I certainly don't have the answers but I have lots more questions.

And in honor of Bill Maher, I leave you with this:

NEW RULE: If you claim to be pro-life, you must support stem cell research and oppose the killing of innocent civilians worldwide!