To thank a soldier, Sarah Palin style

There are a lot of ways to thank a soldier; to name a few:

·         Mom style: Seeing your son or daughter come home safely from a war zone opens up a well of gratitude rare in this world.

·         Best buddy style: “Welcome home, dude…Let’s get smashed…I’m buying.”

·         Small town style: When seeing their favorite sons in uniform just off the Greyhound Bus with duffel bag slung over one shoulder, friends and strangers alike hail or nod their approval in his direction.

·         Steven Searle style: [More on that, later, but in the spirit of “ladies first,” I give you:

·         Sarah Palin style.

Sarah Palin has gotten a lot of mileage out of her attempts to ingratiate herself with our men and women in uniform. We’ve all seen footage of her mingling and cooing with our soldiers in a variety of settings. On one level, I can appreciate her sincerity since she herself has a son who served in Iraq. On another level, though, I can’t help but feeling she’s exploiting our soldiers. To be sure, she thinks she’s doing this for a greater purpose – but it’s still exploitation.

Here’s something I had posted over a year ago on the now-defunct Gaia website. You can just as easily substitute “Sarah Palin” for “Barack Obama,” which makes my point:

QUOTE:

I have seen several photos showing Barack Obama surrounded by his smiling, adoring troops after making a speech and then mingling with his soldiers. They were informally gathered around their Commander in Chief, with some of them even raising their cameras above the crowd to snap a better picture.

Frankly, that's a bit too loosey-goosey for my taste. I don't care if we have a volunteer military. Here's what I would say to these soldiers:

"That man is the supreme military leader of this country. You do not smile in his presence. You do not shuffle and gawk and say ‘Aw shucks, sir.’ You do not kick back and chill out in his presence. You are always to be at attention, staring out into space with firm, determined, and unemotional resolve. You are never, ever to lose your military bearing. What do you think this is, some kind of warm, fuzzy, family gathering? Your loose behavior sends messages, including this one to the President himself: It's okay to use troops as props in support of your political posturing.

"No, it is NOT okay. Soldiers, you have a job to do and how you carry yourselves - at all times - is part of that job and is of the utmost importance. Do not forget this."

:UNQUOTE.

The Essential Sarah Palin

I don’t know who Sarah Palin is or who she thinks she is or who she wants to become. In saying this, I do nothing more than simply admit my ignorance. I have found, in this life, that most people – especially politicians – do their damnedest to hide themselves from the public at large. However, that being said, I believe we can (and should) look for certain clues. And what better place to look than in a book written by such a person?

Even if this book is ghostwritten or severely vetted by campaign staff, we must conclude (rightly, I believe) that such material was at least approved by the candidate (yeah, this late in the ball game, I’ll call her “candidate”).

I’ve only read one book by Palin, but I’ll be bold enough to claim that within its pages (page 230, to be exact) is a clue to the essential Sarah Palin. The book:

America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag

QUOTE [from page 230]:

Another of my favorite prayers is also a poem (or is it a poem that is also a prayer?) by Emily Dickinson. It’s a simple, logical explanation for a faith that is as deeply felt as it is unproved – and unprovable.

I never saw a moor,

I never saw the sea;

Yet know I how the heather looks,

And what a wave must be.

I never spoke with God,

Nor visited in heaven;

Yet certain am I of the spot

As if the chart were given.

:UNQUOTE.

For the record: That’s it – that’s the entire poem (or, more accurately, Palin’s paraphrased version), and it’s entitled “I never saw a moor.”

The first four lines speak volumes of Sarah Palin’s lack of experience in and awareness of the larger world. And they also speak of a presumptuousness bordering on the profound. How can anybody “know” about moors and the sea without having made direct, personal, physical contact? Knowledge of God can be obtained by a wide variety of indirect means. But of moors and waves? Aye, those are entirely different creatures altogether.

To Mrs. Palin (as well as to Emily Dickinson): “If you think you know anything about waves, especially never having even seen one, you’ll have quite a shock when you ride a 40-footer, should you ever happen to sail around the tip of South America.”

And we’re expected to believe she “knows” these things – and what else, I dare ask?

And of that “certainty” expressed in the last four lines…from whence did it come? And is her “certainty” to be valued above, say, Mitt Romney’s? For he must surely be considered one of her chief rivals for the GOP nomination. And I dare say, the “certainty” of a Mormon must be quite a bit different than a Generic Christian’s. Oh, did I use the “G” word, just now? See for yourself what I mean from this interview*:

QUOTE [with a few parentheticals of my own]:

Where do you see yourself going? Staying on in Alaska. Washington?

You know, I don’t know. I knew early on that the smartest thing for me to do was to work hard, do the best that I can, make wise decisions based on good information in front of me. And then put my life, get myself on a path that could be dedicated to God and ask Him what I should do next. That will be the position I will be in as long as I’m on earth — that is, seeking the right path that God would have laid out for me.

What’s your religion?

Christian.

Any particular...?

No. Bible-believing Christian. [Which version? Followers of the KJV, for example, are rather picky on this point.]

What church do you attend?

A non-denominational [read: “generic”] Bible church. I was baptized Catholic as a newborn and then my family started going to non-denominational churches throughout our life. [What turned your family from Catholicism?]

Anything else you want to add?

You know, I can’t think of anything...

:UNQUOTE.

I’ve reworked the poem mentioned above to help clarify how I think it applies to Sarah Palin. I call it, “I’ve never been in battle:”

I’ve never been in battle,

I’ve never seen starvation,

Yet I know what they must be like,

Enough to serve the nation.

God never spoke to me,

Not a whisper in my ear,

Yet I know exactly what He wants,

Of that I am quite clear.

Steven Searle’s style of thanking soldiers

I will first and foremost clarify my approach by saying, unlike Sarah Palin, I don’t believe in making blanket profiles of groups – be they soldiers, Republicans, churchgoers, etc. In Palin’s eyes, if she sees one soldier, she sees all soldiers rolled up into one – all sharing common characteristics and infallibilities. This is an important distinction, which I hope the following short story conveys:

Curtis LeMay

When I was in the Air Force, I heard an anecdote concerning General LeMay, when he was in charge of the USAF Strategic Air Command.

He was waiting in line to board a nuclear bomber, having to wait while the Military Police reviewed boarding passes. This brief procedure was necessary to assure that only authorized personnel could board the plane. When it was LeMay's turn, the sentry didn't ask for his papers but instead saluted and waved him through.

The General asked the sentry why he didn't follow protocol and review his boarding pass. The sentry said, "But I recognize you as General LeMay, Commander in Chief of this entire command."

The General snapped, "Young man, for all you know the President of the United States might have just fired me and voided my pass. We have security measures in place for damn good reasons."

  * * * * * * * * * *

I liken Sarah Palin to that starry-eyed sentry mentioned above. Like that sentry, Palin fails to see beyond reputation and background. She fails to appreciate context – that is, General LeMay exists and only has status and authority depending on context, as the General himself explained to the sentry. I have a bad feeling that Sarah, if elected, will need to have a great deal explained to her about such contexts.

I don’t share any such illusions. I know not all of our servicemen are brave and that many of them serve for somewhat less than patriotic reasons. I also have an idea of their limitations and will not unduly glorify them. Again, I fit them into contexts. For example, on page 43 of Palin’s book, she cites this tribute:

QUOTE:

It is the veteran, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the veteran, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the veteran, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the veteran, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the veteran, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the veteran, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote.

:UNQUOTE.

First of all, Palin ignores something she’d emphasized earlier in her book: All of our rights [at least in her world view] are God-given. So it’s interesting that she makes the leap from “God-given rights” to “veteran-given rights.”

Palin also fails to make a distinction that I would immediately embrace: It’s a bad idea to give too great a portion of credit to one group, for all of these freedoms she cites have evolved over the centuries due to the efforts of a lot of people from many walks of life.

Only the veteran who is no longer in the military:

·         becomes the preacher who brings our freedom of religion to life and gives it meaning;

·         becomes the reporter, who tests the limits of and expands the definition of freedom of the press;

·         becomes the martyr who speaks truth to power, although to be fair – some active duty soldiers do speak out, which is (by the way) highly discouraged within the ranks;

·         becomes a leader of people who assemble on behalf of various causes and sometimes get clubbed by policemen (many of whom are ex-military);

·         becomes a lawyer who knows how to navigate our unwieldy system of jurisprudence to give defendants the best possible chance for the fairest trial…under the circumstances;

·         becomes an independent politician trying to prevent his Dem/Pub colleagues from running roughshod over the few remaining rights we have.

It’s more than pretty words…

Saying “Thank you” to anybody should be more than just pretty words or a sound bite for photo ops. I would thank our servicemen by not having them fight needless wars – wars that actually undermine our national security. For instance, our current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I would thank our soldiers by not putting them in harm’s way while lying about how they are “defending U.S. soil.”

When a civilian becomes a soldier by enlisting, he signs a contract to do so. I would return the favor by signing a contract, just as I did when I ran against Obama in 2008. I don’t believe in slogans (“Change you can believe in” – give me a break) or empty promises. I would be elected, if at all, on the basis of a written contract listing my campaign promises. Should I violate any of those promises, I invite loss of office by means of impeachment.

You might find the following three promises from my 2008 contract to be of interest:

QUOTE:

ONE: If I violate any of the terms of this contract, I will be removed from office by means of impeachment. I hereby affirm, in advance, that I will not defend myself nor authorize any other party to defend me against any impeachment activity in the House or trial by the Senate. I further agree to a speedy trial - within less than 10 minutes, if deemed necessary by the Senate.

TWO:  Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground." This withdrawal also applies to any covert operatives currently operating in Iran.

THREE:  I will urge Congress to retroactively raise to $5,000,000 the payment to next-of-kin (or other designees) of all U.S. soldiers (and members of Private Military Companies) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan - and make that tax free. In addition, I will urge Congress to increase disability benefits to $1,000,000 per lost limb, also retroactively and tax free. All this with an apology to our troops who've sacrificed so much: "We - made - a - mistake - and - we're - sorry."

:UNQUOTE.

Take a careful look at that last point. Do you think President Sarah Palin would mount the bully pulpit on behalf of our killed or wounded warriors, as suggested by point THREE? Or would she just mouth platitudes as she does a whirlwind tour through a VA hospital? Do you think she would be brave enough to suggest such a large degree of compensation or would she be too mindful of the Tea Party urging her to cut the budget (at the expense of veterans, if necessary)?

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“It’s a whole lot easier to say ‘thank you’ than it is to do ‘thank you’” – Steve.

   * Time Magazine’s Jay Newton Small interview with Palin is dated Aug. 29, 2008 and is on-line at http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837536,00.html

American Exceptionalism

I actually bought Sarah Palin’s $26 book: America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag.

More than “bought” it, I read it. More than read it, I gave it the deep think.

Today, I will address a topic to which Palin dedicated that book’s entire third chapter, entitled America the Exceptional – consisting of about 30 pages. [All quotes below are from this book.]

QUOTE:

But what do we mean when we say America is an exceptional country? We’re not saying we’re better than anyone else, or that we have the right to tell people in other countries how to live their lives.

:UNQUOTE [page 63].

My response: Actually, that’s exactly what we’re saying. Sarah certainly isn’t fooling anybody by saying otherwise. Oh, to be sure, in our public speeches and printed materials, our leaders won’t come right out and say anything like that. But, especially among Sarah Supporters, they make no bones about this. They say stuff like, “God made us better than anybody else and He gives us His divine favors,” and “Hey, hey, get out of our way, we’re the mighty USA,” and “It’s our way or the highway.” I could go on, but you get the general idea.

QUOTE:

When we say American is exceptional we’re saying we are the lucky heirs to a unique set of beliefs and national qualities, and that we need to preserve and value those beliefs. We’re saying America is a model to the world, not a bully to the world, or responsible for the world.

:UNQUOTE [again, page 63].

My response:  Ah, “lucky heirs,” you say? To a profound extent, those “unique…beliefs” were foisted off on us by the Founders and enforced by succeeding generations of authoritarians who refused to change with the times. As for “unique…national qualities,” those were not uniformly shared by even the earliest Americans. Basically, you had a bunch of propertied & moneyed intellectual fancy-talkers communicating in a manner barely intelligible to a sizeable, rowdier, uneducated, and disadvantaged portion of our citizenry.

In another chapter (page 191), Palin states: “He also personified what John Adams meant when he said, “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” This dovetails neatly with Palin’s assertion that we have “unique…national qualities.” Or does it? The Founders must surely have realized (and were leery of) the Great Unwashed – those among the great mass of citizens who did not own land, were a little rough hewn, and among whom dwelt (shall we say?) persons of ill repute or even scoundrels.

Any claim about what a “moral and religious” people we are surely doesn’t take into account how badly we treated native Americans. It also turns a blind eye to the fact that pious, churchgoing Negros weren’t allowed in White Southern churches. Not to mention that some of those White congregants donned white robes and burned crosses in the name of the KKK. In short, the Founders were trying to create a narrative to impress the rest of the world and create a national identity.

As for any need to “preserve and value those beliefs,” the greater need is to move on. The current generation can be Founders of a greater spirituality and can create their own Constitution, for which there is a crushing need. One of the greatest faults (though not of their own choosing) of our Founders: They indeed had a spirituality, at least to some extent, but that was a product of the religious turmoil in Europe. What they lacked, in all seriousness, was any grounding in Buddhist teachings, notably the Lotus Sutra. However, this hadn’t even been translated into any Western language until 1852, well after the US independence literature had been written.

This last bit is important because I, through the vehicle of my candidacy for US president in 2012, hope to use the teachings of the Lotus Sutra as the basis for a new American revolution.

And finally, that bit about “America is a model to the world” needs only one comment: Not as much now as it once was.

Other Exceptionalisms

I have a problem with claims concerning how “exceptional” America is. Especially with people who speak often of those claims, in bragging and demeaning tones, forgetting that modesty, too, is a virtue.

There are many noble examples of exceptional cultures – there are even some based on ideas. You’d have to look awfully hard to find a greater per-capita concentration of genius than existed in BCE Athens, Greece. Not to mention modern day Israel. Though I believe Israel has lost its way, it’s not entirely too late to right itself. Here, though, you can’t help but wonder how a people who had suffered so much during World War II managed to find the grit to try to reclaim an ancient legacy – return to their Biblical homeland.

And World War II itself provides many examples. Let’s use the USA as a basis of comparison, by noting that less than 1% of the US population at the time died in the war – combined civilian and military fatalities. In fact, only one-third of 1% had died. Not to mention that US cities and infrastructure had been virtually untouched.

The Soviet Union lost over 14% of its population, not to mention huge loses in its agricultural and industrial base. And yet they recovered sufficiently and quickly enough to mount a serious challenge to US international dominance.

Poland lost 16%. A special “hats off” to Poland here for having not only recovered but for having survived Communism by means of a strong sense of national identity. One can only wonder if the US, if ever suffering anything similar, would have the guts of the Poles or if our perennial partisan bickering and culture wars would prevent the US from ever rising again.

Moving on from WW II’s considerations, we have China. What amazing courage the Chinese leadership must have had to send a huge army against UN/US forces during the Korean War. This at a time when the US possessed the only appreciable nuclear arsenal in the world. And, yes, there was serious discussion at the highest levels concerning use of US nukes against North Korean/Chinese forces.

Conclusion

There are people who need to cling to the notion of American Exceptionalism. My response is: “Whatever floats your boat.” But I must direct to them a challenge: Instead of boasting about how great we are/were, what have you done lately? Have you examined your suppositions to decide how best to move forward or are you living in the past?”

These are good questions, though I fear the Palinians don’t do the deep think too often or well. However, I can promise them (and everybody else) this much:

I am going to re-read Sarah Palin’s book and post a lengthy rebuttal. All I ever ask of my potential presidential opponents is that they put their thoughts in writing. Then, for me, the rest is easy. I easily shredded Obama, McCain, and Hilary Clinton during the 2008 campaign. I shall have no problem similarly disposing of Sarah Palin.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I suppose my last two sentences (above) must sound awfully conceited. However, I do not believe in false modesty, and that sentence happens to be the truth.”