I am having a difficult time figuring out whether J. VanA is pro-Obama or pro-Palin. The early remarks suggest the latter, but after attempting to visualize (as the invitations go) the future under Obama, I can’t help but see 1) a thoughtful, carefully considered and effective military presence in Afghanistan, one that allows more American soldiers to avoid the massive trauma of armed conflict while providing the necessary support to that country’s own autonomy and safety, 2) a society in which, though the value of the dollar admittedly declines, the basic needs of all Americans are met to a much fuller degree than they have been for decades, 3) a newly self-consistent, fair and humane legal system in which justice is served without the use of impulsive, desperate techniques that have more in common with terrorist tactics themselves than with a humane and enlightened society, 4) a society in which people do not feel like the act of purchasing a fire-arm is their only guarantee of personal safety, security, and control, 5) industries that operate efficiently, honestly, and with the intent of generating the highest quality products, not simply of undermining the competition, of maintaining a strangle-hold on the market, or of serving the bottom line, and 6) a society in which all voices are heard, considered judiciously and weighed before final decisions are made, not a society in which all differing opinions and contributions are stamped out by a stubborn reliance on single principals, very few of which would ever apply singly to a given decision.

I’m in agreement that Sarah Palin is a woman of principle, and I also agree that the ability to answer televised questions extemperaneously does not make or break a person’s decision making or leadership ability; the skill is obviously one that requires serious practice and drill, neither of which Palin had time to recieve during the campaign.
But I have never understood the argument that supports “principle” as the sole factor upon which to base decisions that will affect many people of diverse backgrounds. Not everyone, after all, believes in the same principles as everyone else. The best decisions seem clearly to be those that weigh several different principles and include elements or shadings of each in a well thought out way. The trade-mark of a good decision maker is the ability to see and understand as many of these existing principles as possible, and to arrive at a decision that combines the most valid and compatible elements of each. The process takes time, requires a very open mind and a strong sense of empathy, and often results in a decision that advances no one particular view point or principle completely, but that somehow manages to advance the greater good by a little rather than the smaller good by a lot. This seems to me the very meaning of “The Democratic Process,” and it is not only a skill that a given person can have, but a skill built into the operation and structure of our government.

It is also a skill that, as best I can see, Sarah Palin does not have, and one that she in fact seems to diminish as much as possible despite being a self-described fan of a country built on the democratic process. In a country in which there has never been complete national support for any one cause or value or system of beliefs, shouldn’t we continue to have a president who acknowledges that debate and due process are essential, that having many beliefs, opinions and voices actually makes us stronger instead of weaker, and that no single governmental decision should ever be a simple appeal to something as safe from scrutiny and debate as a one person’s private principle?