Seriouness in Selection, Please

Readers of this blog will remember my ill-tempered rant about the moveon.org group's perceived immaturity and unsuitability for participation in the national discussion at the adults' table. I'd also said that I was worried about what Dean's whole "Bush lied!" plank was corrosive to the body politic. (For the full text, click here.)

It appears that Peggy Noonan is voicing the same sorts of concerns, in an article aimed primarily at General Clark. She asks of the candidates,

Is he stable and adult and experienced?

I agree with Ms. Noonan's question. In fact, this ought to be the preliminary screening question for participation in the serious campaigns for the Presidency.

She spends many electrons hammering General Clark, and I'm not going to bother repeating them at this point. Suffice it to say that I'm not convinced that General Clark has the best interests of American sovereignty at heart, and I agree in large part with Ms. Noonan, reserving for myself some wiggle room if it's ever needed.

Ms. Noonan closes with this:

And so my Democratic friends, patriots who vote Democratic and are voting in today's primary and the ones down the road. Please. We will take Joe Lieberman or John Kerry or even young John Edwards, men who appear to be somewhere in the normal range. We need a person who could rally the nation on a terrible day, and who could arguably meet the security demands the age requires. We can't afford flip-outs, or people who are too obviously creepy. Just a person in the normal range. Is that asking too much? Say it ain't so.

I agree wholeheartedly, and it's the advice I'd give to any Democrats who read this blog. I also expect Democrats to ask this of whoever we've got in 2008 when we're choosing our candidate.

I first heard of this in a guest-post on Politburo Diktat, entitled "Normal Is Good Enough".

The post is brief, but it has a good component, reproduced here:

The Blogosphere should not be lured into the temptation of being a right wing, online version of FrankenMoore. If Kerry, or any other Dem, has policies, a record, or proposals, that we disagree with, fine. Hammer away. But the process should not resemble Whack-a-Mole, where whatever Dem happens to get out in front, is targetted for treatment that a Howard Dean or a Wes Clark deserve.

I concur. He asks earlier if the blogosphere is supposed to be an extension of the RNC, and says no. I also concur here. The reputation of the blogosphere is supposed to be based in part on its "independence" from the established opinion outlets and so forth, and simply being an extension of the RNC would compromise that. By this I do not mean that the conservative/rightist (a possible redundancy) components of the blogosphere should not present, argue, and defend their political positions. Rather, I would like to preserve the overall position of "with the GOP, but not necessarily of the GOP" so that we're a franchise in the marketplace of ideas, and not merely an outlet store stuck in a strip mall.

Continued independence would make sure that our side keeps its brian bubbling twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and year round in order to escape ossification and mere knee-jerk reaction to the other side. I suppose the grand structural idea is that "we" function as some sort of ersatz think-tank.

So.

What does all of that mean?

Well, two things, one of which applies to all voting Americans, and one of which applies primarily to your humble correspondent:

1. Those of us who are entrusted with the franchise and who choose to exercise that franchise have an awesome responsibility in our hands. We must choose those who will lead the nation, and we must choose consistently well. Because we enjoy such a broad spectrum of freedoms, political and otherwise, we have the responsibility to protect those freedoms. Often, that is done by men (and women) who go forward into harm's way at the peril of their own life. Luckily, that isn't the primary mode of defense for our freedoms. That responsibility falls to each and every one of us who votes, because we must make intelligent, responsible, mature, and adult choices. Cast your votes wisely---distinctly unfriendly individuals rest outside our borders and wish us ill.

2. Although I'm certainly going to push a conservative viewpoint, I'm also trying to make sure that the political commentary I present is, in large part, of a sort that's not irresponsible, juvenile (unless clearly marked so) or otherwise not part of fulfilling the responsibility I laid out in the first point. That means you probably won't see some of the same things that get wide traffic on other blogs, but maybe you'll see something that helps illustrate an issue for you, or guides you towards a better understanding of the conservative side.

Call it The Country Pundit does what NPR says it does.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 03:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 838 words, total size 5 kb.