Republicans, a party of whiners

As this wearying campaign season rolls on, important questions go unanswered or are spun into convoluted political talking points. Republicans say patriotism is the defining attribute for a candidate, asserting that they put "country first", in a ham-handed attempt to imply that Democrats do not.

We are instructed that Republicans are the true arbiters of our moral standards, that our principles should be based on religious precepts dictated from above, and I refer to government as opposed to a supreme being.  Cindy, Laura, Joe, John and others said they had tossed partisan trappings aside and donned their "American hats" - - testimony, ostensibly, to the nobility of their aspirations, although there was little evidence of either open-mindedness or diversity at the Democrat-bashing Republican Convention.

When exactly did Republicans became the party of patriots and the rest of us pawns in the grand design of the "grand old party?" As a political ploy that gambit is intended of course to dim Obama's luster. Got it. But, in fact it is an insult to all decent Americans who love their country and support the basic principles upon which it was founded. How dare any politician question the values of an opponent, let alone the legion of ordinary folks, by repeating some phony campaign slogan?

And when did the country become imbued with a religious fervor intended to validate the agenda of right-wing ideologues who would bend government to their will? Why, for example, are military leaders like General Patraeus plugging books that claim faith, especially the Christian faith, is the force sustaining our troops? It may be, as has been famously said, "There are no atheists in foxholes", but matters of faith should not be dictated by commanders nor behavior demonized as when General Pace described the gay lifestyle as immoral. There are chaplains of every denomination who speak to the needs of those in service. Military leaders should practice their faith, not proselytize.

How did religious advocacy gain such a foothold? And how have abortion, gay marriage and "in God we trust" on coins returned to the national debate about who should lead? When was it that the country became so heavily invested in matters that should remain private and at a far remove from public discussions? By appeasing the religious right and choosing a social conservative as his running mate there is no longer any doubt about where a McCain administration would be headed.  

It should have been obvious perhaps that religion was being used to animate the debate in every sector of our national life, but that subtext hadn't reached full flower until quite recently. Now, however, we seem perilously close to accepting religious orientation as a legitimate function of government, a notion never envisioned by the founding fathers. Many Republicans are saying this election isn't about the economy or the war or the mortgage crisis; it's about character or faith or female intuition or lord knows whatever else can be made to serve as a substitute for experience or an understanding of what is required to deal with the rigors of life in the White House.

Neither McCain nor Palin seems ready to deal with today's urgencies - - to assume the daunting task of running a country that desperately needs a new vision free of platitudes and mindless jargon. He appears dazed at times, and the hype regarding her accomplishments seems exaggerated. The media and voters are supposed to ignore some of the baggage she carries as a flip flopper about earmarks, her association with lobbyists, an authoritarian governing style as well as her own version of trooper-gate and questions about her affiliation with an Alaskan secessionist group. One should probably ignore the foolishness about foreign-policy experience with which Cindy and others have credited her because of Alaska's proximity to Russia. Such claims could just be some political hack's weird sense of humor - - better than that they should be taken seriously.

In her speech Palin railed at "some in the media" who question her authenticity. There are, however, legitimate concerns out here in the reality-based lives most people lead, though Republican campaign surrogates echo the mantra that she is being unfairly attacked by a biased, anti-feminist, press. The myth of the liberal media lives on.

But there are legitimate questions that need to be asked, and voters deserve answers. Asking those questions is not out of bounds. But by acting so offended Republicans have clearly become a party of whiners.