LETTER: Evangelicals, Rove shove Palin into role

Sarah Palin seems a remarkable choice for McCain’s running mate, but if one peels away the mystery it seems to boil down to the political gamesmanship of Karl Rove.

Palin embraces the fundamental philosophy of the Far Right and McCain’s “peace by force,” concept that fits nicely with the top-down authority of her party. Her first comment in favor of McCain was to say “he is the only candidate who fought for his country,” a theme as prominent among Republicans as it is irrelevant.

A woman, mother of five, the last of whom is a Down Syndrome child, she also is anti-abortion, but I can’t see how these facts will attract modern women, except for the Evangelical choir to which has been preached a misguided doctrine that says contraception is just another form of abortion, a doctrine that, if contraception succeeds, exceeds the bounds of logic. Sarah Palin is hardly a surrogate for Hilary Clinton, but may be a person who can be manipulated by the power behind the Republican throne.

Sarah Palin is being cast as a maverick, as is [was] John McCain, but when the chips are down it the “passive voice” that calls the shots. McCain might have preferred a less devoted pro-life running-mate, but Rove and Evangelicals would have none of it. It is unreasonable to suppose that Palin was McCain’s choice, and if not, what does that say about the Republican Party? As a good soldier, John does as he is told.

In the final analysis, political appointments/selections do seem to be made/cleared by passive-voices operating in the background whose philosophy is anchored in religious precedents, especially the apostolic model of top-down authority with a definite agenda in mind, one dedicated to serving special interests rather than the good of all.

The goal seems to be to advance the cause of Christiani ty, with its Evangelical overtones [a contradiction in itself] that could be tested by divining the philosophies of Far Right choices over the last eight years. For the evidence suggests [subtle as it is] that the Bush Administration is locked into the Evangelical religious philosophy of the party that has defined his presidency.

Sarah Palin may be a wonderful woman, but has yet to earn her political stripes. First impressions suggest she will be a good soldier and do as she is told; how else can she learn? It is not a question of whether she can learn, but what she will be taught by the passive purveyors of a philosophy that is greater than its individual parts, the theme of which is, “as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever [should] be.”

It is not the philosophy needed to move America forward, but simply the one most satisfying to the status-quo. The world is changing, and so too must the United States. The November election amounts to this, either America continues recklessly to throw its weight around, or it can assume a friendly attitude toward and cooperate with all nations which, as best I can see, want nothing more.

The Republican Party insists on having enemies, why? Bush reneged on his promise to remove North Korea from his list of terrorist states, so it has resumed work on its nuclear program; Iraq says it is ready to go it alone, and wants the United States out as soon as possible, but Bush resists, and Iran says it is willing to negotiate but Bush delays.

If these misunderstandings were resolved peacefully, why should it be necessary to have an anti-ballistic-missile-system in Europe, as a defense against whom? Russia’s anxiety seems perfectly natural under the circumstances.

Kenneth Ramey

Paso Robles, Cal.