Across the 'Great Divide'

Recently on a friend's blog, there was an exchange over Sarah Palin and other conservative / right wing women. We were addressing the qualifications of women who are influential in politics, either as a politician or a potential candidate, or as a person who is politically influential as a writer or broadcaster with a significant audience of viewers or readers, and the kinds of criticism they receive.

My friend took the position that all conservative women are bashed by liberals, unfairly, and that there is some sort of monolithic group of equally significant individuals who were apparently treated badly for no other reason than their conservatism.

I argued, or at least attempted to argue, that there was no such monolithic group, that the individuals under discussion were widely dissimilar in both qualifications and abilities. I characterised for example Gretchen Carlson, from my post "Dumb Like a Fox", as a beautiful, talented, intelligent and well-educated woman, with a better vocabulary than she demonstrates on television. In the course of the comparison, I contrasted Carlson's degree with honors from Stanford with Palin's multiple lesser college and community college education, and with Michele Bachmann's undergraduate and graduate degrees. I also contrasted Obama's academic credentials with those of the conservative women; Obama's accomplishments exceeded those of all three women.

My intent in examining the education of these women, and Obama, was to demonstrate both their evident intelligence, and what they had done to prepare themselves through education for subsequent careers and impact on the world. I respect accomplishments where some degree of distinction was achieved. I was widely insulted for valuing education, and told that this was not important, because there are other measures of accomplishment, and because the degrees were something accomplished years ago.

I was called 'a snob' for appreciating academic distinctions, and for viewing the women in question as different and not all the same.

I also compared the credentials specifically of Obama and Palin in elected office, noting that Wassilla had a population of less than 6,000 when she was mayor; while Obama when elected to the state Senate of Illinois had a constituency of more than 210,000. As Senator for Illinois, Obama represented a state of more than 12,800,000 compared to Palin governing Alaska with a population of a little over 680,000. Because she held, however briefly, executive office, my friend and his supporters argued Palin was more qualified, and Obama was unqualified because he had only served in the legislative branch of government.

Now, my intent in looking at the relative populations and at academic accomplishments was to begin a comparison with things that could be quantified in some way, degrees was one measure of accomplishment, the size of relative constituency another. Quantifiable comparisons appealed to me as a means for objective rather than subjective evaluation on a topic where subjective views seemed to me to be given too much importance.

At no point did I assert that there were no other valid kinds or measures of accomplishment. And at no point did anyone ask me if this was my only criteria for comparison or why I chose to begin with quantifiable measures.

Now, personally, I don't happen to believe that the activities of a mayor of a tiny town of 5,000+, which is managed by a professional manager instead of the mayor IS a valid qualification for claiming executive experience. Nor do I see a great deal to admire in the administrative or executive career of a governor who spends a good part of her term on the campaign trail or promoting herself instead of serving as governor, before quitting.

I fail to see how academic accomplishments cease to be valid accomplishments over time, as if they had an expiration date. Certainly if the academic accomplishments are the base from which a person proceeds to have a noteworthy career after graduation, they would seem to be worth consideration.

I also fail to see how a career in the legislative branches of government, where the bills are proposed and laws passed on which the executive branch subsequently acts in governing, makes an individual somehow less competent or knowledgeable about how government works, or negates abilities to act as an executive, either in elected government or the private sector. I would argue, rather, that there are a number of areas where there is considerable overlap.

But I stopped, deciding not to continue to try to disagree as objectively as I was able, with people whose minds were closed, and whose reaction to holding a different view was insulting accusations rather than open minds and courtesy. Trying to explain myself didn't seem worth the effort; no one seemed to care. In their defence, I did characterize Palin as an individual I found trivial and superficial, using a very innocuous term, 'popsie'. That was like waving a red cape in front of an angry bull to Palin fans.

The course of the discussion, more than the subject itself, has been kicking around in my mind. As we approach the end of the calendar year, with its sentiments of peace on earth and good will to all, that failed discussion seemed antithetical to the season.

If we cannot listen to each other, or read each other's words, with an open mind and without antagonism and insult instead of attempting to understand, if there is no room for benefit of the doubt that someone might have something worthwhile to contribute........what do we have remaining?

Are the words of all of us writing in the blogosphere only to preach to the choir, are we only addressing those who already agree with us? Is there nothing left to learn from or to offer to each other? And perhaps most of concern to me, is there no point to trying to seek out fact to inform opinion............is all that matters what we want to believe, instead of what really is true?

Can there be no meeting of minds?

Following this failed attempt at discourse came an invitation to me through the Penigma2 email account, from a new web site, OpinionEditorial.com, from an editor whose job is to seek out writers who have something of substance to contribute. I was invited to write for OpEd on the basis of my recent post about Tim Pawlenty. OpEd intends to provide not a single point of view, but a range of views, in one location to appeal to readers who don't want just one side of current events.

It was a compliment to be asked to contribute; and it was encouraging that someone else found enough reason to promote different points of view to set up this new website.

With the consent of Pen, and ToE, I have recently added OpEd to the list of linked blogs on Penigma; OpEd informs me that Penigma will be added to their list of linked blogs in turn.

I have tried to look at my frustration in a constructive way, to see what I can learn from it first and foremost for my own thinking and conduct, because I have no control over anyone else. I am persuaded to let go of some of my frustration, and not to be discouraged, but to try to continue to do my best to find a factual basis for my thinking, wherever that may lead. Perhaps most of all, I'm going to try - call it my new year's resolution for 2010 - to be more open minded myself, and more receptive to the views of others, and to really pay attention to those views to be sure I understand them before leaping to conclusions too quickly.

I hope those who enjoy Penigma will join me in that resolution.

Wishing all of our readers a safe and joyous occasion, whichever holiday you may celebrate. Join me as well in celebrating today - Winter Solstice - the day of the year with the longest period of darkness and the shortest period of daylight. The joy is in knowing there will be increasing light tomorrow and each day after. Blessed be.