It was less flashy, less glamorous, less ostentatious. Yet without the help of Hollywood or a cheer leading media, John McCain's story was more substantive. That's because McCain's charisma is not in his words, but in his deeds. It is in the substance of a man's life where his character is found.
We understand his motives only by looking at his life. Only can one denied the privileges of freedom for so many long years, truly appreciate our freedoms for what they are. Freedoms the rest of us take for granted. Freedoms he's already shown he would fight for and die for.
Perhaps undecided Americans came away with a better opinion of McCain last night than they once had. Perhaps they feel like he just might be a little more like them than they have been told.
John McCain is not a smooth man or even a charming man. But whether I agree with him or not (which is often the case), he seems to me an honest man. A straight talker. A what you see is what you get kind of guy. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of smooth politicians.
Whether he made the case last night well enough that he's not another third Bush term (he's not), or that he's not one to toe the party line (he isn't), I'm not sure. I'm too inside the bottle to know objectively what an undecided sees. But one thing that comes through clearly. He's been tested more for this position than any I can think of in recent memory.
To sum up this week. It belonged to Sarah Palin. And if there is more excitement about John McCain at the end of this week, it's because of her. Now it's on to the debates, where we'll see how the Maverick does when Barack Obama, the man the media has picked as its candidate, is bereft of the security of his teleprompter. We'll see if experience can trump smooth. For our sake, I hope it does.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Darren,
You said, "To sum up this week. It belonged to Sarah Palin." I agree, she made quite an impact. I, along with many others was glad when McCain chose her. But I saw and heard some things that I thought were quite disconcerting as well. I saw a sumugness and haughtiness, even arrogance, that was very unbecoming. Please don't mistake my comment as insecurity regarding "strong women". During the DNC I hoped thought it would be wise for McCain to choose a woman if she was right for the job, and was thrilled when he chose Palin. But I noticed something in her speech that seems consistent with the republican party, along with many pundits and blogs (to some extent including your own): Hubris. And there seems to be little attempt to contain the pride, contempt and condescension. Though I agree with much of what Palin (and yourself) had to say over the week, I was deeply grieved at the disrespect, condescension, sarcasm, and superiority that was displayed this week. Especially since it came from those who name Christ as their savior. I couldn't help but think of James 3:13-18 13: "Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. 16For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
17But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness."
Instead, rather than promote peace there was much that was divisive. And even for those who loved her, peace was not the fruit of her speech as plenty of red meat was tossed out to the other hungry pit bulls. I also found it deceptive in the way partial truths were communicated (which is common in politics, after all you cannot possibly fully represent the views of the opposition). Such types of communication, though practiced by both parties, should be avoided by us for scripture still calls it deceptive speech, and yet when Jesus was opposed we are told that He "committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). By deceit I am not referring to "lies" but the half disclosures, and things that lead one to believe certain things about another though it does not reflect the truth about their character or motives, but benefits your own. Haven't we had enough of this sort of thing? Since when did Republicanism, patriotism, or even "truth" as you or I may see it, trump Christlikeness? Yes deeds, are important, especially when done in a certain spirit. And one thing I learned as an actor: Words Are Actions! They affect others and they get others to respond with more actions with similar fruit. They also reveal character, whether that of a politician, pundit, or blogger, and according to The Truth, the power of "Life and Death" is to be found in words.
What I heard and read this week was politics as usual. One could have still made the point about one's belief about the better qualifications of one candidate over another, or their readiness to lead, without diminishing the very real qualities, accomplishments, acts of service, etc., of another; without the insults, sarcasm, and condescension. Instead we got an earful of snide comments, and a disturbing degree of partisan commentary that lacked the substance and grace we are to model to the rest of the world. People aren't voting for Barack just because he's a media darling. Nor is that the reason many republicans I've spoken to including some republican pastors are voting for him. They are voting for him for reasons that are important to them, and born out of convictions they have agonized over, and some of them who were on the fence regarding how they were going to vote were actually moved closer toward voting for Obama because of both the issues and the arrogant display
they saw this week.
Obama is right; there is much that McCain and the republicans do not get, and for the first time ever, some people I know are considering voting for a democrat president. Why? I don't know if you'll get it either. But your blogs did help some move closer to that choice.
Peace,
Ron McClelland
Thank you, Ron, for the lecture. I'm sure that I am indeed guilty of some occasional hubris, as we all are, including yourself. I might say there is some to be found in the comment you left. Perhaps Christ himself was wrong to use such dismissive language when He referred to Herod as 'a Fox', or when he referred to the Pharisees as 'whitewashed sepulchers'. Perhaps He just didn't say it with the derision it comes across with in the Scripture. Perhaps He was just guilty of hubris. But I don't think so.
There is plenty of haughtiness on the Democratic side and plenty of supposed Christians like Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger who Mr. Obama is deeply intertwined with.
I think there is a certain degree of delight in Sarah Palin after the derisive, dismissive, and haughty attacks on her that she came out swinging hard. Have a little bit more of a sense of humor, my friend.
I'd invite you to name any of the half truths and misrepresentations you feel I have stated. I'll be happy to defend them. But you're only generalizing at this point.
I'm not so sure how I can understand Christian pastors agonizing over a man who is so radically pro-choice as Obama. I indeed hope they can live with their consciences if he wins with their assent.
Good to hear from you after so long a time of absence.
Hi Darren,
I just got caught up on your recent posts. I don't want to repeat the mistake of lecturing you so I'll refrain from trying to respond to too many posts in one comment.
Regarding hubris, you were kind. Over the years I've been guilty of a lot of hubris a lot of the time.
Please forgive my comment about "not getting it". I was speaking out of emotion due to the negative reactions of those I had spent many months investing in, christian and non-christian alike who in one week were thrown by what they experienced that week. Regarding half-truths I was referring to what we heard on t.v. and I'll leave it to the candidates to defend themselves, though we all can do better at communicating the good in what others consider of value even if we take a different position overall. After all, isn't that what you did in your post on community organizers? It took seconds to give honor where honor was due and still speak the truth regarding the candidate. That kind of value was not communicated sincerely at the conventions. I don't want to single out Dems or repubs, but rather appeal to christians to do what you did in that post so that we might gain a better hearing among the undecideds (and unbelievers who still conflate republicans and christians). Fight the good fight.
Peace
Ron,
Forgive the slow response. I did not have notifications set for comments and have not checked old posts. I'll send you a personal email on this to be sure you get it.
To your point of giving honor where honor is due, I agree in essence while in practicality it is often difficult. And it's quite hard when daily things are changing and I find myself as many people do reacting and responding to the moment. Sometimes I feel that taking too much time to be absolutely equitable and circumspect clouds the particular point I'm trying to make.
And I also do agree the confusion still exists between the identification between Christian and Republican. But that only underscores the equally foolish notion that the Democratic party can "take back God" as well. For me, I like to say I am a Christian first, Conservative second, Republican third.
This misidentification problem isn't helped by the fact that while there are "conservative Democrats" and "Christians who are Democrats", socialism and anti-theism has no real home in the conservative camp or Republican party. So these people find their home, and often find positions of leadership in the only other viable party available. And for many of the Christians who are in that camp, the expression of Christianity is more social gospel than Christian, by which I mean that the heart of Christianity is removed and it becomes an issue of government providing what the Church is called to provide.
I hope you haven't taken my silence as ignoring you. I really didn't know you had responded. I was actually getting frustrated that I hadn't heard from you, and it just popped into my mind to check the post again. Thank you.
Blessings,
Darren
Post a Comment