Buddhism and Sarah Palin

I’m still thinking about Buddhism and politics, and there are some recent posts in the buddhoblogsphere that give food for thought.

At Peaceful Turmoil an unnamed blogger asks thus:

Schaudenfreuda [sic] is not a spiritual virtue. Yet parody can be a way of expressing suppressed or impolite things and giving people a new perspective. So what does that mean for those who do not support Sarah Palin or the Republican ticket for the White House in 2008 who also commit themselves to compassion and sympathy for others? Is it OK to laugh?

This gives rise to a couple of thoughts. First, schadenfreude, which is taking pleasure in another’s pain, is indeed neither spiritual nor a virtue. Second, laughing at someone is not necessarily the same thing as taking pleasure in their pain. We can laugh out of embarrassment, or because the person has said something unintentionally funny, or because a sense of incongruity between what we expect and what we get produces a sense of absurdity and disbelief. I experience all of this while watching Sarah Palin in her interviews with Couric and others. I think it’s OK to laugh.

I also have a sense that she is out of her depth and suffering. She must know that it’s just not right for a VP candidate to have to cram in order to persuade the electorate that she’s knowledgeable enough for the job, and that she’s actually engaging in attempted fraud.

If she can’t get up to speed and isn’t comfortable in the spotlight, then it is fair to weigh those factors in deciding her suitability as a potential Vice President (and hence as a potential President). Yet there is a difference between this kind of judgment and the gleeful derision that has sprung up in some Democratic circles.

There’s definitely some hatred out there, which is unfortunate, although we can’t do much about that apart from perhaps call people on it and also model civilized behavior ourselves. My sense is that the worst hatred is on the Republican side. I’ve heard Republicans calling for the assassination of Hillary Clinton and Obama. For example, A Christian university in Oregon said Tuesday it has punished four students who confessed to hanging a likeness of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama from a tree on campus. I haven’t heard the same from the other side, even in raucous forums like Digg. Not that it’s a competition. I also hear republicans decrying any questioning of Palin’s qualifications and fitness for office as “hating,” which is absurd.

As for Saturday Night Live, they are doing what they have always done – holding up a mirror for us to see ourselves for what we are and what we are not. Of course, that can be funny, but it can also be a little troubling at times. Is parody still parody, for example, when it is nearly verbatim?

Perhaps it was unconscious parody the first time around! On a similar note, what’s to be made of a statement such as this, by John McCain:

“Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to affix the blame. It’s time to fix the problem.”

In other words, “I blame Obama. We shouldn’t blame.”

There’s a post on Palin and Moral Guidance at WoodMoor Village Zendo, questioning the validity and wisdom of Sarah Palin claiming to be guided by God rather than guiding her own destiny, and expressing concern that not much is known about her religious beliefs.

For myself, I have grave concern about yet another person being in the Whitehouse while convinced that the creator of the universe is personally talking to them by giving them “gut feelings”. George Bush got us into plenty of trouble that way. I also do not want to see another person in the Whitehouse who begins with a belief and then finds evidence to support that belief, rather than looking at facts and constructing beliefs on the basis of them. Her adherence to literal belief in the Bible, including humans and dinosaurs having been around at the same time, is a good enough example.

Bill at Digital Dharma quite reasonably states:

I can see no good reason why Sarah Palin’s religious upbringing should clash with her performance as vice president. Many previous candidates have been elected and served without their personal beliefs becoming an issue. The question, then and now, was whether or not the office-holders would permit their personal issues to affect their adherence to the oath of office.

Unfortunately Bill doesn’t examine her religious beliefs, although he does say she scares the crap out of him (or words to that effect), and he does have a link to a related post.

William Harryman at Integral Options has a post entitled: Seriously? Sarah Palin Is a “Joe Six-Pack American”. Unfortunately (especially since I usually enjoy WH’s posts) he refers to her as a “dumbass,” which I don’t think is helpful. She’s probablyof about average intelligence, and I don’t think it’s helpful to consider people who are average as “dumbasses” Since most people are average or below, insulting them isn’t likely to endear them to the cause, and this is probably the kind of thing they mean when they talk about elitism.

But he does make a valuable point that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of having a person of above average intelligence in charge of the country.

Lastly, this isn’t a Buddhist source, but there’s an interesting post by one of Palin’s previous political opponents (sorry for all that alliteration) on her debating style. I’m looking forward to the debate tomorrow. I hope Gwen Ifill doesn’t accept vague answers and pushes for specificity — something Pali balks at, even when the question is about what papers she reads. The woman is a journalism major and she was unable to name a single newspaper she’s read. It’s as if she’s taken some kind of vow of abstinence from saying anything concrete.

Comments are closed.