Tucson Sammy

Dear Mr. Prager,

I have a philosophical question that I would like you to consider. You are a deep thinker, and a Godly man, so you may have thoughts that will help resolve it. The question became clear to me after the election.

I think it is fair to say that the victory of President Elect Obama was achieved primarily through a two efforts. One was an ongoing effort of ginning up hatred for President Bush. Much of this effort involved rather despicable behavior on the part of Democrats, and most the people reveled in it. The other effort was to portray candidate Obama as a unifying moderate. He was, and is, just the opposite, and most people embraced the deception.

You, I, and others value civility, honesty, and honor. I believe, based on my observations, that generally the electorate does not share these values.

So the question is: Are we being arrogant when we insist on expressing, through word and deed, these values in political campaigns?

Here is an analogy. If the electorate were a customer, and a campaign were a product, would it not be arrogant to suggest that the customer should buy what we want, and not what he wants?

Here’s another one. Most adults see war as a horror, yet they understand that there are worse things, and are willing to engage in it when necessary. Many juveniles see war as a horror, but their understanding stops there. They conclude that all war is bad without further inquiry. This idea is reflected in slogans like “War is the enemy”, and “War is not healthy for children and other living things.” They refuse to live life on life’s terms. So, are we not being juvenile when we insist on maintaining a high level of decorum in political campaigns?

Spiritually speaking, have we lost our humility when we reject the values of those whom we endeavor to serve? I understand that our values come from a source higher than our egos, but in the role of public servants (emphasis on “servants”), should we not show respect for the electorate by embracing them as they are – on their terms?

It is my hope that even if you reject some of my premises, that you will address the question anyway, since it is an interesting philosophical/ethical problem.

Thank you.

With the election of Barack Obama, Governor Napolitano finds herself propelled back to the national scene. Having endorsed the president elect early in the primary race, she is in the good graces of the new administration. She has already been welcomed into the transition team, can cabinet or other appointment be far off?

The question she needs to ask herself is not “do I feel lucky?”, I’m sure she does. The question is, “Arizona, or Washington?” Now, this is far more easy to answer than, “Mary Ann, or Ginger”. In fact, this could be her golden parachute.

Her tenure as governor has been kept alive by ongoing media support – from the Tucson dailies, to the Arizona Republic, and beyond. Some things, however, cannot be glossed over. The budget, for example, is a disaster waiting to explode. The state is still in deficit, and the problems have not been addressed directly. Money has been borrowed, swapped around, and otherwised used to stave off the inevitable. Revenues will not dramatically increase in the near future, so what will she do down the road?

Fortunately for the governor, this “Highway to Hell” has, for her, an exit to I-40 that leads to Washington, D.C. I suspect that she will take it. She has worked in Washington before as an Assistant Attorney General in the Clinton Department of Justice. Rahm Emanuel will be President Obama’s Chief of Staff. He too, served in the Clinton administration.

So, stay here and face the music, or jump to the “Big Show” in Washington? This is not much of a choice for a career politician.