Anti-Governor Palin Sentiment Is Not Anti-Small Town Sentiment

IT'S SENATOR McCAIN'S JUDGMENT THAT IS IN QUESTION

In today's (September 8, 2008) edition of USA Today, letter writer Luz Gonzalez Maribona of Miami, Florida states that "...the continued criticism of [Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's qualifications for the vice presidency] illustrates the prejudice elected officials from small towns deal with. Many Americans are from small towns, and it does not, as some think, automatically disqualify them from leadership."

I, for one, am tired of hearing this sort of crap. Before I continue, let me say first and foremost that, though I grew up in a metropolitan area, I have absolutely no problem with small town America or the vast majority of people who, like Luz, have spent a considerable percentage of their lives in small towns. During my university and graduate school years, I made many friends who had been born and raised in small towns, and I found them to be every bit as intelligent as folks from backgrounds like mine.

But intelligence and anti-small-town prejudice are not the pertinent issues here--at least not to me. What is at issue is the background of candidates insofar as their internationalist credentials are concerned. That is, I believe that it's absolutely essential for our president and vice president to have had a lot of direct exposure to as many countries and cultures as possible prior to stepping into the White House. I could care less whether they come from New York City or a Kansas farm or any of the innumerable small towns scattered throughout the United States. What matters is that they understand how our country and culture fit into the international world, particularly in this rapidly-changing, increasingly multi-polar world, where political, economic, and cultural competition from multiple geographical locations is increasing daily.

I agree with Kathy Robinson from Middlesex, New Jersey, who writes in today's edition of (what I'm sure will be pointed-out is the "liberal") New York Times that "...we live in a world of staggering complexity. As the last eight years have shown, we ignore that at our own peril." George W. Bush downplayed his lack of international immersion in 2000, and it has resulted in a Cold War-oriented, one-size-fits-all foreign policy that has affected adversely our standing in the world and our economy at home. His father, by contrast, was an internationalist, and though he spent only one term in the White House, he positioned the United States to deal with a post-Cold War world in far more proactive manners. (As a quiet acknowledgment of these accomplishments, President Clinton continued along the paths of many, if not all, of the first President Bush's international policies.)

Both the first President Bush and President Clinton had spent considerable time overseas, though in very different capacities. The same is the case with Senators Biden, Obama, and McCain. But Governor Palin, for all of her honorable qualities, has traveled overseas exactly once, and, though the reason for her trip was a positive one in that she visited U.S. troops from Alaska who were stationed in Germany and Kuwait, I can tell you that, having been on U.S. bases in Germany before, I'd hardly call that "visiting Germany." (The culture on those bases is full-on American, not German.)

I don't mean to pile-on Governor Palin, but I do mean to question Senator McCain's judgment in the wake of selecting her to be his running mate. Though I endorsed her for that role back in July, I made the big mistake of assuming that, as the governor of an energy-producing state located near Russia, she would have traveled at least relatively extensively outside of North America on fact-finding excursions and the like. I was wrong to assume that, given that it turns out she has hardly ever been outside of North America. I would not have endorsed her had I known this.

It's 2008. In this era, there are four jobs for which I find a strong grasp of the international world absolutely essential: President of the United States, Vice President of the United States, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense. I find it extraordinary that some folks, no matter what their political affiliation, don't think such a requirement matters for these particular jobs. I am not the most nuanced of world travelers, but I have done a lot of traveling outside of the U.S., and I have also lived and worked and paid taxes elsewhere (during which time I did not work with fellow Americans). When I speak with people who have had similar experiences to mine, their views on presidential and vice presidential qualifications almost always mirror mine, even if their political affiliations don't necessarily mirror mine.

I would humbly suggest that those who have not traveled abroad extensively--and especially those who have not lived and worked abroad, which is far different from being an extended tourist--listen to the viewpoints of their fellow countrymen and -women who have spent considerable time overseas and wish to see the United States retain a lot of its international influence, the vast majority of whom I've found feel it is essential for our leaders to have international gravitas prior to stepping into their extraordinarily important roles.

I would also suggest that we stop simplifying this issue into the misleading discussion of "anti-small town bias." Such a discussion may be necessary, but not in the context of who is president and vice president, because it misses the point entirely. After all, I'd rather have as the president a foreign policy expert who has lived much of her or his life on a farm in Iowa, but who has also spent extensive time overseas, than someone from, say, Minneapolis who has never traveled abroad, or perhaps gone abroad on a short vacation only once or twice.

That's not unfair discrimination. It's realism.