Picked up a copy The Economist at the airport today and was reading through some of the articles. It was last weeks version, which means the news was already entering into history books, but I did come across this interesting quotation in an article on Obama strategist David Axelrod. Commenting on the strategy that “[t]he most important thing is to tell a positive story about the candidate rather than to muddy the narrative with lots of talk about policy details”, the article goes on to note that, while it had a great deal of success in the Democratic primaries:

Mr. McCain also has one of the most compelling autobiographies in American politics—one that is more likely to appeal to the average American that the coming-of-age of a mixed-race child. For all his skills, Mr Axelrod may have chosen to fight on the one battlefield where the Republicans have a chance of winning.

This is a great observation about the nature of the election this time. The Democrats could probably win if more people focused on the issues. But this election is about the story of the candidates lives as much as it is about any specific policies, and that is largely the Obama campaign’s doing. Of course, the importance of personal stories has been seen in the past, too. Take, for example, the way in which the Swift Boat Veterans hurt the war hero narrative of the Kerry campaign. But in this election, in particular, the stories of the candidates are really taking center stage.

I mention this in the context of the recent news that Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter is pregnant. My initial reaction to the selection of Palin’s nomination was negative and, to a large degree, my feelings haven’t changed. But I am starting to see some of the appeal that she holds. Palin’s life is one that many middle class women might be able to identity with—hence the “hockey mom” label. She has a working class background and shares the struggles of motherhood, balancing work and home, etc.

Whereas in some elections, the news of a pregnant teenage daughter would hurt a politician’s chances, I wonder if, here, it might not help. Teen pregnancy is a common problem in America. And Sarah Palin can be seen as struggling along side thousands of other American parents with what to do in this situation. If Palin’s ‘ordinariness’—the way in which her life resembles that of ordinary Americans—is tapped as a source for a personal narrative, it might be a powerful counterbalance to the Obama campaign. Something like: no, she’s not perfect, she has problems just like you do, her son’s headed to Iraq, her daughter got pregnant, etc. She should be your vice president because she understands your problems.

Although many commentators seem to understand that this is what is happening, not all of them are excited about the possibility. In an editorial in the Los Angeles times, prominent secularist Sam Harris bemoans the fact that

No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves.

Or regular gal, I suppose. Harris continues to say

McCain has so little respect for the presidency of the United States that he is willing to put the girl next door (soon, too, to be a grandma) into office beside him. He has so little respect for the average American voter that he thinks this reckless and cynical ploy will work.

At the blog of Philosophy Magazine, Jean Kazez has something similar to say

Call me old-fashioned, but here’s how I think about my choice for president: I ask myself who’s going to fix the serious problems confronting us here in the US and in the world.

It causes me great despair, to say the very least, that elections no longer turn on preferences about stuff like this. You could see it plainly in 2004. Here was a guy up for reelection who had demonstrated staggering incompetence in Iraq and at home, and “swing voters” chose him anyway.

The post concludes, however, with a little bit less caustic than Harris.

And yet, and yet…does that stuff matter anymore? The Democrats are as guilty as the Republicans. We heard “their stories” last week—Michelle Obama on her childhood, Joe Biden on the tragedies in his life, Barack Obama on growing up with his grandparents in Hawaii. Now we’re in for a week of Republican stories, and Sarah Palin sure will add color to the story-fest. Can you blame the candidates? They’ve figured out what moves voters, and sadly enough, all too often it’s “the story.”

There is no question that this election cycle is about stories more than issues, whether that is for good or for bad. I think that, for people who take the time to consider the issues carefully, that is a distressing thing. I also think there is a certain inevitability to it. Having a clear grasp of the issues at stake: how to implement universal health care, how to pay for it, what to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Georgia—these things take a lot of hard work to learn about and to understand and have informed opinions about. The people who make that effort may find that it becomes superfluous; their votes are superseded by many who never make that effort (perhaps sometimes for good reason, such as they are working hard to feed their families). The old problem of intellectual elitism vs. populism surface in a hundred different ways. In this election, by focusing on easily digested stories of the candidates rather than the substantial issues of the election.

The Christian Science Monitor has a great article about some of the religious language used during the Presidential Campaigns. Of course, we have all heard about how Obama is being called a Messiah during this campaign, but article provides some eye-popping quotations from both sides of the political spectrum.

What moved Barack Obama to seek the presidency was “the basic idea of empathy” and the notion that if “we see somebody down and out … we care for them.”

Republican John McCain explained that he was running “to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self-interest.”

As Michele Obama said in February 2008: “Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.”

Mr. McCain, too, sees the president as a soul-healer. His hero, Teddy Roosevelt, was a great president, McCain insists, because he “liberally interpreted the constitutional authority of the office,” and “nourished the soul of a great nation.”

As Gene Healy notes, none of this is mentioned in the Constitution. His concern is for the dangers of this view of the president. What will the American people consent to allowing the president to do?

I am interested in the fact that, though the president is neither granted the responsibility to care for someone if they are down, or inspire a generation to look for something greater than their self-interest, they are supposed to protect and uphold the Constitution, which might, I believe, entail the protection someone’s freedom to not look beyond his or herself and care for someone who is down. Yet no one, Gene Healy aside, is bothered when either candidate makes these statements.

I’m saying this not because I wouldn’t love to see all Americans embrace compassion for their neighbors or anything like that. I think that would be wonderful, but I found this article fascinating because I love to stand and gawk at the little social intangibles that surface in our society. The framers had a political and legal agenda in carving the Constitution. But putting a person up in front of crowds, giving him power to affect people’s lives, to give fireside chats during economic turbulence and moving speeches during times of war: these things lead to the position developing a quasi-religious role, don’t they? Especially as media gives the president greater and greater exposure on a regular basis. It has little to do with what the Constitution says and a lot to do with the situation the Constitution puts the president in. It’s a kind of hidden power that arises as an effect of the Constitution, which the American people seem to willfully grant.

First of all, let’s celebrate a historic day for America. As someone who was born long after the struggle for Civil Rights in the 1960s, I feel as if my generation might regard this moment thinking, slightly indignantly, “What took us so long to get here?” “Of course an African-American can be president just like anyone else!” It is hard to imagine that in previous generations, such an idea was not a foregone conclusion. Just over forty years ago, peaceful black protesters were attacked with fire hoses for advocating racial equality. A hundred years ago, racial inequality was trumpeted by some whites as a “scientific” fact

But yesterday, when Barack Obama made his acceptance speech, it was a great day for America, and the symbolic power of that event—I hope—has power which transcends partisan politics. Regardless of what happens for the duration of the campaigning season, the simple fact that an African-American has received a nomination for the presidency is a powerful blast at the evils of history. It is a day that I hope all Americans can be proud of.

The BBC headline writer is a genius!

And, not a day later, John McCain announced a second-time-is-still-historic woman Vice Presidential Candidate. What this means is that, if the Republican running mates and the Democratic running mates stand next each other, it will be like looking in a mirror. first-term, 40-something, groundbreaking candidates Barack and Sarah will be next to the older, seasoned John and Joe, respectively. Will voters even be able to tell the difference on election day?

Sadly, plans for a nun’s beauty contest have been canceled. An Italian priest named Father Antonio Rungi was going to collect photos from nuns around the world and post them onto his blog. The BBC News article said that this was the first such contest of its kind and sought to change some people’s opinions regarding the age and otherwise common perception of the non-hotness of nuns, I guess. Perhaps make the prospect of vows-taking not so unattractive to young ladies. The priest with the plan caused enough of a fervor to stop, however, when he got some nasty e-mails:

“One of them told me I would end up in Hell,” Rungi says.

The idea of a nun’s beauty contest raises all kinds of interesting questions in my mind. What if victory in the contest leads to pride and, subsequently, to penance? Doesn’t all of this emphasis on worldly beauty detract from the sequestered, spiritual life? And, what do you know, a real, actual nun wonders the same thing:

Catholic nuns and sisters are doing extraordinary things for God, the Church, and the world. We do not need to showcase ourselves: we live our charism day in and day out. Even the so-called dour nuns do this! It’s that commitment to living religious life fully that is what is attractive to other people.

With Nun Beauty Contests, it seems like the world is changing so quickly these days I can barely keep up with it. But fortunately, then, the Catholic Church tried to stop the publication of a photo in Playboy magazine in Brazil because of the presence of a crucifix, allowing me to forgo updating my old stereotypes for the time being.Behind the priest’s plan, I think that there is this idea: that the nun’s beauty can be appreciate in a non-sexual way. According to the Times Online:

The Sister Italia 2008 contest was a way of showing that female beauty was “not just the plasticised beauty you see on television. There is also such a thing as a chaste ideal, which comes from the heart and the soul, and has a beneficial effect on those who come into contact with it.”

But behind the protests I think there is a certain fear: it can’t. In a hypervisual post-Freudian sexually liberated our culture, we often can’t or don’t make a clear distinction between beauty and sex in something like a beauty contest. Are they about oogling the participants? Must they be? There is a part of me that wants to believe that an appreciation for the physical beauty of a person, like in art or nature, is a real possibility. But if a man glancing in a woman’s direction said he was “only appreciating her beauty” that would be met with a cynical sneer. Can someone really do that? Would you believe him?