Why should I be proud of this country?

Cindy McCain has recently started a smack-down on Michelle Obama, over Michelle's words, months earlier:

...for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country. And
not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry
for change.”

I am so tired of the same old politics. Why can't the media look at the meat of the issues? Since they won't, let's break it down.

Michelle at no time said she was proud of her country for the first time. Let's just get it out there- Cindy and others are lying, and knowingly. Michelle said for the first time, she was really proud. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of English understands that this implies that the speaker has been proud in the past, but is now extra proud.

Why was she proud? Not for a self-serving reason, but because, for the first time in her adult life, there is a move to change the status quo, to shift our paradigms, to do something new. I echo this. For the first time in my life, since I didn't live in the 60s, I'm seeing this too. And this is really what the media should be focusing on- that Michelle was pointing out a sea change in the way we do politics. Instead, sadly they chose to focus on the lowest common denominator, and rallied around the Fox flag.

Let us go deeper. I think it is great that our country is ready for change. But what is the problem with pointing out that there are reasons to lack pride in one's country? When did that become an evil? How can we grow unless we recognize our faults? Though Michelle didn't say this, she would not have been at fault to say, "For the first time, I'm proud of my country." There is nothing wrong with saying you are not proud of your country; that your country makes mistakes. Just as with individuals, it is a sign of maturity if you can recognize errors, and work to change them.

Deeper still. How is it even okay to be proud of your country? Here I go beyond what Michelle is capable of, for I recognize that the candidate and his family have to be patriotic, if they're to be elected. But for the rest of us, has everyone forgotten how often patriotism leads to war? Patriotism inherently entails putting my country first, saying my country is better than others just because it's my country. And this always leads to forcing other countries to see it your way. And for those who are Christians, patriotism is idolatry.

And this brings us to the deepest level. Why Michelle was wrong in her statement. This mass forgetfulness in our nation, where we no longer remember that pride is a bad thing. Sure, being proud in another is something different. But pride is one of the seven deadly sins, if the most overlooked one. It does come before the fall. Pride is where I focus on myself, or my group, rather than God, or others. I start to think I am great, and too great, when I am proud. To extend that to my group is precisely that- extending the boundaries of my own ego. And to Michelle's credit, the rest of her statement indicates that she's not supporting her own ego- rather, she's proud of what others are doing, and bolstering them up. Which leaves me with only one thing wrong with Michelle's statement- a grammatical error in the use of the word "pride". Which surely isn't the biggest issue of this campaign?

Obama, the First Female President

I've been considering this after conversation with a friend at his blog. There was a great deal made 15 years ago about how Bill Clinton was the First Black President. He just seemed to fit in so well with African-Americans, they were by and large happy to claim him as one of their own. Bill Clinton did a great deal for the African-American community, and he is still remembered by them fondly. Indeed, until Bill introduced race into the Presidential race in S. Carolina, it was widely considered a dangerous situation for Obama, for it was feared that he wouldn't be able for him to get a significant portion of the African-American vote.

Now, here's a thought. Part of the attraction of having a woman in the highest office in the land, for me and others, is that a woman bring something to the office that a man doesn't. This isn't to say that all women think one way, and all men another. But we can say salvo reverentia, without outraging reverence, that there are some general trends. This is perhaps principally so in the approach towards conflict, and resolving conflict. It would seem that men tend to like conflict more, to want the adrenaline of the big fight, and women tend to value the relationship more, trying to find a way to work together. And after so many years of having men ruling the roost and doing conflict their way, some of us think that maybe it would be helpful to have a woman's approach this next time around.

Then along comes Hillary, the exception that proofs the rule. For time and time again in this campaign, she has gone for the jugular against Obama. She has insisted on being contentious, using the politics of fear in the Red Phone Ad, and now repeatedly comparing herself positively to McCain, so as to show Obama negatively. Sadly, this is nothing new. Eight years in the Whitehouse showed us the experience of both Clintons to be one of the most contentious periods in American politics. Certainly this isn't all do to Hillary. The Republicans have the lion's share of the blame during that time, and Bill has a healthy does of it too. But Hillary's experience in the Senate seems to have continued this trend, where she seems either unwilling or unable to resolve the divide between her and the Republicans. To be fair to her, she may perhaps not know how. So let us be honest. Obviously there's no denying that she's biologically feminine, but what is there about her approach to politics that makes me feel that I am electing a female President by voting for her? Other then breaking the ultimate glass ceiling, I see little in her that makes me feel the value in having a woman as President.

And yet, Obama seems to be the one who actually can fulfill George II's old promises, never kept. Obama's record in Illinois and the US Senate have been very clear that he is a uniter, and not a divider. He is so eager to negotiate and work with others, that some like Hillary accuse him of being unable to lead and deal with foreign governments because he's not antagonistic enough. Obama has repeatedly passed on possible openings for attack on Clinton, and instead rebuked members of his team who degrade Clinton. For Obama, its always about the high road and relationship.

And then it dawned on me- why we like Obama. His approach to conflict is decidedly classically feminine. He cares about the relationships, and he wants to resolve conflicts through mutual dialogue.

First Black President's already taken. Vote for Obama: Our First Female President.