A Country Divided

During my more than three decades of political and cultural awareness, I have never experienced the United States in such turmoil. Questions such as "Who are we?" and "What have we become?" as a people, as a country, are on the minds of so many. And it isn't simply a question of political affiliation, gender, race or religion: it goes much deeper than that.  I remember the gas lines of the 1970s; the Iran hostage crisis; the stark political shift from Carter to Reagan; the 1980s leveraged buy-out boom and the Crash of 1987; the real estate crisis of the early 1990s; Rodney King trial; the Presidential election vote count irregularities of 2000; and so many more high-impact events. While these events may have shocked, scared or angered us, they didn't appear to shake us to our core, to question the very foundations of our nation. What, then, makes the present different than the past?

The 21st century has caused our nation to deal with new challenges and threats, ranging from the tragedy of September 11th; the rapid globalization and the offshoring of millions of jobs; the rise of China and India as superpowers; and the resurrection of Russia as an economic and political force with a military agenda. And the list goes on. But even these threats pale in comparison to the threat posed by a country divided, a schism that will only become clearer by the choices offered in the upcoming Presidential race. It clearly has gotten to the point in Presidential politics - specifically Republican Presidential politics -  where it's not about crafting the right ticket, one where the two parts complement one another in skills, experiences and world-views, but in presenting a slate that appears to only provide the best chance of winning. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was a coldly calculated, carefully analyzed choice by Senator McCain and his advisers. Grab the Christian Right, maybe some women on the fence, plug those gaps in McCain's voting record. McCain as a maverick? Hardly. This isn't patriotism. This isn't demonstrating love of country. This is playing on people's deepest fears, and upping the ante such that the only result can be bad, regardless of the outcome. Robert Reich has a great take on this, and several others have highlighted different facets of the matter. My question is: is this what our country has come to, and what does it mean in how we view the Constitution?

We now have a person running for office, who is potentially a heartbeat away from becoming President of the United States, who could potentially send us straight back to medieval times. She stated in a televised debate that she supports the teaching of creationism in schools; she does not believe global warming is due to man-made causes; she opposes state health benefits for same-sex couples; and she is not only firmly pro-life, but opposes abortions for women pregnant either due to rape or incest. Anti-separation of Church and State (that concept, first put forth by Thomas Jefferson, is immortalized in the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution otherwise known as the Establishment Clause); anti-science; anti-equality. These are not the characteristics of someone who can bring people together, but someone who can push them apart. Regardless of one's political views, I find it hard to believe the the majority of this country support the candidacy of a person with such narrow-minded, backward-looking beliefs. Divisiveness is not what we need at this critical point in the evolution of our society and of the world, especially when challenges to the status quo haven't been higher in generations. Do you think China, India and Russia are moving light-years backwards in their science programs to teach creationism? Do you really think we can continue to be competitive on an increasingly challenging global stage when science is something you learn from the Bible, and not from scholarly texts in biology, anthropology, chemistry and physics? I shudder to think what will happen to our knowledge economy in such a scenario.

I have been reading a fascinating book about Intel's Andy Grove by Richard Tedlow. It traces Mr. Grove's childhood and eventual escape from Hungary in 1956, and the remarkable life he has built since his move to the U.S. Mr. Grove is a man of science, of determination, of massive intellect and is a lifelong learner. He has used his powers to fight both prostate cancer and Parkinson's disease, and was employee #3 and the architect of growth at arguably the most important company to bring us into the PC generation and out towards the Internet generation. I wonder what Governor Palin would think of Mr. Grove's life story and the role of science in his personal and professional development? It is hard to imagine this self-proclaimed "hockey mom" being impressed. Rest assured, I am.

When I see the U.S. through my prism - being whatever you want to be if you work hard enough, inclusive, edgy, aggressive about ensuing our personal freedoms, innovative, caring, focused and fierce under duress, willing to change but without compromising the spirit of our Constitution - it saddens me to see where we find ourselves. Eight years of a fractious, troubled Administration, with the possibility of not more of the same, but perhaps much, much worse. It angers and scares me that Mr. McCain would choose someone like Governor Palin as his running mate. We are, without question, the laughing-stock of the world, which will come even more into focus if Senator McCain and Governor Palin actually win. It is almost as if the election has become merely a game to him. Let me assure you, Senator McCain, this is no game. And if I am right and there are millions of others who are just as angered and as scared as I am by your actions, this is not a game you'll be able to pursue after November 4th.