I’m sure you remember it all very well: John McCain and Sarah Palin, citing their extensive records of bi-partisan reform, ran as self-proclaimed “mavericks” in their quest to gain the White House this year. Unfortunately, the two nonconformists failed to win the support of the people, who left them in the dust on Election Day. As a staunch admirer and advocate of Governor Palin, I would normally attribute the unpopularity of the GOP ticket to the “oh so moderate” Senator McCain, but this year proved particularly challenging for the struggling Republican Party because of someone else: George W. Bush. After eight years the American people have finally had enough and, notwithstanding the remnant of survivors, have decided to essentially banish Republicans from Washington. Ironically, Barack Obama seemingly “out-mavericked” the mavericks, basing his ticket on “change in which Americans could believe.” Well, they took the bait—hook, line, and sinker. Apparently the majority of Americans weren’t ready for another Republican president; John McCain’s promises of change fell on deaf ears, and his record of reform didn’t convince the obdurate Bush haters to vote for him. However, just give President-elect Obama and his liberal pals the chance to subject the country to their leftist policies, and most of the American people will come crawling back to Senator McCain on their hands and knees. Actually, let’s hope they crawl back to Sarah Palin instead; come 2012, I’m sure they’ll be flocking to her side. Governor Palin’s record of bi-partisan reform now gives her the unique opportunity to rally the troops, return with a vengeance, and bring Washington the change it really needs. In fact, I believe Sarah’s ready to take up the mantle of the original maverick of the GOP: Chester A. Arthur.

You see, despite all of the hype about John McCain’s “maverick” tendencies, politicians like him are by no means a new breed. Don’t get me wrong—John McCain and Sarah Palin have displayed impressive leadership skills by rising above partisan politics, “reaching across the aisle,” and even taking on members of their own party, but previous politicians paved the way for them. Everyone remembers the larger-than-life Democratic reformers—visionaries like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt—but everyone forgets the original American maverick: Chester A. Arthur. Most people like to dismiss “The Gentleman Boss” as one of the many footnotes of American history, but in doing so, they jettison the valuable opportunity to study the private life and career of a superlative politician and learn many insightful political lessons along the way.

I must confess that my introduction to President Arthur had nothing to do with history or politics. Truth be told, I simply admired his sideburns. Even as a callow youth of 15 years, I could grow chops just like his—my facial hair growth hormones kicked in rather early. Two years later my “side whiskers” continues to flourish, and I remain the novelty of my church youth group, even with the addition of an accompanying handlebar mustache. In the beginning I simply knew Arthur as my stylistic inspiration, but as time wore on, I became more and more interested in the man behind the mask—facial hair, that is. At the time, I served as vice president of the local honor society, where I supported a good friend of mine in his role as president. After giving a speech in which I mentioned my sideburned hero, I discovered that my friend was a direct descendent of Arthur and quickly decided to learn more about the famously fashionable 21^st president whose facial hair I esteemed so highly. Not surprisingly, I learned a lot more about Arthur than I had anticipated, and he soon became one of my favorite presidents.

The son of an ardent abolitionist preacher, “Elegant Arthur” attended Union College in Schenectady, New York, from 1845-1848. After graduating, he taught at a local school and studied law, passing his bar exam in 1854 and gaining a clerkship in a New York legal firm headed by Erastus D. Culver. Arthur’s involvement in two civil rights cases, one ensuring the freedom of a group of slaves brought to New York by their master and the other leading to the integration of the New York streetcar system, greatly advanced Arthur’s public profile, but the Civil War interrupted his law career.

Evidently God had other plans for Arthur; in 1861 Edwin D. Morgan, the Republican governor of New York, appointed the young lawyer to be the engineer-in-chief of the state militia with the rank of quartermaster general and later brigadier general in the New York Volunteers. Gaining a reputation for efficiency, genius administrative abilities, and reliability, Arthur resumed his law practice in 1863, soon earning a small fortune and a position as one of Senator Roscoe Conkling’s (R-NY) top lieutenants. In 1869 and 1870 Arthur served as the chief consul to the New York City Tax Commission, lining his pockets with a princely annual salary of $10,000.

One year later President Ulysses S. Grant appointed Chester A. Arthur to the position of Collector of the Port of New York. Serving in this capacity until 1878, Arthur supervised nearly 1,300 agents responsible for collecting approximately 75% of the country’s import duties. In this station, taking into account various “perks,” Arthur grossed $50,000 a year—the same salary as the President of the United States. Despite the tremendous responsibility of overseeing so many agents and so much money, Arthur always performed his duties with honesty, avoiding the graft so common in the New York Customs House. In fact, he once declared, “If I had misappropriated five cents, and on walking down-town saw two men talking on the street together, I would imagine they were talking of my dishonesty, and the very thought would drive me mad.”

When President Rutherford B. Hayes was inaugurated in 1877, he sought to reform the New York customs office in order to distance himself from the scandals of the Grant Administration. After establishing a special commission to investigate corruption in the customs office, President Hayes ousted Chester A. Arthur, despite a complete lack of evidence that “The Gentleman Boss” ever partook in graft of any kind. During the presidential election of 1880 Arthur and his boss, Roscoe Conkling, determined to take control of the port again by attempting to draft Ulysses S. Grant as Haye’s successor in the White House.

However, after a fierce struggle between the Stalwart and the Half-Breed factions of the Republican Party at the 1880 Republican National Convention, the GOP finally compromised and selected James A. Garfield, a moderate Ohio politician and the Republican minority leader in the House of Representatives, as their presidential candidate. In order to console the resentful Stalwarts, Garfield unexpectedly asked Chester A. Arthur to be his running mate. In spite of the urgings of Roscoe Conkling, Arthur gleefully accepted Garfield’s offer, declaring that “the office of the Vice-President is a greater honor than I ever dreamed of attaining.”

On Election Day Garfield and Arthur beat the Democrats Winfield S. Hancock and William H. English in the popular vote by less than 0.01% but dominated the Electoral College with 214 votes to 155 votes. After the election, Arthur, who remained firmly in the Stalwart camp, shared a mutual animosity with President Garfield, with whom he openly broke. Seemingly destined to become a powerless and obscure figure in the Garfield Administration, Arthur’s career suddenly changed forever when a deranged Stalwart office-seeker named Charles Guiteau shot the President, claiming he wanted to see Arthur in the White House instead.

Ascending to the Presidency on the heels of James A. Garfield’s assassination, Arthur, a highly unpopular vice president, quickly and eagerly distanced himself from his former political associates, determining to run his administration as he pleased. As few men in public life could match his administrative skills, no President has ever been better equipped to manage a federal bureaucracy than Chester A. Arthur. From the beginning of his presidency, Arthur clearly demonstrated that no one controlled him by severing his ties with his old Stalwart cronies and refusing to fully embrace the “reformer” image of his predecessor. Instead, Arthur chose to do exactly what Arthur believed he should do, regardless of political repercussions. This is critical! Although I may not have agreed with Chester A. Arthur on every issue, his dedication to his scruples will continue to set an example for our future Presidents. This country desperately needs more leaders of principle who, like Arthur, make decisions based on their inherent belief systems—preferably conservative belief systems that correspond with the Founding Fathers’ vision for this nation.

As President, Chester A. Arthur accomplished many important domestic tasks that we so often overlook:

 

Ø  To the great dismay of his former Stalwart pals, he actively championed civil service reform and signed the Pendleton Act, which attempted to put an end to patronage and cronyism by banning salary kickbacks and federal appointments among the states and implementing merit exams by which new employees could advance.

 

Ø  Although Congress defied him, Arthur bucked his own party by appointing a special tariff commission that called for a 20 to 25 percent tariff reduction.

 

Ø  He vetoed the notorious $18,000,000 “pork barrel” Rivers and Harbors Act of 1882 and the proposed Chinese Exclusion Act, both of which he deemed highly unreasonable; unfortunately, Congress overran the former veto, and Arthur later signed the latter act when Congress lowered the duration to ten years.

 

Ø   Known as the “Father of the Steel Navy,” Arthur took the crucial first steps in constructing a modern, post-Civil War navy.

Chester A. Arthur frequently bucked his own party (perhaps more than any other president), refusing to trouble himself with partisan politics. In fact, Arthur singlehandedly demonstrated that he worked outside and above not only factions within the relatively new Republican Party but even the GOP itself. If any president may truly be called a maverick, Chester A. Arthur may; he continually pushed aside his own political interests in order to do what he believed to be right. Unfortunately, most modern presidents lack this dedication to principle, instead opting to work the political machine in an attempt to score high approval ratings. On the other hand, Arthur, no stranger to disapproval, realized that popularity didn’t matter in the long run. However, despite his fiercely independent presidency, Arthur still managed to become one of the most admired presidents of all time. Publisher Alexander K. McClure once said of Arthur, “No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted, and no one ever retired … more generally respected.” Even author Mark Twain, despite his deeply cynical view of politicians, famously declared, “It would be hard indeed to better President Arthur’s administration.”

From the beginning of his presidency Chester A. Arthur knew that he was dying of the dreaded Bright’s Disease, a then-fatal kidney disorder, but he never told anyone. Instead, he often threw elaborate parties at the White House, inviting friends, family, and the Washington elite to his home for their enjoyment. Arthur understood that the last precious years of his life would matter the most, so he chose to work hard and play hard. When it came down to it, President Arthur realized that his choices, not his image, would affect the lives of the American people for years to come. Fortunately for him, his image needed no improvement, and few presidents before or after him could claim a similar dedication to making choices so firmly based on personal conviction rather than political expedience.

As Republicans, we so often name Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan as the three icons and symbolic standard-bearers of our party, and we do so for good reason. However, I suggest we adopt a fourth ideal leader into the legendary fold: Chester A. Arthur. His dedication to making wise, principled choices should serve as a model for all future presidents.

So what do you say? Let’s elect the next Arthur in 2012—namely Sarah Palin. But that topic will have to wait for a future article…

 

Palin/Jindal ‘12

 

REFERENCES

“Chester A. Arthur.” American Eras, Volume 8: Development of the Industrial United States, 1878-1899. Gale Research, 1997. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC

“Chester A. Arthur.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ca21.html

“Chester Alan Arthur.” Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Societies, 1928-1936. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC

“Chester Alan Arthur.” http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/arthur/essays/biography

 

Needless to say, as a devout “McCainiac” and “Palinite,” I was bummed when Barack Obama’s historic ascension to the White House finally came to fruition. I was even more bummed, however, when the recent attacks on Sarah Palin started pouring in. Apparently a number of John McCain’s aides, in a quintessential round of the “blame game,” decided to leap off the McCain/Palin bandwagon and hop aboard…well…McCain’s slowly sinking ship. I suppose they’d like to console themselves by blaming the leak in the hull on the proverbial iceberg (a certain Alaskan governor). Unfortunately, as if Governor Palin hasn’t been attacked enough since September, the smears have run rampant ever since.

Not surprisingly, I’ve already begun to look ahead towards 2012 in hopes that Sarah and Mitt will join forces to revitalize the struggling GOP and bring real change to Washington. However, as much as I hate to admit it, I find this scenario unlikely, so I’ve settled for a comparable second choice in a Sarah Palin/Bobby Jindal ticket. Why do I want to see these two impressive conservative leaders at the helm? Well, hopefully this article will explain my reasoning.

Based on my observations throughout the past few months, I have come to realize that the battered Republican Party has some serious soul searching to do. Why? Because dissention has damaged the GOP, leaving it fragmented and weak. Even though the numbers show that McCain received about the same amount of Republican votes as George Bush did in 2004, tension clearly exists within the defeated party. I attribute some of this tension to the post-loss comedown, but I believe most of it comes from the uncertainty currently plaguing the GOP. To whom will Republicans now look as the leader of their party? Will the search for the next Reagan prove fruitless?

Although the GOP is comprised of an extremely diverse lot, I believe that three major factions have pushed to the forefront of the party. The conservative men and women of the nation constitute the first group; these are the “Joe the Plumbers” of the country who “cling so bitterly” to their God and their guns. The second bunch is composed of those elitists who pine for “real” leadership skills and would rather put conservative values on the back burner. The members of the third crowd, a veritable motley crew of dissidents, compete with each other in a quest for personal gain (McCain’s Palin-bashing aides fit nicely into this category). These three factions must reconcile their differences and come together in order to strengthen the Republican base in America. Yes, it’s a daunting task but not an impossible one. In 2012 one or more of these groups will have to compromise and choose to support one presidential ticket; I would urgently advise them to choose a candidate with strong values, solid character, and an understanding of the life of the average American, not a candidate who simply possesses an impressive résumé.

As for me, I hope to see Sarah running for President in 2012, and unless something convinces me otherwise (and it might), she’ll get my vote. However, because Governor Palin has become so controversial, it’s only fair to write an article detailing the reasons for my ardent support. So here goes…

A Defense

I must begin by saying that all of the deeply disgusting and disturbing attacks directed towards Sarah Palin lack both credibility and truth. Despite this, the attacks continue; in fact, the mean-spirited criticism heaped upon Governor Palin has proven surprisingly diverse and consistent. People have questioned her intelligence (she does say “You betcha,” after all) and her experience. They’ve spread severely spiteful rumors about her family. They’ve insulted her lifestyle and misconstrued her obviously conservative values. Some of her former allies have recently turned on her and blamed her for John McCain’s loss. Heck, she’s the only person I know who’s been assaulted for being good-looking. Well, enough is enough; it’s time to put these nasty attacks to bed.

 Attack #1: “She’s a Woman”

 Yes, the age-old gender war continues, unfortunately. Of course, this argument loses all credibility coming from folks on the left, seeing as they eagerly embraced Hillary Clinton. You see, liberals don’t want to empower women in general—they want to empower women who share their beliefs. Notwithstanding the fact that we all demonstrate similar hypocrisy, this argument still lacks any merit whatsoever.

I realize that some Christians simply squirm at the prospect of a female President, but I believe their fears are groundless. In studying this oft-delicate issue, I have yet to find a Bible verse that denounces the participation of women in political leadership roles. All of the verses that I have found that restrict a woman’s role in a leadership capacity relate to family and the church, and the church situations were specifically addressing certain problems in a few distinct churches. I strongly believe that God can and does use female leaders to accomplish great things—just think of women like Margaret Thatcher. Who are we to say that women like her who feel led to politics are wrong? Couldn't God call Sarah Palin to further His Kingdom in the realm of politics as well? Some skeptics have cited Isaiah 3:12 as revealing God’s disapproval of women leaders, but their arguments simply fall flat. According to The Bible Knowledge Commentary by the faculty of Dallas Seminary, the reference to "women" in Isaiah 3:12 "may mean that wives were influencing their husbands who were rulers, or that the male leaders lacked vigor." The passage does not necessarily mean that women were actually ruling. Additionally, even if women were ruling directly over Israel, there is no correlation between hard times in government and female leaders. There are good leaders, and there are bad leaders. Not all men are good leaders (obviously). Similarly, though there have certainly been corrupt female leaders, not all women are bad leaders. Merely broad brushing all women as poor leaders by citing this one verse is simply generalizing.

Women like Sarah Palin have proven their competence as leaders, and I honestly see no reason to believe that Sarah would make an inept President just because of her sex.

Attack #2: “She’s Too Belligerent”

And you’re saying that other politicians aren’t? Besides, Sarah has actually been quite docile in comparison to Barack Obama, for example, who even attacked John McCain for not using e-mail. It turns out John McCain can’t use a keyboard because of his torture injuries. Oops!

Think about it: Governor Palin hasn’t assaulted her opponents in such a sickening manner because she sticks to the truth and the issues that matter, even though she might occasionally seem harsh.

Shortly before finishing this article, I read a report on www.eastandard.net claiming, “the US Secret Service has blamed Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin for the death threats against president-elect Barack Obama.” Incredible, huh? I guess people just don’t realize that Sarah has no control over the psychotic white supremacists who are actually responsible.

Attack #3: “She Relies Too Much on Her Husband Todd”

Sarah Palin does not permit her husband to perform any strictly governor-related duties! Yes, he has access to her office. Yes, he supports her at work and helps her stay organized. Yes, he makes calls and takes calls. Governor Palin is a busy woman for goodness’ sake! Her husband has the right to help her out every now and then! Besides, this “overly-helpful spouse” issue has never been a problem before, so what’s the big deal now? Well, as we can deduce by their non-stop quest to destroy her, the left clearly fears Sarah and her conservative values (and SNL needs someone to make fun of), so they resort to ludicrous jabs like this in an attempt to bring her down. Iconic First Ladies like Eleanor Roosevelt, Nancy Reagan, and Hillary Clinton were all very involved in their husbands’ lives and administrations, but no one slams them, of course.

Attack #4: “She’s Unintelligent”

Oh, puh-lease! I marvel that I even have to address this! Nevertheless, many of Governor Palin’s enemies claim she is an unintelligent backwoods bimbo who thinks that Africa is only a single country. Claims like these are simply not credible when you consider the facts. Sarah graduated from the University of Idaho, where she majored in Journalism and minored in Political Science. Yes, she transferred to four different schools before graduating, but she never transferred on account of poor grades. In fact, she made straight A’s at Hawaii Pacific College. Besides, she worked her way through college, so she moved based on job opportunities.

Although Sarah Palin has never taken an actual “intelligence quotient” test, we can safely assume that her IQ is at least 111, the average minimum for college graduates. In addition, most governors have an IQ of at least 120; various IQ websites estimate a 127. This number is considerably greater than the proposed score of 110 attributed to Governor Palin by some of her critics. Conversely, some of those incessantly annoying “IQ test” web sites claim that Joe Biden has an IQ of 146, much higher than many of the estimated scores of some of the most influential leaders in history, including John Adams (137) and Thomas Jefferson (138). If Senator Biden, one of the most gaffe-prone politicians I’ve ever seen, has an IQ higher than Thomas Jefferson, I’d prefer the lower IQ. Besides, education and IQ aren’t everything. Abraham Lincoln had an estimated IQ of 128 and George Washington only scored an estimated 118 points! Benjamin Franklin, on the other hand, possessed an estimated IQ of 160 even though he had an “official” school education of only one year! Education and IQ score clearly have no direct effect on leadership abilities!

Attack #5: “She’s Inexperienced”

As Michael Medved says, experience doesn’t matter—a good record does! Sure, Sarah Palin may not possess much foreign policy experience (and she knows it), but in the recent presidential race, with someone like John McCain at the top of the ticket, she didn’t need any. On the other hand, when it comes to bipartisan ethics reform and spending cuts, Governor Palin stands out. Additionally, because of her experience as chair of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) and Todd Palin’s status as an oil field production manager on Alaska’s North Slope, Sarah Palin is one of the most energy-savvy leaders in the nation.

In a way John McCain’s loss might actually help Sarah Palin’s future. Now that she doesn’t have the duties of the Vice President hanging over her head, she has plenty of time to focus on improving her already impressive record of accomplishment and putting the experience question behind her before the presidential election of 2012.

Attack #6: “She Caused John McCain to Lose the Election”

Of all the stupid accusations…

Interestingly, most of the people making this claim are either ardent Democrats or Republicans who see Sarah as a threat to their personal goals for 2012. Then again, many people consider Governor Palin a threat these days, and that’s a good thing!

Most political analysts will agree that the economic crisis, not Sarah Palin’s presence on the Republican ticket, really sealed the deal for Barack Obama and ultimately doomed John McCain’s campaign. Polling by Rasmussen Reports indicates that 80% of professing Republicans believed that Sarah Palin helped John McCain, and 91% of Republicans viewed Palin favorably! Additionally, according to Rasmussen, 64% of Republicans would choose Sarah as the GOP nominee for President in 2012.

However, driven by fear, many of John McCain’s aides have turned on Governor Palin and made several outlandish claims about her. They say she spent over $150,000 in wardrobe purchases and couldn’t name the countries of NAFTA, among other doubtful allegations. Apparently they forgot that the Republican National Committee bought the clothes, all of which will be donated to charity, for Governor Palin and her family. According to Sarah, comments about NAFTA were taken out of context. Steve Biegun, a Palin aide, called the attacks "appalling." Personally, I think these Palin-bashing aides just want to strike at Governor Palin early and proactively protect their own interests.

The Importance of Values

Based on my observations of Republican opinions concerning the presidential elections of 2012, most analysts appear to be advocating a return to the core values of the GOP. I could not agree more! Republicans need a candidate who champions small government (with an emphasis on self-government), fiscal conservatism, First Amendment rights, the right to bear arms, and the right to life for the unborn. Sarah advocates all of these. You see, Governor Palin makes decisions based on her inherent value system, not on expedience or self-interest. Additionally, she strikes a chord with the average working citizens of America like no other. Within two short months, she has become the most prominent female politician in America, eclipsing even Hillary Clinton! Who knew? Sarah clearly has a gift for connecting with everyday Americans, an asset that will prove crucial in 2012. The GOP needs a unifier; Republicans need a leader to whom they can relate. Sarah has proven that she can bring people together and relate to voters on a personal level. This is critical!

Ultimately, in order to win in 2012, the Republican Party needs to nominate a candidate who represents the antithesis of the liberal Democrats of the Obama administration yet doesn’t estrange any major factions of the Republican Party. Sarah Palin is one such candidate, and to turn on her now would be foolish, to say the least.

I realize that everyone deems different convictions and values as important. Consequently, I’m not trying to convince you to support Sarah Palin, let alone vote for her in 2012. I simply want to provide you with some of the reasons why I support her (and believe others should) and persuade you (if you dislike her yourself) to possibly look at her with a different attitude. That said, I’m out. God bless Sarah Palin, and God bless America!

 

Palin/Jindal ‘12