At present, the talk of judgment, especially of the political kind, is very loud in the American public sphere. Astonishingly, it is startlingly absent in the political decisions made by those very same people who seem to value judgment as a desirable personal trait.

The reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 clearly indicated that political sensibility had suffered a heart attack in America. His abysmal management of the two wars he launched and the current state of economy testify to the lack of prudence in the American people's decision to reelect him. In the past few days an avalanche of political decisions, made especially by Republicans, suggests that good judgment was now on life support.

What is political judgment anyway? I think it is an innate capacity to make good political choices. It is the ability to make decisions which are informed not just by existing political circumstances but also by a grasp of what is the public good. It is also a reflection of an ability to understand the nuances involved and display the tact and diplomacy necessary to ensure that good decisions are acted upon. Political judgment is the exercise of prudence and wisdom in politics at the expense of partisanship and selfishness. It is the privileging of long-term interests and the good of the largest number.

In short all the qualities that define political judgment are in essence antithetical to what we mean by the term "maverick."

Dictionaries define maverick as "An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother," sort of like Sarah Palin who sounds like one who has been separated from her mother ship, or "a dissenter". So a maverick is one who is either lost or one who breaks away from a group and is eventually lost. Neither is an indicator of good judgment or prudence.

John McCain insists that he is a maverick, and he and Palin are a team of mavericks. Unless they are asserting that the entire Republican Party has lost its marbles, has somehow gone brain dead, there is no virtue in claiming that being a maverick is a good thing. I think they are doing just that. Every time the McCain-Palin ticket insists that they should be elected because they are a pair of mavericks, they are saying that the Republican Party en masse has lost its capacity to make good political judgments and since they are not like the rest of the Republicans, they are a good bet.

McCain has demonstrated in my opinion, that maverick or no maverick, he lacks political judgment. Here are a few examples. In 2000, he called Christian conservative leaders as "agents of intolerance" and "evil influence on the Republican Party." Not very prudent given the fact that social conservatives form the backbone of the Republican Party.

His decision to support the war in Iraq, and his continued support for the Bush foreign policy suggests that when it comes to national security, McCain is no different from Bush. He is not a maverick on national security and therefore as devoid of political judgment as the Bush administration.

In recent weeks he has shown that far from good judgment, the man may not even be intellectually stable. His decision to suspend his campaign to campaign for a 700 billion dollar handout for the Wall Street showed that even his political gimmicks are silly.

His statement that "the fundamentals of the American Economy are strong" even as everything around him was coming down, so hard that he had to suspend his campaign to address the disasters in the "fundamentally sound" US economy; defines McCain – a man completely out of touch with reality.

Will it be good judgment to vote for a man who understands so little about the economy, when the economy is in doldrums?

Finally, his choice to put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from American Presidency says it all. Sarah Palin is so awfully challenged in the attic, that if she does not fall flat on her face, it is for Republicans a moment for celebration. Peggy Noonan, a strong Palin supporter, gushed in the Wall Street Journal about Palin's performance in the Vice Presidential debate, "She is not a person of thought but of action." Exactly; action without thought - that is what we will get if we put McCain and Palin in the White House.

Look around you, see what eight years of governance without judgment have done to America. Do you have the good judgment to vote for change?

(Photo: Tom LeGro via flickr under a Creative Commons license)

Well, all I can say to that is that stated values have borne little resmeblance to actions in the GOP.

It is not necessary to endorse the liberal values- since you said they have destroyed the family- I certainly didn't expect that- but I wonder what you think liberal means in america.
I have a suspicion you equate it to simple sexuality.
It definitely is not.

I'm a liberal, and a feminist- and I can say with strength of conviction that I was a strong moral compass and source of support for my own family. (They have passed away.)
So, to say it is a gateway to sin- makes me believe that you have a somewhat different take on it-

The Neocons platform is a simple one- financial and military support of the state of Israel. I'm not sure exactly what Muslim value that might encompass.

I've sent too many family members off to die in wars started and waged by the GOP to agree with the 'family values'. Sounds good as a soundbite- Isn't lived up to in reality.

>> I certainly didn't expect that- but I wonder what you think liberal means in america.
>> So, to say it is a gateway to sin- makes me believe that you have a somewhat different take on it-
>> The Neocons platform is a simple one- financial and military support of the state of Israel. I'm not sure exactly what Muslim value that might encompass.
>> I've sent too many family members off to die in wars started and waged by the GOP to agree with the 'family values'. Sounds good as a soundbite- Isn't lived up to in reality.

I don't believe that liberal values are a gateway to sin or conservative values are a gateway to fascism. I say that the view of liberalism is one of moral permissiveness (aka as pro-regressive by our friends). A liberal government can be considered one that endorses/permits the practice of values that don't gel with majority of Muslims.

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the benefit of liberal values. I'm only pointing out that the perception is one of moral permissiveness. DrM put me onto Sheikh Hosains site. He has a lot of support despite his faulty arguments. His prime criticism of feminism has been that it has changed the institution of family and the role/status of women. Those types of perceptions are rife, no matter how much we disagree with them.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you about what a liberal value or a conservative value is, and I'm not debating either. I'm saying that Muslim people generally endorse and promote conservative values. If I had to put my money on it and both candidates were Muslim, I believe the outcome of the Muslim communities vote would be republican.

@Ghulam: let's also keep in mind that liberal governments are also the ones most likely to let Muslims live and practice generally the way we want. Conservative governments are typically the ones which want to mold the society to conform to its vision of correct life. The very moral permissiveness of liberals is what lets morally convervative Muslims exist in the 20th century West when before they did not or were assimilated when the culture was much less liberal such as in the 1930s and the Lebanese and Yemenis in the Rust Belt.

I read the article from Gerardo Del Guercio. It's a good article and I don't disagree with it's core synopsis. However it's doesn't address the power struggle at the top of America's powerful elite. Maybe Samuel Huntington is a racist. It's just one source of course, but unfortunately the powerful elite listen to social scientist like him. I read books from every source that I can get my hands on, bad or good.

Most rural Americans listen to people like Huntington. Remember America is about 65 percent rural, 70 percent Anglo-Saxon (generic sociology term) in a nation of 300 million. Most Americans don't live in multi culture cities where several languages are spoken. Most Americans can only speak one language. Americans live in isolated mindset of America is the only place on earth, that is civilized and has modernization at the highest level. Yes' it's not true, but that's the thinking of most Americans.

The point here is not about race. It's about an ideology that perpetuates psychoanalysis. A system of manipulation and mind control of the masses through venues of the media, our institutions of higher learning and intimidation from our government. Evangelical ideology is a means of mind control and to insure the neocons stay in power, it's right wing politics at it's core. Aristocracy is the legacy of Anglo-Saxons in America. Evangelical ideology from the top is the tool used to promote and control, jingle, jangle puppeteer Blacks and good old boy Americans, Joe Six Packs. The dilemma now is how do we control these damn Latinos. They don't assimilate, their religion is Catholic. They have ass backward culture. They have to many children. We must get a hold of this situation. Every other ethnic group in the history of America' immigration policy, has assimilated to Anglo-Saxon core values, accept two groups, the Latinos and Muslims. After controlling the Latinos, the next group to control in America is Muslims. Muslims until recently too a lessor degree have not been much of a problem because the previous generation of Muslim groups assimilated (immigrant Muslims). Now they have home grown Muslims (American Muslims) and a new generation of Muslim immigrants to consider who may not assimilate as much.

The Latinos play a tremendous part in our economic structure and keep Capitalism strong and alive in America. American Muslims are slowly defining a more separate identity with generations that have grown with Islam. They can't afford to have to many people in America accept Islam. That's why they use scare tactics to prevent the spread. They advocate a resurgence of Christian beliefs, inundate the media with Christians as being the real Americans. Those who choose a belief contrary to Christianity beliefs, maybe he's not really an American. The politicians will say Muslims are peace loving, law abiding citizens one day and the next day say that Islam advocates an ideology of violence and terrorist activity. It's mind manipulation at it's best. Keep the people confused. Perpetuate a system of hatred and anger.

I'm not against Anglo-Saxon culture, because it's part of my culture, it's who I am. I was born and breed in this country. I'm against angry Evangelical, Anglo-Saxon manipulation. McCain and Palin are part of this vicious cycle of mind manipulators. They represent a fanatical group, quasi-Christian fanatics. Their sole purpose is to remain dominate and deplete ideas of multicultural, power sharing ideas at the leadership level (policies makers, the President). Yes, the commoner is allowed to speak many languages, come from various parts of the world and enjoy the freedom of practicing their culture within limits. The neocons will never give up or share control of this country. That's the point here.

Liberalism as moral permissiveness.
I have a strong feeling that permissiveness is perceived in the realm of sexuality.

For me, liberalism(in America) has been concern for social welfare of the poor- and an inclination to lean to the forgiveness side of any situation.

Can you show me where these are not Islamic principles?

"His prime criticism of feminism has been that it has changed the institution of family and the role/status of women."

In my microcosm of my own home, I balance the checkbook monitor the moeny, pay the bills, contribute to the income, and make the major analysis of our finances, including decisions of how to direct our expenditures. After many disastrous decisions on the part of my husband- I just quietly took over because I'm much better at it. The family benefits, and the health of the family is paramount.

Why is it always a male who makes these charges?

And maybe the status of women needed some change- at least from the woman's perspective.


If the men were protecting, and supporting, the women and families- and mostly respecting them as equal in intelligence- and providing an atmosphere where women felt safe and free- yes free- to express themselves- women wouldn't feel any need to create their own peaceful environments to raise their children in.

Nowhere in the Qur'an does it command that women be a surrogate slave class- nor are we scapegoats of society as a whole-

Feminism is a reaction against what I call masculinism (patriarchal oppressive control)

Last I checked, oppression is also against Islam.

If we women felt really valued- we wouldn't have to find ways to validate our own worth-
And if you fellows were doing your job- we would find that worth in a mutually beneficial family dynamic.

I cannot think of a Muslim country to emgirate to- where might that be?
I think if there were such a country- Muslims of every stripe would flock there-
and then we could have those liberal and conservative Muslim candidates-
(and I would likely vote liberal, and cancel out your conservative vote) :)

Salim- I think if you used the term evangelical right- people would understand what you are referring to.
The evangelical right, like the neocons- came into political being during the Reagan years- only 30 years ago.
Most white people don't consider themselves Anglo-Saxon- because that is not their heritage.
Anglo-Saxon is a 19th century term- it is like calling all Muslims Arabs.

Ghulam- we have a real bloodbath going on politically here right now- and it is the GOP doing the shooting and punching-
We had Palin whipping the crowd into a murderous frenzy all last week- saying Obama is 'palling around with terrorists'.
The crowd screamed hysterically- "TERRORIST! TREASON! TRAITOR!"
"NI**ER! and most terrifying of all,"KILL HIM!!!!"

They repeatedly used Obama's middle name,Hussein, to frighten the people, call him a muslim as if that were a terrible thing-

I don't think any sane Muslim in America is going to overlook such hatemongering directed actively against them- to vote for those conservative social values.

<<We had Palin whipping the crowd into a murderous frenzy all last week- saying Obama is 'palling around with terrorists'.
The crowd screamed hysterically- "TERRORIST! TREASON! TRAITOR!"
"NI**ER! and most terrifying of all,"KILL HIM!!!!">>

Those statements along, are enough of a reason why a person should not vote for McCain and Palin. Lunatic fanatics calling on the public to kill. If the Muslims were to speak in this manner, we would be labeled terrorist.

What a terrible example for America. Villainous, vindictive, controlling fanatics.

It's even more alarming to view-
the old Repubublican values. less government intervention, ,opre personal freedom(for Ghulam- that is the staunchest of the bedrock GOP postions) were thrown out with The Patriot Act-
and being against abortion and the murder of babies- whether or not you agree with it- doesn't justify being Pro-War and the killing of already extant brown babies in Muslim countries. (According to the Lancet Project, the world reknown and authoritative group of doctors who track such things) there were 600,000 children and babies under 5 who died as a direct result(excluding normal statistics) of the 13 years of sanctions against Iraq- before the war even started.

And the Grand Old Party has already stated unconditional and unquestioning support of Israel- according to Sarah Palin- in an interview with Charles Gibson (her first) she "Would not second guess Israel's right to defend itself" .
Israel interpreted a follow up assurance form the McPalin camp of unconditional support militarily- to mean free reign.
The next week they issued a statement that, depending upon who would win- they fully intend to pre-emptively strike Iran with nuclear force.

A week later, America sent a handsome anti-missile alert system to Israel.

They're geared up and ready to go- Into Iran, Into Afghanistan- Into Waziristan- Into Pakistan.

India -Israel has also gotten a substantial weaponry package.

So, yes- I have some criticism for the Republican party- but it is borne of a real fear and terror of the damage they have and will assuredly inflict-

And yes, Salim- those crowds were the anglo-saxon rural voters you have been speaking of-

oookay. First we had one mindless rambler aka Mrs.A. On and on and on she goes on about herself. Now we have another classic case. Salim. On and on and on he goes on about neocon lunatics, rednecks and what have you. Lord help us now.

>> Ghulam- we have a real bloodbath going on politically here right now- and it is the GOP doing the shooting and punching-
We had Palin whipping the crowd into a murderous frenzy all last week- saying Obama is 'palling around with terrorists'.
The crowd screamed hysterically- "TERRORIST! TREASON! TRAITOR!"

Yes. It sounds terrifying. But its not the point I made. Muslims have similar "Ummah" fervour. The identity that we use to abuse others is our Islamic identity as opposed to Republican nationalist identity. I think that generally Muslims share alot of common values with Republicans (good and bad), and the support for Obama is driven by anti-war sentiment. At the core, the general communities political values don't differ much from the Republican supporters base. Its ironic is all I'm saying.

That conference sounds terrifying, but why was something that sensational not broadcast and reported on? I mean, a few guys yelling takbeers or dressed in turbans at an Obama rally would have been a media circus.

"but why was something that sensational not broadcast and reported on?"

It wasn't a conference Ghulam- it's been a series of rallies and stump speeches, and it happened on many occasions, and was one of the sunjects of the last presidential debates last night and you cannot turn on the television without hearing about it- I am watchign John McCain on David leterman this very minute and it is being discussed.

You can't swing a dead cat here without running into the subject.
You can google any subject matter= palin- terrorist, ayers, kill him, obama,mccain, negative campaigning- take your pick- you can go to youtube and do the same thing- you can findthousands of words written on hundreds of blogs-

Since you declined to comment or define what you consdier liberal values-
maybe you could elaborate on what you imagine Republican values to be.
I am not sure you really know.
Muslims are not only voting for Obama because of his anti-war stance- which I haven't heard mentioned in many weeks-

What is it you think Republican values are?
And, please- not family values as both parties claim that.

>> I am watchign John McCain on David leterman this very minute and it is being discussed.

I don't watch American TV. But what's ironic is that international media, which is very supportive of Obama, ignores these things. Probably because media is very supportive of the United States itself.

>> define what you consdier liberal values

Why do I have to state this? Liberal ~ pro-choice. Less government powers. More governmental control over individual states. More individual rights. General opposition to the death sentence. Less involvement of religion in governance.

>> What is it you think Republican values are?

Republican ~ pro-life/anti-abortion. More governmental powers. Individual rights weighed in relation to loyalty to the State. More state powers. More nationalistic and pro-religion.

I didn't answer the questions because I assumed the distinctions between the central tenets of the two parties are clear.

Now you tell me what you think liberal/conservative values are in the context of the American voter? And what's driving the choices for Muslims and the average American voter? I'm keen to know how you think the American voting public distinguishes between the parties.

>> Muslims are not only voting for Obama because of his anti-war stance- which I haven't heard mentioned in many weeks

I disagree with you. I think the level of political participation amongst the Muslim community is based on a few basic factors. And a major factor is the opportunity to influence the war and their freedom to participate in the society without the baggage of that war.