Politics - Miss California

I admit that I don't watch the Miss America pageant. I perhaps have caught moments of it over the last 10 years, but I do not sit down to watch it. It's not my thing. Maybe there are still lingering effects from my childhood when I did watch it and miss West Virginia never made it past the first round. Apparently I missed something this year. One of the judges had the audacity to ask Miss California about her views on gay marriage. Perhaps it was an innocent question, but this is Hollywood type stuff we are talking about. This type of production demands that the participant answer in a certain way, but Miss California chose to do something truly astonishing. She told the truth.

I tend to stay away from the issue of gay rights in general. I am not sure where to draw the line on civil unions and marriage. Many people on both sides of the issue want to make it simple, but it is actually fairly complicated. However, this media buzz is not about gay rights. It is about politics versus honesty. When the judge asked a question on which the nation is pretty split in opinion, there should be no correct answer. I hope that the judge asked the question to simply judge how well the contest controlled herself and how well she articulated her answer. I doubt that was the case, but perhaps it was. The contestant, in this instance, had one great choice, another that would have sufficed, and one that was unacceptable. She chose the unacceptable option. The best option would have been something like:

"I completely respect all gay individuals and appreciate the fact that they have chosen to live the lifestyle that makes them happy. I think we should embrace them into our society and not shun them for a different lifestyle simply because we do not understand it. I support initiatives that enable gay partners to have privileges that any two people who love each other should have, such as hospital visitation rights. Marriage is a very special union. Americans are divided over the issue and many have very strong emotions and opinions on the topic. If I were so fortunate to win the title of Miss America, I would not deem it appropriate to use my position as a tool to promote my own personal opinion as some sort of agenda".

That answer is basically a touchy feely dodge. That's what differentiates a good politician from a bad one. She gave a clear, concise answer. That's not what was wanted. She probably could have skated by with an answer in total support of gay marriage given the liberal environment, but religious conservatives may have attacked her for it just as the liberals have. The point is that, in politics, the trick is not to align with anyone, not to offend anyone. Vague is good, honesty is bad.

That is not what I want in a politician or friend, a shifting individual who can not be trusted on his word because he refuses to definitively lie down his word. But, that's what we get because that's what we demand. The only thing that could change this in America is a change in the way we view politicians. Generally, if somebody gives a vague answer our human nature tells us that they agree with us, probably because we think our position is the most sensible. Next time you hear a vague answer assume the person disagrees with you and, more than that, he is too cowardly to admit that he does. If everyone did that there would be no such thing as the slick, slimy politician that we have come to accept as normal and natural.

Miss America is a political position in many ways. Miss California deserved to lose, because under the rules we have set forth, she was a poor politician. Instead of dodging the question, she looked it square in the eye and answered it. That type of personal is a political loser in our world. Sorry Miss California.