Campaigning Irrelevantly

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL of a red state, running for reelection, assures us that she is a conservative, a Christian, pro life, gun packing mother, while images of a happy domestic life, home, husband, and children, float blissfully in the background across the flat screen. She mentions that seven generations of her family have lived in the state. Impressive though these credentials seem, the question of whether they in any way can be considered evidence of competence is reasonable and relevant. The primary job of any attorney general, unless I'm mistaken, is to represent the legal interests of the jurisdiction which the office encompasses. An attorney general's religious beliefs seem irrelevant if only by virtue of the fact that state offices are political and legal in nature, not religious. A more important credential might be the fact that she graduated from an accredited law school, and was admitted to the bar association, where she remains a member in good standing. That would seem relevant. Who's to say whether a Jewish or Islamic or a Christian or an agnostic law school graduate would make the better A.G.? Similarly, no studies with which I am familiar have ever been conducted demonstrating conclusively whether people with conservative, moderate, or progressive political beliefs are better at serving as attorneys general. With regard to her alleged "pro life" viewpoint, it could rather safely be concluded that all people are "pro life", in the sense that they favor their own continued existence, and that of others, prefer life to death, tend to prefer healthy child birth over abortion, and even if they happen to support a woman's right to choose her own reproductive fate, do not necessarily support the act of aborting an unborn fetus. There is no evidence which indicates that those who believe the government should outlaw abortion serve more capably in state offices of any sort. With regard to carrying guns, it may well be that people who do so are better attorneys - they certainly would seem to have a tangible basis for being more confident ones - but, once again, nobody has ever proven that carrying a gun better qualifies anyone for public service. If being a mother enhances a person's competence for public service or service to others of any sort, we should all get pregnant. The fact that one's ancestors lived in the same state that you do would not appear to be of any help in improving one's qualifications for holding office either. So, in what way does this advertisement demonstrate good work? In no way whatever, it appears. The lady conspicuously made no mention of her work in her office as attorney general heretofore, which seems strange, because prior performance is ostensibly a better indicator of probable future performance on the job than religious beliefs, political beliefs, motherhood, family ancestry, or possession of firearms. Perhaps we will learn more from her next commercial message, if there is one. We can only hope.