Today we will be discussing the practice of political posturing.  Our working definition for this term will be taking a position as a public office holder that is based upon posturing for a particular constituency of voters that may or may not have anything to do with substance.

If you need examples, the first two that come to mind are the governors of Alaska and South Carolina.  Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) has “refused” nearly one third of the $931 million in federal stimulus money being offered, claiming it is not in her state’s best interests to accept the money no matter how much it might help people who really need that help now – - extending unemployment benefits, for example, to help people who have no job and have run out of benefits entitlement.

Mark Sanford (R-South Carolina) has refused to accept a big chunk of the $2.8 billion in federal stimulus funds allocated for his state on the grounds it will strap future generations of South Carolinians with ongoing obligations.  The position seems to ignore the needs of the current generation, and the fact the federal funds are his constituents’ tax dollars that could be at work in their own state.  He’s even taken to the air waves with commercials to justify his actions.

People continue to lose their homes to foreclosure today.  More than 5 million people have lost their jobs since the beginning of 2008.  Unemployment benefits have run out or are about to run out for many of those people.  The suffering is happening to people today.

How can any public official look in the eye any person who has lost their home this month, or lost their job last year, or whose unemployment benefits have run out, and tell them that he’s just trying to protect people who might be suffering two or three years from now?  How do you justify that?

To compound the matters, if we look at this picture from an even higher altitude, and consider the presidential election four years from now, their position becomes even more untenable.

Each of these governors wants some national attention, as each has aspirations for 2012.  Principle may seem a good thing to some, but with the Republican party in such disarray at the moment, and held in such low regard by voters, it will get in the way of those aspirations.  It might sound good now, but the better way to garner attention is by being a good governor and running a good state.

Falling into disfavor with your own state’s voters is no way to look good on the national stage.  Turning down money from the federal government to help people who need it now, and who paid that money into the federal government in the first place, isn’t going to cull much favor.

The corners each has painted themselves into will get pretty lonely pretty quickly.  Such high profile, nationally reported posturing will not serve them well very shortly, and they’ll likely cave in to the cash.  Sure, they’ll have gotten some mileage out of it, but when it comes down to the wire, there will be some new posturing, and fancy dancing, to justify their change of heart when it comes.

Their hollow posturing will give them the Republican “cred” down the road when the pace for 2012’s election quickens, certainly.  That’s plenty of time, too, for memories to fade and suffering to pass.  And, in the final analysis, it will be the political tale told by idiots, all sound and fury, signifying nothing but hollow posturing.

That’s politics today – and for many tomorrows.  Ain’t it great?