A Boston-area Republican strategist explains in the Boston Globe why he thinks McCain would be a better president than Obama. His arguments are, IMO, silly, and a denial of reality. I just want to look at some of his language (emphasis added):

John McCain is a gambler and knows that just because the odds are against him doesn’t mean he can’t win. Maybe an ace will fall from his sleeve. …

…McCain wasn’t successful in the bailout crisis either, but he’s proven that he can forge bipartisan alliances and persevere even when mocked by insolent bystanders. More than any other senator, he has proven that he’s not afraid to take risks for his country.

At least the strategist didn’t once use the word “maverick.” However, I don’t see any “bipartisan alliances” that McCain himself forged lately, and whatever risks he took these past few days were for his political career, not his country.

I say being unafraid is greatly overrated. Being unafraid is not the same thing as being courageous. Courage is doing something you know has to be done, even if you are terrified to do it. The absence of fear, especially when there are real dangers to be faced, usually is the mark of a fool.

Consider the words of Sarah Palin:

“I didn’t hesitate, no,” she told ABC’s Charlie Gibson in her first televised interview since accepting the Arizona senator’s invitation to be on the Republican ticket two weeks ago.

“I answered him ‘yes’ because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate,” said the 44-year-old Palin, a governor who has been in office less than two years.

Asked if she felt ready to step in as vice president or perhaps even president if something happened to the 72-year-old McCain, Palin said: “I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, we’ll be ready. I’m ready.”

A wiser person in her position would have hesitated. A very wise person would have said no, I’m not ready for that kind of national exposure. I’ll stay in Alaska. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Sometimes risks have to be taken. Leaders often have to make decisions and take actions when outcomes are uncertain, because hesitation would lead to worse outcomes. But where did we get the idea that there’s virtue in risk for its own sake?

Probably we got that idea from the same place we got the idea that there’s something weak about doubt. We’ve bought into a caricature of leadership that values absolute self-assurance — well, OK, arrogance — and recklessness over good judgment, patience, and intelligence.

We ain’t supposed to think things through, buckaroos; just come out shootin’.

Our country is in a very precarious place right now because of fearlessness. As Roger Cohen wrote, “the Bush crowd has gambled the future of this country with abandon.”

I know one thing: this is no time for further gambling. John McCain rolled the dice on Sarah Palin. I’m grateful to Bob Rice of Tangent Capital for pointing out that the actuarial risk, based on mortality tables, of Palin becoming president if the Republican ticket wins the election is about 1 in 6 or 7.

That’s the same odds as your birthday falling on a Wednesday, or being delayed on two consecutive flights into Newark airport. Is America ready for that?

The lesson of the last eight years is this: when power is a passport to gamble, people can end up seriously broke or seriously dead.

Come to think of it, my birthday fell on a Wednesday this year. Hmm.

John McCain is a gambler. It is said he has spent 14 hours straight playing craps in Las Vegas. I don’t know if McCain has a gambling addiction; perhaps he can walk away from it when he wants to. But my understanding is that people who are serious gamblers tend to be impulsive people with poor emotional coping strategies, as the psychologists put it.

A tendency to gamble is a sign of emotional weakness, in other words, not strength.