There’s that word again: maverick. Used in Thursday’s Vice-Presidential debate, by Gov. Sarah Palin six times to describe herself and her running mate, Senator John McCain, who she described as “the consummate maverick.” But where does the term come from and what does it mean?

According to John Schwartz’ New York Times article, it’s a name that belongs t0 a family with proud progressive political roots that date back to the 1600’s in Boston, and to the 1800’s in Texas, where the family now lives. And apparently one member of the Maverick family, Terralitta Maverick is pretty disgusted that John McCain and Sarah Palin keep referring to themselves as mavericks. But the joke is on her. And the Times should apologize to its readers for allowing this very interesting editorial to pass for news.
Turns out that Ms. Maverick’s great-grandfather was a Texas rancher who refused to brand his cattle, and it became common practice to refer to all unbranded animals as mavericks. Now Terralitta is upset because she claims that McCain has violated the family tradition by appropriating the term even though he has branded himself a Republican.

“It’s just incredible — the nerve! — to suggest that he’s not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, ‘Oh, my God, he said it again.’ He’s a Republican,” she said. “He’s branded.”

And she is not?

Ms. Maverick has been a board member of the San Antonio chapter of the ACLU and numerous other liberal organizations. But she seems not to consider that a brand. I guess for her, it only counts as a family tradition-violating brand when she disagrees with the politics of a particular maverick. Talk about not being a maverick!
The Times blew this, and not because I am a McCain supporter — there are things which I admire about each candidate and things which deeply disturb me about them both as well. They blew it because anyone smart enough to write for them knows full well that there is rich irony here which demands to be pointed out. By not doing so, they allowed a potentially important piece about the fact that we are all branded in some way, to become one more editorial masquerading as news.
We all have affiliations, commitments and connections — brands. And we all have the choice to wear our brands in unorthodox or unconventional ways, ways which allow us to reach beyond our chosen brands to those with whom we might share something, even if they wear a different brand. Whoever wants to be President better be great at doing that if we are going to get through what are shaping up to be quite challenging times for all of us, regardless of who we hope to see elected in November.