The Occasional Political Thought…(Fit For Publication)

Someday, historians will look back at the voting habits of Americans with amazement. Ordinarily, this space does not venture beyond the toy department of life with very good reason. Religion and politics are the third rail of American life. I have mine, you have yours and hopefully, we respect one another’s beliefs. As always, it is an honor and a privilege to be an American citizen.

However, there are occasions when certain public affairs matters cannot pass without critical analysis and comment. Such is the case upon news that Mr. Romney will make his “religion speech” later this week. As many of you are aware, Mr. Romney is of the Mormon faith, and many “conservative” faith-based groups have expressed a reluctance to support a candidate who is a member of that denomination. Curiously, next to nothing was made about George Romney's faith in 1968. Why now, all of a sudden? Evangelicals ought to save whatever theological reservations they have about "the Book of Mormon" for an apologetic discourse rather than the political. This is America: a democratic republic, not a theocracy.

Political pundits are making much ado (of nothing) regarding this speech, likening it to when Jack Kennedy defended his Catholicism before a group of evangelical ministers in Texas during the 1960 Presidential election. Perhaps the weighty issues that confront Americans are not as important as the ones the media needs to invent. Kennedy's speech came at a time when many of the same bigots feared that if Kennedy were elected he would be subservient to the Pope. ("Lord, forgive them...") The comparison is wrong on many levels, with the demographic being the most glaring. In 1960 and in 2007, Catholics comprise the single largest religious denomination in America. Evangelicals may comprise a larger voting bloc, but many are unaffiliated with larger congregations. While there may be a larger percentage of those belonging to the Mormon denomination who will vote in this election than in 1960, their numbers remain insufficient to make any difference.

The questions that were asked 48 years ago remains the same: What relevance does a person's religious beliefs have in the viability of his or her candidacy? And why is the media demanding that some candidates postulate their "religious views" while others get a free pass?

The point is who cares whether Romney is a Mormon, Giuliani is of Italian heritage, Kucinich is from Mars, Hilary is a woman or Obama is partly of African descent. It doesn’t matter! The very idea that people would consider whether an individual is qualified to be the next POTUS on the basis of a identifiable characteristic such as race, creed, gender or national origin is so outrageous as to shock the senses.

The candidates need to be judged on the basis of what they have done in prior executive capacities as well as what is their vision for America’s future? What is the “content of their character?”

What are the candidates’ positions on the following issues:

1. National security;
2. Prosecuting the “War on Terror”;
3. Border security;
4. Immigration reform;
5. Interest rates, fixing the sub-prime collapse and the economy;
6. Education & Health care;
7. Foreign Policy (e.g., China, Russia & Venezuela);
8. Energy and Environment;
9. Campaign finance reform/corporate donations & lobbyists; and
10. Jurisprudence in Life & Liberty matters.

The candidates’ responses to the foregoing may be shaped to a certain extent by identifiable characteristics of race, creed or gender but the Constitution does not break things down along those lines.

We don’t need “rigged debates” or spin doctors to help us figure out the answer. Americans are so fed up with the politicization of every facet of life that there is no longer any energy or excitement in any of the candidates as they have been bought and paid for by special interests. As Stephen King recently remarked in a “Newsweek” interview, (paraphrasing) “[P]eople can tell you the names of the last five winners of ‘American Idol’ but they can’t tell you the name of their f’n representatives.” It’s hard to fathom how a big chunk of the population doesn’t know or care about what goes on beyond the trivial. That, my friends, is a recipe for disaster. And while this page is primarily devoted to the trivialities of sport such comments are not offered to the exclusion of considering public affairs matters that affect both sports fans and bookworms alike.

What we need is something so simple, yet so elusive: honesty. Yet, we no longer should expect it as a “matter of right”. The media is not in business to tell us the truth. They are in business to make a profit and tailor what they choose to report accordingly. Even that bastion of liberalism, the LA Times, had this to say (“CNN: Corrupt News Network”) on Saturday about how certain media outlets are attempting to frame the truth. We need to stop relying on others to tell us what's going on and start taking on the responsibility of finding it out for oursevlves. It's not rocket science, but it does take a certain amount of curiosity. It is, after all, our Constitution; the single most important and finest secular document designed to govern the affairs of its citizens that mankind has developed.

We should be long past the time when ethnicity, race, creed or gender are considerations of a candidate’s viability. To even include these characteristics in the calculus of a candidate’s political viability is repugnant to the Constitution and insulting to every American. Take the time to know the positions for which the candidates stand. Every vote counts in America and continues to be paid for with a precious cost. In the end, I encourage all of you to consider what each candidate’s platform includes and make an informed choice before making that solemn and private decision.