As much as I have a Liberal political bent (according to today's values), I am willing to listen to people from the conservative side of the aisle. Unfortunately, one of the "outsiders" on which many conservatives placed their political hopes has shown that he is unfit for the job as POTUS.
One of the things I've learned over the years is that military people take their ranks, their awards, and their service academies very seriously. It is very important for them to know their place in the grand scheme of things, as armies and navies can not operate according to market based principles. They must, by definition, operate on a command and control structure to succeed in their missions.
When Ben Carson was found to have lied about him being accepted to West Point, this made him unfit to serve as commander in chief. Our military must have leaders they can trust - especially when it comes to understanding the military. When a leader claims that he was accepted into the military elite and turned it down, and then found to be lying, a soldier will wonder - what else is he lying about, and can I trust him to be acting for the country's best interest?
Our constitution defined a delicate check and balance between civilian and military power by defining the idea of a "well regulated militia" - even though we have an army and a navy, we also have arms in private hands - to preserve the power to rebel against tyrannical authority if needed. The military was put under the control of civilian authority, so that they would not be independent of the elected government, and so that its focus would be to serve the needs of the nation instead of serving its own needs. Part of the bargain was that civilians would respect the structure and functions of the military, and serve (when needed) to protect the country.
Ben Carson does not understand this. If he can't be honest about his past, especially in regard to potential military service, then how can he lead our soldiers? Hopefully, his supporters will realize this - and find someone else more suited for leadership - even if that candidate is someone I can't support for other reasons....
Recently, I was watching TV when Ben Carson said that he felt Islam was incompatible with the constitution, and that he was uncomfortable with a Muslim being president. Politically Incorrect? Sure! But he said what a lot of the people in mainstream America feel, and are voicing in both rural and urban settings. So why are the pundits giving him a hard time?
In an age where the Middle East is center most in the political debate, often ahead of jobs, education, and health care, the religion of a candidate for POTUS often gives us an idea about his/her thinking about an issue. Would you have wanted Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, having to deal with a possible rapprochement with Iran? I certainly wouldn't. But I wouldn't want either a Sunni or Shiite Muslim directly involved with the negotiations either - they may have too much emotional "skin" in the game to make a decision which meets the best interest of ALL Americans.
Carson did say that he was comfortable with a Muslim in the Legislative branch - as long as he/she subscribed to the basic secular values of the United States. And in many ways, most Americans support people who are not religious extremists being part of government at all levels.
The US Constitution says that no religious litmus test (my words) shall be used to qualify a person for running for any office in the United States. This is a good thing. But it doesn't prevent the individual from using a person's religion as a guide to how he/she would deal with certain issues. For example, POTUS is a 24x7 job. Would we want someone who "religiously" observes Shabbos to be president? I'm not sure. But we've already had a Christian (in the 1800's) who would not work on Sunday be elected president, and as a result, we actually had a day in our history where there was no sworn in President of the United States. Could we afford this today?
Years ago, people worried about JFK being Roman Catholic - Would he obey the Pope before fulfilling his duties to America? History tells us that he put America first ...after sating his sexual appetite. This is why we need to know as much as possible about a presidential candidate before supporting him or her. Sometimes, a person's religion can be simply posturing (as in the case of JFK) - or one of real belief (such as with Jimmy Carter). Either way, religion is an important factor in who we choose for president....
In the end, I think this will quickly become a non issue, but not for the reasons I'd want it to happen. Instead, the Democrats and the remaining GOP Candidates will be out gunning to take down Donald Trump, and not having a serious conversation about the role of religion in politics and government.
In a recent issue of "The Economist" there were 4 separate mentions of Trump's candidacy for POTUS. One of them was an editorial piece where the magazine states that it doesn't want Trump for a candidate, because of his offensive nature. The problem here is that they do not address the root of the problem - the political elite in much of the Western world (I should say its "democracies") has done little to address the need of the average citizen in these countries. The rich are getting richer (especially in the USA), and everyone else is losing ground. In short, the "Trickle Down" policies that the GOP has promoted has been shown not to work - on a worldwide basis.
Normally, I'd agree with The Economist. But in this case, the "Angry White Men" supporting the Trump candidacy may be on to something. Trump is financing his candidacy with his own money, showing virtually everyone else (save maybe, Bernie Sanders) to be political whores of the financial elite. Even the Bushes can't prostitute themselves enough to raise enough campaign funds to compete with Trump. There may be only two or three Republicans who stand a remote chance for the long term: Cruz, Carson, and Fiorina. And Cruz is trying to stay in Trump's shadow, hoping that Trump will self destruct after cleaning out most of the opposition, so that he can grab a ready made base.
The same forces at work that benefit Trump are also benefiting Bernie Sanders. He is the true "Anti Wall Street" person (read: "Not Hillary Clinton") running in this election, and he is getting the Liberal equivalent to Trump's base - save Sanders' base is more educated and more aware of what is going on. Hillary's performance is so lackluster, that an unannounced Joe Biden beats her in the polls against all GOP candidates. (And Biden is being floated as a candidate for POTUS, because the people who fund the Democrats are just as afraid of Sanders as the GOP funders are afraid of Trump.)
Now, let's look at this in the context of world affairs. Moderate Muslims are being pushed out of Syria and Iraq due to the growth of ISIS. It is interesting to note that the wealthiest Muslim nations of the Middle East are doing nothing to help these refugees - it is the nominally Christian countries of Europe who are being forced to absorb these people. And the problem is that most people may change their nationality and customs easy, but they do not follow a reworked adage: "When in Rome, Worship as the Romans do." So many people become isolated, and tend to live in ghettos instead of being assimilated into the larger society.
There is push-back coming from the "Angry White Men" of Europe. In places like Denmark, the far right party runs the country, and says that no Muslims need enter. Even though Europe has a below zero population replenishment rate, the hard right rightfully worries about the changes to their societies that these uninvited immigrants bring. No one from the traditional political elite is discussing the drawbacks to social change - so the "common" person is taking affairs in his own right, and voting a non functional elite out of office, replacing with people who may listen to their concerns.
A while back, Mark Steyn wrote a book called America Alone - The End of the World as We Know It. One review of this book notes:
Why has Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" been labeled "alarmist" by his opponents? Look at the title: America Alone. Its meaning is obvious, but concerning what? When the Soviet Union fell, America was left standing as the sole super power in the world. But that is not the meaning of America Alone. However, do you remember what Nikita Kruschchev said? America would fall from within, without one shot fired. America would destroy herself through societal softness and the Soviets would walk in and take over.
Steyn states that Muslims have adopted this concept of a country falling from within, beginning in Europe. Through immigration, Muslims are establishing themselves as a stronghold. Belgium, Sweden, England, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France are on their way to becoming majority Muslim and geo-political. In fact, he says, Eurotopia is fast becoming "Eurabia."
Three events are rapidly leading to Eurabia:
1. Demographic decline
2. The unsustainability of the advanced Western social-democratic state
3. Civilizational exhaustion
Do you remember years ago forecasters urged population control? Europe heeded this warning and now faces two factors that will change it drastically: its population is aging and couples are not reproducing themselves.
...
With an aging population and declining birthrate and a swelling benefits package supplied by the government, who will pay for this social welfare? Answer: incoming immigrants with high birthrates.
Therein, Steyn says, lies the problem. While people of Europe have abandoned their churches and religious beliefs, Islam immigrants bring with them "a religion, and an explicitly political one." In fact, if a European wants to marry a Muslim, he must convert, or as they call it, revert. Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim--he/she must find that calling. And no one may leave the religion.
How pervasive are Islam and Muslims in Europe? "Go to any children's store in Amsterdam or Marseilles or Vienna or Stockholm. Look at women in headscarves or full abaya. That's the future"
...
In France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden, riots over equal rights have disturbed traditional peace. Women feel safer walking neighborhoods in Muslim garb in order to be left alone by Muslim men. When Muslims take over, they take the land and distribute it to Muslims, creating reverts out of the native people. Because the United States doesn't take land, Muslims consider the US weak and defeatable. As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore said in 2004, " The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail".
Steyn concludes in outlining America's exceptional nature and how it can prevent Muslim reversion of an entire country.
Sadly, there are many of us (including myself) who believe that Steyn is correct. Although I have nothing against Islam, I do have something against the cultures of the Middle East where Islam has flourished - their core nature prevents people from looking at themselves and their culture critically, and stands in the way of progress. (Please note that this is not an indictment of Islam as it is of tendencies in the Muslim world in the Middle East to enforce rigid conformity among the masses and subjugate those masses.)
So we go back to Trump's candidacy. What do we do about it? For me, I prefer to see Trump win the GOP nomination, as he is more "Liberal" than many of the wingnuts in his party. (For example, some of his ideas about healthcare make sense - when he isn't pandering to the official GOP party line.) If Trump wins the nomination, it is possible that the GOP may undo its "Southern Strategy" and become a more moderate political party. And if both Trump and Sanders get their parties' POTUS nominations, meaningful campaign finance reform could take place, as the political whores may find that it is better to be freelancers than to be pimped out by the likes of the Koch Brothers.
Am I sure of this? No. But I see the signs of world turmoil, and we ignore the needs of the common person at our own peril....
