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.
It seems like the GOP establishment is taking the 2016 election seriously. The two most electable contenders recently had a "social meeting", and if I read between the lines properly, they discussed how they could avoid bloodying each other before the main event", the 2016 election.
Romney's departure from the race only makes sense for the GOP establishment. He is damaged goods. Not only did he have to disavow his greatest achievement as the Governor of Massachusetts, but he had to take on relatively extreme positions (due to the Tea Party and other GOP wingnuts) that alienated him from the moderates he needed to be elected.
Jeb was the Bush brother who should have been elected president in 2000. Instead, we got George W. and his neo-con friends, and a "Forever War" that no average American really wants. To give Jeb credit, he did not pursue higher office when the establishment may have wanted him to do so - he seems to have followed his own path. He was smart enough to know that his brother damaged his chances of running for president. And even more so, waiting until 2016 when Hillary Clinton would likely run again.
- - - - - -
Hillary has some baggage which may be able to become assets. She was working on healthcare long before Obama became a US Senator. The question is - can she turn her prior failed efforts in this arena into an asset among the Democratic base, while separating herself from Obamacare to attract a small number of independents.
Although Hillary seems to be the Democratic candidate in all but name, the question is: How far to the left will she need to steer to keep the loyalty of the base, before tacking to the right to pick up independent votes? If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, she'll need to cut a big deal with Elizabeth Warren in order to keep the loyalty of the base.
- - - - - -
We're seeing the GOP hopefuls say strange things to the base. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that legalizing "gay marriage" would trigger the end of civilization. Even more so, I find it amazing that anyone would believe this malarkey. But they do.
In another forum, I had a discussion about a controversial issue with some die-hard supporters of a certain status quo. I stated I supported the status quo, but didn't give a reason why I did so. And then I asked, religion aside, why should we support this position? A person responded not with a reason, but with an echo taught to the loyalists of a political party. I then said that "I believe that group loyalty trumps the need to examine why its causes should be supported." Then, I noted that I always test ideas presented by any leader to see if I'm being lied to, or are earning my respect. And what did I get? A middle class version of the "Whatever" one would hear from someone who couldn't support his/her position on Jerry Springer.
- - - - - -
Sadly, this fatalistic inability to articulate support for a position is not limited to GOP loyalists - it is present in the Democratic party as well. It is not that I want to agree with people. Instead, I want to understand where they come from - they are not sure themselves, and are unable to say much than to regurgitate 2 second sound bites such as "defending marriage". What makes things worse is history and its marriage with politics. Deciding to slowly normalize relations with Iran should be a no-brainer, as well as negotiating a halt to the weaponization of their nuclear stockpile. But some say that this betrays Israel. Others say that Obama is being this generation's Chamberlain. Maybe, just maybe, there is a multidimensional game going on which is influenced by many things:
- America's relationship with Israel
- America's and Iran's desire to end their cold war
- Stabilization of the Middle-East (shut down ISIS)
- Sunni Islam vs. Shiite Islam (an ongoing battle to legitimize one group of mullahs)
- Arab hatred of Jews
- The GOP Congress and its wish to emasculate Obama for the last 2 years of his term
- Israel's vulnerability in a hostile neighborhood
- Israel vs. Palestine
- Israel's nuclear stockpile (estimated at 150+ warheads)
- Iran's nuclear stockpile (not enough pure "yellow cake" for 1 warhead)
- Israel's lobby and its effect on both the GOP and the Democrats
- Christian Fundamentalists and the litmus test they use on GOP hopefuls
- Christian Fundamentalists and a desire to speed up Christ's second coming
- Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia - which Muslim nation dominates the Middle-East
The above is only a short list of the factors which are influencing what is going on in the Middle-East, and few people have a clue as to how any of these factors relate to each other on a given day. I'd bet that only Obama's cabinet and a handful of Republicans in the House and Senate have enough information to read between all of these lines. And as such, any noises we make and opinions we have are those of "armchair quarterbacks" - meaningless, as we are only spectators to the main event.
