Political Rant

Although I'm not sure that it qualifies as an adage, I've always felt that the public discussion of religion and politics is taboo, because both subjects are, to me, anyway, deeply personal and as such, are no one else's business. Religion, of course, is completely subjective, so discussing that with anyone is akin to mental masturbation. Politics, however, is a bit different, in that I believe the voters must do all they can to become informed on the issues at hand and cast their vote accordingly. If the playing field were level, this would make perfect sense, but it's not. As a result, when deciding on political candidates, I use this rule: I do as much research as I can on each, and then I decide which one I'm most comfortable with when they lie to me. Simple, huh?

Politicians are a very strange breed, in my opinion. I'm no conspiracy nut, but I must confess to being immediately distrustful of anyone who WANTS to be the president. It amazes me that people flock to their candidate believing that he (or she) is the ONLY one who can lead us on the right moral path and save us from the certain depravity of their opponent. We spend countless hours and millions of dollars to elevate them to the highest office in the country, and when the goal has been achieved, we then exhaust every effort to tear them down for making the decisions we put them in office to make.

For instance, I liked Bill Clinton. I was really comfortable with him lying to me. Of course he inhaled. Frankly, I'd prefer that the person who makes the drug laws has had some experience with drugs. That he was having an extra marital affair was a shining example of his fallibility. I am in no way excusing his behavior, but I do understand it. Being the most powerful man on the face of the earth would, I suspect, be a source of stress, and he is just a man, no matter how much we want to hold him to a higher standard. One could argue that he asked for scrutiny by wanting to be president, which is valid. Again, though, if you follow people who WANT that kind of scrutiny, and who KNOW that they are prone to the same foibles as every other person, you must accept it when they do not measure up to impossible standards.

I was following the John Edwards blogging snafu last week. It seems he hired Amanda Marcotte of the blog Pandagon to write for his campaign blog. With article titles like "You'd Think a Douchebag Could Get More Pussy Than This", it would seem that Edwards either didn't read any of her work before hiring her, or didn't realize that many people find language like that objectionable, to say the least. In another article concerning birth control (which I believe has been deleted by Marcotte), she referred to Mary (of virgin birth fame) as being impregnated with the "sticky white goo" of the Holy Spirit. There's a difference, I think, between satire and insulting, even mocking the religious beliefs of millions of Christians. As noted, I am not going to discuss my religious beliefs, but what in the world made Edwards think that this is the style of writing he wants to use to project his ideals and promote his candidacy? Do we want to give him the power to wage war when we already know that he's not paying much attention to details?

Discussions of religion and politics are arguments waiting to happen. I suspect that even among Christians, the image of God that each person has is different from that of the person sitting next to them in the same church. As for politicians, they break the cardinal rule of trying to be all things to all people. Remember Lamar Alexander? He ran for the Republican nomination for president in 1996 and 2000, proclaiming himself to be a "man of the people". He used an SUV instead of a tour bus, and wore a red flannel shirt to show how down to earth he was. The trouble was, Alexander was far from average, as far as income. When asked by a skeptical reporter how much a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs cost, he was overheard by several witnesses telling an aide "I need to know the price of a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs. I need to know right now". A man who doesn't know the price of two staples that nearly every American uses on a daily basis is not a man of the people. He dropped out of the race soon after.

If we as a people do not cut ourselves off from the aphrodisiac of the cult of personality, we will forever have leaders who promise more than they can deliver. Why do we believe these men will behave like anything other than, well,...men?