Perspectives on a presidential election

Issues analysis

May 30, 2008
Joshua Herring, RA analyst

As a sort of thesis, I shall begin with the words of that great poet, philosopher, and political pundit of the sixties, Paul Simon of Simon and Garfunkel. In the third verse of a song titled "Mrs. Robinson," he wrote:

every way you look at this you lose.

Amidst increasing fervor over who will represent the Democratic Party in the general election, one could nearly go crazy trying to stay up with everything. The amount of political analysis proffered by the news media and by political pundits on a daily basis is unprecedented. In this hard-fought, elongated primary season, those people have too much time on their hands. Therefore, they are parsing information about candidates — public and private — slicing and dicing them more relentlessly than ever before. As a result, polls are frequently taken to see whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will fare better against Republican candidate John McCain.

In spite of all the hoopla, it seems that what Super Delegates think about this will inevitably determine who is nominated. Now I ask you: Should American citizens, after being subjected to such a long, arduous, primary season — be forced to allow politicians to decide for them who represents them — strictly on the basis of who they think is "more electable?" What if the candidate with the most delegates and the most votes must be ignored to please the Super Delegates? Would that acceptably represent government "of the people, by the people, for the people?

There is something else that is equally disturbing to me. When the primaries began, it immediately became clear that the frontrunners would do or say anything for the sake of political advantage, and for the most part they were getting away with it. Did John Kerry's 2004 campaign legitimatize sudden, radical, convenient changes of stance on important issues by presidential candidates? It seems that American voters have been exposed to so much political hyperbole, dishonesty, immorality, and subterfuge, they can ignore most anything now.

Furthermore, candidates are realizing just how true this is. That is why we've seen so many unprecedented, irrational things take place this time around. We've watched Rudy Giuliani and John McCain court endorsements from Christian ministers they wouldn't normally give the time of day. We've watched excessively liberal humanists like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supposedly become people of deep religious conviction who could never have come this far without faith in God and dependence on Him.

We've seen Mitt Romney go through a belated mid-life crisis, brought on by a political meltdown over the presidential primaries, and a need to appeal to the conservative base. His stances on the most critical moral issues of our day did a sudden 180 degree turnaround out of necessity. Then, to top it all off, he actually became openly irritated and indignant with one of the reporters who found his line hard to swallow, saying, "I'm getting sick and tired of apologizing for being pro-life!"

Then there was the first Republican primary debate held May 3, 2007, at the Reagan presidential library. I watched candidates — none of whom even resembled Ronald Reagan, politically — associate themselves with him so strongly one might have thought them to have been mentored by the ex-president, personally. Such a disingenuous and disgusting spectacle it was that I ended up sitting in front of my computer with the word "Tilt!" flashing across the scoreboard on my forehead. At that point, looking for some form of relief, I tried to delete the one speaking at the moment. When that didn't work, I closed out of the window to avoid throwing something through the front of my monitor to get him out of my sight.

Double your pleasure — double your fun?

These words may have been true of Double-Mint chewing gum in the sixties, but the same principle doesn't apply to presidential campaigns. I do not consider spending two solid years watching candidates embroiled in an increasingly sordid battle over a presidential nomination good entertainment or productive politics. This elongated primary season has made it increasingly difficult for the news media to prevent public interest from waning and network ratings from falling. Although this dilemma has brought much creativity and diversity to the content and methods of political programming, it has added little or nothing good to the equation at all.

How has all this come about?

Barack Obama, still wet behind the ears politically-speaking, couldn't even wait until he completed his first term as a U.S. Senator before his ambition led him to launch a bid for the presidency. Presumably because he hadn't received as much national exposure as other prospective candidates, in an unprecedented move Obama began his presidential campaign at the beginning of 2007. So Hillary — "I'm not even interested, much less considering a run for the presidency in 2008" — Clinton, in a knee-jerk reaction to this development, announced her own candidacy immediately afterwards. As a result, nearly every politician in either party with so much as a mild interest in the presidency announced their candidacy long before the primary season normally begins.

Although this sort of surprised me at first, I guess it shouldn't have. With talk about exploratory committees surfacing even before Thanksgiving of 2006, I should have known the situation was unstable. I dare say, if it weren't for the knee-jerk reactions that followed Obama's announcement, there probably would have been fewer presidential candidates than we've seen for 2008. I told someone the other day, "I fear that a precedent may have been set, and that we may be up to our eyeballs in presidential campaign rhetoric two out of every four years from now on."

Destabilizing factors

As I said, this has destabilized the political process. It set off a chain reaction in which states have moved their primary and caucus dates forward to such an extreme, the votes of Michigan and Florida weren't even counted as a result of a punitive action by the DNC. In determination to continue to be the first state primary in the U.S., New Hampshire threatened to move its primary to December of 2007, if necessary. Now there is a belated battle taking place over the delegates from Michigan and Florida that severely threatens both the integrity of this election and the stability of the process in the future. The long primary season also causes a dramatic increase in the funds needed for a candidate to be competitive.

In addition to these things, we have a spouse campaigning who believes that to elect Obama is to elect her too. In a recent joint Obama interview with MSNBC's Meredith Viera, Michelle Obama spoke repeatedly about "why we are doing this" (running for president), in ways that made it clear that she has developed an inordinate and unhealthy perspective of who she is, and her place in the scheme of things.

Also: In a news clip that I watched on MSNBC not too long ago, as Bill Clinton was stumping for Hillary, news of certain developments that displeased him evoked an emotional response in which he said, "They think they're gonna take this election away from me!" Jesus said, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Say what he will, Bill Clinton cannot clean that one up sufficiently to convince anyone who was paying attention that he didn't mean exactly what it sounded like he was saying.

John Kerry seems to have started something

In 2004, sensing a need to convince the public that in spite of his wealth and elitism, he is just like everyone else, John Kerry had reporters follow him around taking pictures while he played hockey, went sailing, and played the guitar. He also did a host of other things for the cameras designed to convince Americans he was just a "regular guy." Who cares if a president does such things or not? Does any of that enhance his ability to deal with economics or foreign policy? As he was doing all that, I wrote, "What more can John Kerry do to convince people he is a regular guy? . . . Eat more roughage."

As a presidential candidate John Kerry realized that he needed a massive makeover of his public image to have any chance of winning. It took him most of the primary season to decide exactly who the new John Kerry must be to gain the grassroots support and political backing needed. That is why his campaign website didn't include information about his stance on very many issues for such a long time. By the same token, during this primary season Barack Obama was frequently faulted for being long on rhetoric about change, while being short on clear explanations regarding what specific change is needed, and exactly how he planned to bring it about.

Defining the rules of engagement

It has been a long time since I've seen a campaign season with as much disingenuous mudslinging as we've witnessed in this presidential primary. Mind you, I didn't just say mudslinging; I said "disingenuous mudslinging." Barack Obama has convinced a large percentage of the public that he is a man of exemplary character who wishes to stay above underhanded tactics and uncouth behavior Therefore, after the first few attempts to blast Obama and paint him dirty brought more public angst against the opposition than against Obama, from that point on other candidates worked to develop a nobler image, thus refining the methods employed when they shoot at each other.

Actually, what they did was start looking for more subtle and discreet ways of calling attention to things involving their opponents, hoping that with a little encouragement someone else will pick it up and run with it from there. Most of the time their efforts have been rewarded by a news media starving for sufficient input to keep public interest piqued. The other new approach seems to be to allow things about the opposition to leak out, or to be emphasized publicly by campaign staffers — after which the candidate denounces what was said or done and/or dumps the staffer if it becomes necessary. By that time, whatever damage may follow has already been done.

Examples of what I'm talking about

For instance, Bill Shaheen, the Clinton campaign's New Hampshire co-chair, nearly made a congressional issue of Obama's use of cocaine as a youth. Then after being confronted about it, Shaheen made public apologies for attacking Obama the way he did. In fact, Shaheen apologized so much, it prompted someone from the Obama camp to accuse him of using that to keep the media stirred up about it — asserting that he got more mileage out of his apologies than he did from his attacks. Shaheen feigned innocence, of course, and out of political expediency stepped down from his position. But not until after stirring up as much dust over it as possible for as long as possible.

Something similar took place with Obama advisor Samantha Powers and her remarks about Hillary. Realistically speaking, could such an experienced hand possibly have been so naïve as to think this wouldn't be repeated by the reporter? There has also been the recent incident involving John McCain, the Republican Party of North Carolina, and Obama. On April 25, 2008, Reuters had this to say:

John McCain

Barack Obama

How truly concerned was John McCain about such campaign tactics? Could it be that although the ad was part of a Republican campaign for state office, McCain simply saw it as an opportunity to cash in on something that was conveniently available? Could it be that while trying to seem noble and aloof, McCain took something that was happening on a state-wide basis and saw to it that the incident received noteworthy national publicity for his own political purposes? Doesn't this McCain repudiation have the smell of Shaheen's apologies? These kinds of things are so conveniently useful and the approach so seemingly noble. This is why I referred to "disingenuous" mudslinging.

There has been so much subterfuge in this campaign season that MSNBC is devoting entire programs exclusively to the task of exposing the lies, the tricks, the generally dishonest tactics employed, and the evident lack of character on the part of candidates. One program hosted by Dan Abrams titled "Verdict" follows the campaigns closely to uncover such things, scoring them separately and judiciously. Abrams then totals the score for each candidate at the end of the program to see who the "winners" and "losers" are. This is basically all the program is about, Abrams never runs short of fresh material, and I'd say there are actually no "winners" . . . only losers.

Yes indeed, John Kerry started something, and the legacy lives on

During the 2004 presidential campaign, I wrote something about Kerry's step by step plan for ascending to the Oval Office. I am going to share a brief segment, due to the significance of the point to be made.

Step Two

[1]

Then

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5344731/

Yes, character is what counts

During this presidential primary season, we've been treated to political advertisements with young, seductive, scantily-clad vixens who are "Obama girls;" complete with a retouched video segment of Barack Obama walking along the beach looking as if he'd been taking steroids and working out with weights. If Obama didn't sponsor the ad, one thing is certain: I heard nothing of him complaining about it, calling it in, or repudiating this method of campaigning on his behalf.

During the 2004 Senate race, I read a newspaper article in which, when asked if he was going to heaven, Barack Obama said he didn't know. When asked during the second senatorial debate with Alan Keyes what he would say to Jesus, if the Lord were standing right in front of him, Obama said, "Uh, I don't know. I guess I'd ask whether I'm goin' up or down." Immediately after the Senate race, Obama was asked by an MSNBC interviewer what he considered to be the greatest moral dilemmas of our time. Obama said the two greatest moral dilemmas of our time are the lack of national healthcare and the high rate of unemployment in America. He obviously has difficulty distinguishing between moral and political issues.

But now Obama has become so devoutly Christian that "Any place that's God's house is my house!" What are we to make of all this? Any Christian knows the most foundational tenet of Christianity is that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We know that in spite of our faults, if we have accepted Christ as Savior by faith, and we have a sincere relationship with Him, heaven is assured — not on the basis of our own righteousness; but on the basis of Christ's righteousness, our relationship with Him, and His intercession with the Father on our behalf. Any Christian, regardless of how unworthy they know themselves to be, knows they are going to heaven for these reasons.

Recently, it has been reported in the news that Barack Obama finds support for homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle in the Sermon on the Mount. This means that Obama is in diametric opposition to clearly stated premises in the Bible about homosexuality that are entirely unambiguous. Furthermore, this is a man who stood on the Senate floor opposing a ban on partial birth abortion. Doing so on the grounds that to credit a child whose heart is beating and whose brains are being sucked out with personhood is to credit babies at any stage of development in the womb with personhood. Obama asserted that this is totally unacceptable because it would call for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

What kind of reasoning is that? Are we to base our beliefs about matters of life and death on whether or not they interfere with political expediency? A baby whose heart is beating and whose brains are being sucked out of his head is not a person!? And the reason for denying such personhood is that doing otherwise might suggest that other babies in the womb during the gestation period are persons — a position that might threaten to overturn a previously-established court ruling for which there is a powerful political lobby!? For those who get "tired of Bible thumpers," let's lay the matter of Christianity aside for a moment, and just ask ourselves this question: How much intelligence, compassion, or integrity does such reasoning exhibit?

Something that has been a long time coming

The Republican Party has been self-destructing partly as a result of the Bush presidency, and partly as a result of a biblical principle that is inviolate. The Bible says God will not be mocked, and that whatever a person sows they are bound to reap. The "Law of the Harvest" applies not only to individuals, but also to groups of people such as organizations and even to nations. This spiritual law is inescapable, and the first point of divine consideration in judging a nation begins with the leadership. (See 1 Chronicles, Chapter 21.) As leadership goes, so goes a nation.

The Bible also says that a person's sins will inevitably be exposed. Recent Republican scandals have done as much to damage the party as President Bush has. Now I realize that when it comes to violations of moral and ethical standards, Republicans haven't done anything Democrats haven't been known to be doing for quite some time. However, the public has gotten used to watching Democrats crawl around in a cesspool trying to use "constitutionality" as an excuse — explaining their standards and actions as a matter of political expediency in ways only a reprobate could accept or relate to. But conservatives are not accustomed to watching members of the Republican Party wallow in filth and expecting to justify it on the grounds of political expedience.

One of the primary differences between liberal and conservative voters is that the latter consistently demand integrity of the people they vote for. Too many liberals just want to win — to obliterate the last vestiges of traditional American core values and sound spiritual values at any cost. Never mind the fact that Bill Clinton seduced a woman in the White House, and was caught trying to get someone to perjure themselves.

Never mind the fact that Hillary has been caught in blatant lies, or the fact that she is so unstable as to believe that one of her new-age gurus had her communicating with the dead. Never mind the fact that she left Washington at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency with property stolen from the White House. Never mind the fact that she would steal from the country she claims to love, and from the people she claims to be serving. As proof of what I just said about liberal voters, please note that those people cheer Bill on and vote for Hillary anyway. Try getting a conservative to vote for a candidate after such actions are exposed.

So now we've witnessed a campaign season that has already been going on longer than any that precede it, and we still have another six months of this to look forward to. Furthermore, there has already been more dishonesty and disingenuous mudslinging on the part of members of both political parties than there has been in an election for quite some time. In addition to all this, it is likely that the upcoming campaign for the general election is going to make everything that has happened so far seem mild by comparison. The two main political parties in America have run amok and have lost their moral compass almost completely. Solid character, sound ethics, and personal honor are becoming things of the past. What, then, do we have to look forward to?

The final solution

There is a massive move away from the Republican Party in the making. It just may be that four to eight years of an Obama administration in the White House will be enough to jar Christians and other conservatives out of their comfort zones. Perhaps this will cause us to truly unite behind a man of integrity such as Alan Keyes, even if he refuses to violate sound convictions, political and religious — not catering to the whims and preferences of others just to be elected.

Perhaps a good look at what a man like Obama in the White House can really mean will shock us enough to wake us up to reality. Alerting us to the fact that if we don't truly come together, quit squabbling over petty issues, and get someone we can trust in the White House — before it is too late — the America that existed for more than two hundred years is going to become nothing more than a sorrowful memory. If we conservatives aren't willing to put ourselves aside, and pay the price for victory over the forces of evil working in this nation, we are going to lose everything in days to come. Then the questions we are faced with will be:

If we couldn't prevail with the Lord on our side up until now, how are we going to prevail from here on?

Didn't Jesus say a house divided against itself cannot stand?

God never loses a battle, and His army is never divided. So how do we explain what has been happening as we've tried to save the nation?

I'm not bashing anyone or being self-righteous. I think we all really need to pray about these things with a mind and heart that is open to divine counsel and even correction before it is too late. We are definitely missing the boat, or we wouldn't be losing the battle to preserve our nation the way we've been. Please help me pray for America in days to come, and please watch for a couple of upcoming analyses in which I will seek to discuss this matter more thoroughly and productively.

NOTES:

[1] http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/09/articles.docs/article3.htm

RenewAmerica analyst Joshua Herring also writes a column for RenewAmerica.

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.

(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)