Dream or Nightmare?
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”—Martin Luther King, Jr.
Forty years after his death and nearly 80 after his birth, I wonder what Dr. King would have to say about the progress we have made toward fulfilling his dream. In the 45 years since he gave his now famous speech, those four children live in a different nation, but is it the one their father hoped would come? I suspect he would be disappointed on many levels. I do believe that skin color is much less of a barrier, and that far more Americans see the person. Unfortunately, the leaders who have succeeded him use skin color to gain support for programs that have twisted his dream and politicians, who want the support of his people, make promises in a manner that says that character is not the chief value they hold. Candidates campaign on “identity politics” and expect people to vote for people like themselves—black, female, Christian, or conservative—in a manner that is a nightmarish caricature of King’s dream.
A common refrain among prospective voters is a need for change. That’s got to be the silliest basis for favoring a candidate. Change for change’s sake may easily be for the worse. People supposedly voted for change in the last Congressional elections, but few changes have occurred those not an improvement. Democrats have not delivered changes that they promised. That’s the trouble with trusting the promises of people whose true values are unknown or obscured. The promises of a dishonest person are worthless, and we know that politicians are commonly dishonest. I don’t feel sorry for anyone who voted for change and trusted devious politicians, who will say anything to win votes, to follow through.
How should a citizen determine which candidate will represent him best? Experts generally agree that Kennedy’s good looks gave him the advantage over Nixon’s swarthiness as television became a significant factor in political campaigns, but is appearance a trustworthy indicator of a person’s merits? Most people would say not, but I many of us are suckers for a “pretty face.” Is that what has given Barack Obama so much success, in spite of his lack of real experience? Bill Clinton certainly had no lack of “admirers.” I would think that a sensible evaluation of a person as prospective President would come down to just a few things: ability, experience, intent, and character, but I’m not convince that these are important to voters or reliably present among the candidates.
For example, a big question about Mitt Romney seems to be his Mormon faith. At least, that’s what his opponents want to encourage us to talk about. I find it pathetic that those who wouldn’t favor a candidate anyway have so much influence on what his potential supporters might think. People ought to be less gullible than that.
I live in
On the other hand, both Obama and Mike Huckabee run openly as a Christians. Black Christians always get a pass on their faith because their votes fall solidly in the Democratic column, but Huckabee’s support comes mostly from evangelical Christians, with hardly a whimper of objection from the Left. Isn’t that just a bit odd? Could it be that the MSM recognizes that Huckabee is a spoiler among Republicans who would have little chance of winning against any Democratic candidate?
If the beliefs and values of one candidate are important, then shouldn’t the core convictions of every candidate be the subject of scrutiny and consideration? After all, won’t the things that really matter to a person influence his or her decisions and actions as President? Is there anything else about a person more important than that? Ability and experience are generally known qualities, but character and intent are harder to discern. Yet, of the four, they are the most important because they provide the key to what a candidate will do, once elected.
In Romney’s case, his deeply held faith and family values give me reason to respect him, even though I don’t share his Mormon faith. As much as anything, I want to know if I can trust what a person says and promises, before I consider giving him or her my vote. What does Hillary Clinton believe and what is important to her? I suspect she cares mostly about her own future power; she lies about everything else (Only a liar can change her mind so easily and often). To an extent, most of those running have changed their minds, tried to adapt and express their positions in order to gain support, which is why the process of judging a candidate is difficult.
Much of what we get to hear is empty rhetoric and theater. Take
Congressional leaders make a show of supporting what constituents want, knowing that they will not be successful, indeed planning on failing, perhaps, just before the next elections, so that they can blame their loss on the opposition. This gamesmanship is well-know and openly reported and discussed; how sad it is that voters are so gullible or inattentive that their games work.
What are the real questions we should be asking, asking ourselves and asking our neighbors, friends, and family? Frankly, I’m tired of the word “outrageous.” Talk radio hosts use that word all the time, telling us one bad thing after another, about the candidates they oppose. What’s the point? Republicans oppose Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and Gore along with all the others with little chance at winning the nomination. Democrats and the extreme Left hate Bush and will try to tie any Republican candidate to him so the voters will hate them, too. Those who give little thought to morality will look for any moral inconsistency to destroy their opponents, even though their own candidates openly accept immorality. None of this will make much difference in the choices of voters, except for those naïve enough to be manipulated. It is that manipulation that our questions may help to prevent and counter.
As far as I am concerned, there are only a few questions worth asking and answering. First, what do candidates really care about? What is the faith or value system that actually guides them in setting priorities and making decisions? President Bush said that Jesus guided him, and much that he has done indicates a certain consistency with that statement. He committed himself to fighting the war on terror, and everything he does continues to verify that commitment, whether you happen to agree with him or not. He ran as a pro-life candidate, and he has not deviated from that position, particularly as it has related to stem cell research. He believes in cutting taxes, and he hasn’t made the mistakes of his father in compromising his position. No one will ever be a perfect President, but I can respect one who remains true to his stated values.
Contrast that with former President Clinton. In the 8 years of his Presidency, we never knew what his core values were. His words, actions, and behavior suggest that his primary value was to have people like him. In that spirit, he said whatever polling and focus groups indicated people wanted him to say. Presidents Reagan and Carter both showed a commitment to their respective core values: Reagan’s were conservative, while Carter’s were not. Carter turned out to be what many would call a liberal Christian, and Reagan showed a depth of faith greater than he often spoke about publicly.
Core values, true beliefs, and what really matters to a person will determine the nature of that person’s time as President, if elected. We really should know what principles or convictions will shape a candidate’s actions. Everything else that candidates say and promise must be evaluated in the light of what is truly important to them. That comes first.
In that light, for example, a candidate’s personal history is relevant. A person who has been unfaithful to a spouse has proven a lack of trustworthiness, a character flaw. I know some lose a spouse through little fault of their own, so divorce and remarriage alone aren’t proof of a lack of integrity; a record of infidelity and dishonesty like Bill Clinton’s, however, does. I am inclined to think that a woman who sticks with such a man does so for reasons other than love. Rudy Giuliani’s multiple marriages don’t speak well of his character, even though we know that he was a good
Second, we then may ask, what does the candidate want to accomplish? What is their vision for the future of the
However, with the economy as their excuse, along with things like jobs, unemployment, and taxes, elected leaders can impose their political system on the country—conservative, socialist, progressive, big government, libertarian (a long shot!), anti-war, winning the war, or protecting us from terrorists. We must ask questions that reveal what candidates will actually do, compared to what they promise. The majority, I suspect, will say anything in order to have the chance to do what they really want to do. We need to know the reality, not their carefully created image.
In seeking to answer these questions, a candidate’s public performance speaks volumes. Hillary favors a government takeover of all medical care, promising universal care but likely giving us high taxes and limited access, if she succeeds; we know because she tried already. Obama also favors big government socialism, and even several Republican candidates are far too comfortable with running everything from
In answering these first two questions we have two pairs of contrasting concepts—image versus character and pragmatism versus principle. Most candidates with the help of expert campaign staff work hard to create an image they hope people will follow and support. Many of them, once elected, will sacrifice almost anything to maintain that support. Those with the character to stand on principle are rare because, since Dr. King’s day, character has yielded to personality and unwavering principle has fallen before the advocates of no absolutes. In such a world, it is hard to find leaders we can trust, and Dr. King might well be appalled to see how unlikely his dream may be.
However, we need to work to achieve that dream, but it involves more than race or skin color or religion or gender. For his dream to be realized, we need a new emphasis on the importance of character. The good news is that many ordinary people still see its value, and they continue to judge people, in a good way, based on the kind of person they are. For many of us, character still counts, but it is surely under assault. Without any shared, objective authority for right and wrong or any basis for teaching character, successive generations will become less and less people of character. Dishonesty is already an epidemic among us, and relational fidelity secures fewer and fewer marriages. People admire celebrities who lives offer little to admire but glamour and lifestyles that most cannot afford. The world of the future, if the image and personality trend continues is a nightmare, not the dream of Kind or any other halfway sensible person.
Comments