Identity Politics

Are you sick of the saturation of political news which on occasion even bumps Brittany Spears out of the limelight? Well I for one am about up to here with disingenuous appeals being made for the various presidential candidates. What has become probably the most annoying aspect of the whole matter is the business of isolating the most politically correct feature in the candidate's personal life with an eye to exploiting it as a political plus.

On one side we have representatives of oppressed (?) segments of society. “Vote for me, I’m black!” "Vote for me, I’m a woman!” “Vote for me, I have high maintenance hair!” Each seems to project characteristics which are more a sound basis for a discrimination suit in court than a qualification for the world’s most important and powerful position. They have abandoned any hint of subtlety and through the magic of word play, actually further the stereotypes which we have long labored to downplay in our society.

On the other side, the theme has switched somewhat to emphasis on faith and age. One says the other guy isn’t a Christian. The accused then pleads he isn’t running for Pope and asserts close ties to Christ. A third candidate would join in but it’s time for his nap. The remaining viable candidate is too busy shoveling to cover up his hyperactive extramarital life to join the fray.

Overriding all of this palaver, we have a complete cast of secondary players furthering the madness and bringing often painful reminders of an embarrassing political past. We do remember the “blue dress”, Chappaquiddick, open borders proposals, “wide stance” and a veritable host of criminals which occupy our highest legislative bodies. This is not a partisan observation. The per person verifiable criminal activity in our congress vastly exceeds that of the citizenry as a whole.

We have been well trained by the media to reduce our thinking to “sound bites.” It suits are active life style. It also forebodes a national disaster. To select the “identity de jour” and make a decision which could have a bearing on the future of the nation is madness. We have onerous and comprehensive federal law in place which forbids discrimination in the workplace. Gender, ethnic origin, age, faith, disability and even sexual orientation are not to be considered in employment decisions.

Unfortunately, when the electorate is in the lonely confines of the voting booth, they (you?) have no monitor on the decision making process. If Hillary reminds you of your domineering ex-wife and John McCain seems like your grandpa, you will probably vote accordingly. If Huckabee comes off like a “hell fire” evangelist and Edwards has the appeal of a cover figure on a romance novel, your decision will be clear. What will you do if faced (not at all unlikely) with the choice between a Muslin-raised black guy whose middle name is Hussein and a false prophet-consulting "nice" guy who wears goofy underwear?

My personal suggestion is that you go well past the superficial aspects of their assigned identities. Individual postures on a variety of issues have a far longer impact on the fate of the republic. To the average Saint, appointments to the Supreme Court will have an important bearing on the future of the unborn. In general, positions on the restoration of Iraq, illegal immigration, taxes, health care, education, operation of the defense establishment and an active desire to implement the Constitution should be of the utmost concern to the voters. The pundits are always quick to point out that this is an “all-important election.” They all are. They deserve your well-thought decisions.

I will close, as usual, with an anecdote from long ago. In 1952, I went to Army Security Agency school at Ft. Devens, Mass. My wife and I lived in Cambridge, near Harvard and the studios of WTOP, Boston. At the close of the campaign, Eisenhower, on election eve, chose to give a radio address to the nation from WTOP to cap off his race for the presidency. On that blustery November night we went to the parking lot at the radio station and waited for him to emerge after his talk. Finally, the door opened and a couple guys came out followed by Eisenhower and Mamie and they headed for the waiting car. There was no jubilant crowd or press corps; just us. He returned my salute, waved, smiled and they departed.

I am haunted to this day by his appearance that night. It seemed that at the end of the run for the White House he had aged twenty years. He was haggard and slumped and until his return of my salute, he bore no resemblance to the man who had been so instrumental in the restoration of liberty to Europe. He soon recovered to his usual vibrant self and restored his beaming trade mark smile. No doubt he was encouraged by his victory overAdlai Stevenson by six-and-a-half million votes.

In consequence, my hat is off to all who would pursue this lofty office. Even those who I consider a threat to the republic are worthy of recognition for their efforts. It is strenuous work and definitely not for the faint of heart. They should be recognized on their merits and not some identity assigned by an all too eager press and each other. They at least deserve your prayerful consideration.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon