Democracy can be a messy process, which is why we must not elect a "true believer" as president.Democracy is a messy process because it requires listening to all sides and it recognizes the value and validity of opposing viewpoints.
Truth, in a democracy, is not something "out there" that we can attain, but what the majority decides is truth. The majority also determines how we should live out that truth as a nation.
In our particular democracy, the "truth" we live by is spelled out in the Constitution. That doesn't mean it is timeless truth; the Constitution has been amended 27 times (17 times since the original ten). So our truth may change. New ideas, new knowledge, new technologies all impact truth as we understand it.
Obviously, not everyone will agree as to what the Constitution means; interpretations will differ, just as people interpret Shakespeare or the Bible differently. But, and this is crucial, democracy can remain viable only so long as the interpretations, rights and values of our minorities are considered and given due respect.
We have a huge problem today because we have in our midst a large group of "true believers" who are either ignorant of our country's history and the Constitution, or would twist these things to buttress their own peculiar understanding of the truth, and would impose that truth on everyone else.
True believers are convinced there is such a thing as Truth. This Truth is absolute, eternal and unvarying. Rulers must know this Truth and all must do obeisance to it. Huckabee is a "true believer," [he wants to amend the Constitution to bring it in line with his interpretation of the Bible] and therein lies his appeal in states with large numbers of true believers.
Presidents who are true believers have difficulty with democracy. George W. Bush, by his own admission a true believer, acknowledged that he would have it much easier if he could be a dictator. George W. Bush has, on numerous occasions, called himself "the decider." This shows clearly he does not understand democracy or the Constitution under which this country is ruled. George Bush considers himself a "decider" as he has the truth. That's why he dislikes democracy and why he flaunts his disdain for democratic procedures, for the laws of the land, for agreements between people and nations.
For many of us, it is not surprising that under our true believing president we have seen an inexorable move toward a monarchial presidency - one which is not subject to the the Constitutional norms by which other people are constrained.
When he declares "I am the decider," Bush shows his astounding ignorance of the Constitutional separation of powers. In our democracy, and under our Constitution, Mr. Bush is most definitely NOT the "decider." Perhaps he slept through his civics, political science and American history classes.
Our Constitution mandates three branches of government: The legislative branch makes the laws - which means the legislators are the deciders! The judicial branch interprets the laws according to the Constitution. The Executive branch, and Bush should know this even though he obviously does not, enforces the laws.
A presidential true believer cannot accept such a system. Too many legislators do not know the Truth. That's why Bush may sign a law he doesn't like but immediately add a "signing statement," which proclaims he is above the law and will not obey the entire law or parts of the law he just signed; the law for which he is assigned an enforcement role!
That's also why Bush assumes he can spy illegally on American citizens and so order his minions. That's why Bush ignores information from his intelligence agencies that doesn't fit into his "truth." That's why Bush rewrites environmental studies that he disagrees with.
George W. Bush understands neither the concept nor the execution of a democracy.
The irony of all this is that Bush had the effrontery (when his initial charges of WMD in Iraq were shown to be false) to flip-flop and claim that the Iraqi invasion was to bring democracy to that country. Why millions of Americans didn't break out in hoots of laughter and throw the bum out of office is unfathomable.
In our particular democracy, we have agreed for the past 200 plus year to abide by the document known as the United States Constitution and it's first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Bush, the Decider, the man with the Truth, rejects that agreement. Thus, he authorizes the Writ of Habeas Corpus to be suspended on numerous occasions in order to detain and torture perceived "enemies" of the state. Secrecy becomes the norm. The people cannot be trusted to know what the government is doing.
If a decider is religious, then religious "truth" is injected into the government and its policies. For example, Bush identifies with right-wing fundamentalist Christians. Therefore he has appointed people to various offices based, not on their ability to do the job, but because they share the same religious "truth," that Bush claims to hold. Bush skirts the constitutional ban on mixing of church and state by providing funds for faith-based social enterprises. His religious truth provides justification for he and his cronies to forbid the distribution or even discussion of condoms in AIDS-torn Africa because condoms are considered a no-no by his religious "truth." He fights to overturn the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion, because his religious truth claims abortions are inherently wrong, thereby violating a fundamental conservative principle of keeping the government's hands out of people's private lives.
Because Bush's particular religious "truth" forsees the mythical godman Christ coming back to earth soon, he worries not about protecting the environment for future generations as there will be no future generations. Worse, his religious "truth" carries within it the notion of Armaggedon which could very well lead to a nuclear attack on Iran in order to bring about the end of the world so that Christ will return and kill all the bad guys and set up his righteous rule.
In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, true believers are convinced that they are obedient to god's will and therefore cannot be denied or stopped. That's fundamentally insane, but if the person so convinced is the president he or she may lead the country into a nuclear conflict certain that god is on his/her side and therefore cannot be defeated.
As the 2008 election approaches, each of the candidates should be drilled relentlessly on several issues:
1. What is their concept of the "truth"?
2. What is their understanding of the role of the office of the presidency in this democracy?
3. Will they use signing statements to ignore laws they don't like?
4. Specifically, how will their religious beliefs impact their decision-making (e.g. Do they "talk" to god, or does god talk to them?)
5. Do they accept the Constitutional provision for separation of church and state and exactly what does that mean to them?
6. Do they believe a president can spy on Americans without their knowledge and consent?
7. Do they believe that God will provide them direction and answers during their presidency?
8. Did their god create all people and does he/she love all people or are some people inferior?
9. Do they believe that people who do not believe as they do will burn in eternal hellfire?
10. Do they believe that sometimes the ends justifies the means, especially if it is god's will?
11. Do they believe that a godman is coming back to earth soon, perhaps in their lifetime?
12. Do they believe that the earth was given by god to be used and abused as humans see fit or do humans have a responsbility to take care of the earth?
13. Does their god follow the "trickle-down" theory, whereby huge tax cuts are given to wealthy in the hope that the wealthy will use their new-found riches to create jobs and benefits to the working-classes rather than buy new yachts?
14. If Christian, how do they understand Jesus' command to the rich young man to sell all that he had, give the money to the poor, and follow him?
15. If Christian, what did Jesus mean when he said his disciples should give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar and to God what belongs to God.)
These are neither esoteric nor stupid questions. They go to the heart of our democracy. Truthful answers by the candidates would expose the true believers immediately. They could be written off as we know they would not abide by the Constitution.
It seems to me these are some of the questions we must pose to anyone who wants to assume the most powerful office in the world.
Some might say such questions violate the provision that there shall be no religious test for a candidate for office. This is not a religious test. Melissa McEwan put it this way:
"...I don't give a s... if a politician is a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Pagan, a Zoroastrian, a Scientologist, a Pastafarian (sic), or a worshipper of the Great Pumpernickel Loaf from the Eighth Dimension of the Planet Zorgon. All I ask from the people who want my vote is that they not attempt to legislate their personal spiritual beliefs..."
Answers to the above questions would clarify clearly how a candidate's personal spiritual beliefs would impact their role as President of the United States.
Eight years of a true believer "decider" as president has damned near ruined this country!
No comments:
Post a Comment