I’ve been doing some thinking about the next president, and I have come to a few conclusions. I don’t know who it ought to be, but I’ve got a couple of ideas of who it shouldn’t.
1) It shouldn’t be someone black. Blacks are a minority of this nation, and not even the fastest-growing minority. If it’s going to be someone non-white, let them be Latino.
2) It shouldn’t be someone Jewish. The Jews have their own nation already (never mind that many times more Jews live in the United States than in Israel), and that’s where their true loyalties just might end up.
3) It shouldn’t be someone Catholic. Like the Jews, there is already an established nation-state for Catholics (Vatican City is an independent nation) and we need a president whose sole loyalty is right here.
4) It shouldn’t be someone who’s never served in the military. Only those who have properly demonstrated that they are willing to offer their own lives for their country have the moral standing to serve as commander in chief.
5) It shouldn’t be a woman. As noted above, it takes someone with military experience to serve as commander-in-chief. Part and parcel of that is that they should at least have had the risk of being in combat, and women have never been allowed to serve in combat roles.
6) It shouldn’t be someone who’s never been divorced. Most marriages today end in divorce, and our Chief Executive should be someone who knows what it’s like to have one’s marriage crumble — and still persevere. We need someone who’s no stranger to that kind of adversity.
7) It shouldn’t be someone who’s not a Christian of some sort. Preferably, one of the more prominent Protestant denominations. That’s the affiliation of a majority of Americans, and that’s who should represent them.
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. Every single one of those qualifications is laughable at best, and repugnant at worst. It all devolves into that intellectually and morally bankrupt notion of “identity politics,” where the least important aspect of an individual is, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. put it, “the quality of their character.”
It’s dehumanizing. It takes an individual, a unique human being, and strips them down to the most superficial, meaningless aspects, while discarding what makes them the person they are.
Which is why I was surprised — but not disappointed — to see the Boston Globe publish a piece entitled “A Mormon President? I Don’t Think So.”
I have quite a few problems with Mitt Romney (for example, his “health care plan” in Massachusetts is already proving to be an utter disaster), but I’m starting to like him more and more, much like I found myself defending Ann Coulter over the weekend, and for the very same reason:
They piss off the right people.
Anyone who can drive the Boston Globe or the far left into such hysteria definitely deserves a bit more attention.