Who Can and Can't Get Elected In American Today?

Detail from artwork by Leah Yellowbird

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." --Letter to a Navy friend, quoted in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965)

I lead off with this quote because it dovetails with another, which I can't find at this moment, in which President Kennedy said that a black and a woman would sit in the White House before a conscientious objector would. Half of that equation has come to pass. We'll likely see the other half in our lifetimes, and probably not see the C.O. gain that highest office.

* * * *

Earlier today I came across a Gallup Poll that shows which belief systems are least problematic for those seeking the highest public office. The article is titled Socialism and Atheism Still U.S. Political Liabilities.

More than three decades ago I came across a 1934 pamphlet written by a Harvard scholar that made the case your religious belief could be a handicap if they did not align with the American culture. I forget the details, but it essentially said you have to give lip service to God even if you did not believe in God.

Birches by Sue Rauschenfels

This was further exemplified in the 1960 presidential election in which John F. Kennedy faced serious opposition--was excoriated--because he was Catholic, and might take his orders from the Pope rather than Congress or the People.

My view from that day to the present was that we should always be suspicious about any politician's statement regarding any belief. This is not to say a politician can't be earnest, but for the most part the public should not be so gullible as to believe they mean what they say.

THIS IS ALL SETUP for some interesting poll data from the Gallup organization.

According to recent polls, over 90% of Americans would vote for a black, Catholic, Hispanic, Jewish or who was a woman. A much smaller number would vote for an atheist or Muslim. And only a minority would support a socialist.

The pollsters also included several additional categories: Evangelical Christian, Gay/Lesbian, Under 40, and Over 70.

The Gallup team also sliced and diced the data by political party as well, so that one can see where each category stands for Dems and GOP. Not surprisingly 99% of Democrats would elect a black and only 91% of Republicans would vote that way. (Disappointing.)

88% of Republicans and 77% of Democrats would vote for a candidate identified as an Evangelical Christian, which shows vividly how much the name Evangelical has been tarnished in the past century.

If data turns you on as much as it does me, here's a link to this specific poll data and a link to the Gallup's Presidential Election Center. I especially like their slogan: The Metrics That Matter.

Oh, and though they never asked about Conscientious Objectors, I'm guessing JFK was prescient about this. Maybe the Gallup organization should think about adding that question next time. What do you think?

Wordless Wednesday: Who Holds the Future--GOP, Dems or Jeff Bezos?

MEANTIME LIFE GOES ON... 

Vamos a ver.

G O P

Last week, at the end of the Dem Convention, I made the comment that it would be interesting to see how the Republicans positioned their party in the week that followed. Turns out to have been an interesting week as predicted.

The Obama campaign has been very successful at sinking home the message of Change. Time for something new, something different in Washington. I have a friend who said his father, an old man nearly eighty, was for the first time in his life thinking of pulling a lever for a Democrat. He said to his son, "Who does not want change?" The son had no answer.

Well, this week the McCain people addressed this very hunger for change by spinning the campaign theme this way: We are the candidates of change. We, McCain and Palin, are not about going to put up with the status quo politics that has become standard fare in Washington.

I watched from the PR spin angle sidelines and see it as a brilliant position to stake out. Even though John McCain has been a Washington insider for more than a little while, he has a reputation as a maverick. (It was amusing to see a delegate on the floor of the convention in St. Paul holding a sign that read, "Mavrick"... )

The night before, the convention speakers set the table with Palin's achievements. For sure, you could not get further from the beltway with this governor from Alaska. Her reputation was staked out as being one who fights corruption, who is not afraid to take on special interests. She was not afraid of a fight. Of herself she said the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom is the lipstick.

And, of course, John McCain, it was repeatedly noted, is himself a fighter... This is where the orchestration comes in. The theme all week of McCain the fighter and maverick all connects to our grass roots "people against the machine" desires. But it was also a setup up for his bearing of the soul to reveal his motivations. Like Obama the week before, McCain told the story of how he came to care so much for his country. He shared how he had been a proud young man, but met his match under torture. What kept him going was having to live for something bigger than himself.

McCain and Palin are now claiming to be carrying the real banner for change, painting Obama and Biden as "more of the same."

GOP originally stood for Gallant Old Party. Somehow over the years Grand Old Party must have sounded better to someone.

Fortunately, there are less than two months now to the election. Hopefully there will be no hanging chads or other disputes when the votes are tallied. But comments on the future of voting (i.e. eVoting) will be saved for another day.

Y'all come back now, ya hear?