Thursday, June 25, 2015
Keywords or Terms: Consistency; Chief Justice John Roberts; Federal Tax subsidies; Affordable Care Act; US Supreme Court; President Barack Obama; Online Market Place; ‘Scotuscare’;Six Million Americans; Political and legal attacks; US Congress; 2016 Presidential Primaries and Election; and American Voters.
The US Supreme Court is gradually changing from the perceived polarized house of justice since the sitting of Chief Justice Roberts at the pinnacle of the judicial arm of United States Government. But it has also had underlying consistency in ruling regarding OBAMACARE. In a ruling very much like its earlier support for the law in 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointee of a former Republican President, wrote in a 6-3 ruling that US Congress clearly intended for tax subsidies to be available to all Americans, low, high or moderate income, seeking private health insurance on the federal or state exchanges. Crystallizing his decision in one and more sentences, he writes succinctly: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.” With this, the US Supreme Court evolves out of the usual polarized role in adjudicating cases to that of a consistent adjudicator and or, partner of the executive branch of government. Whether this is right or wrong is better left for history to tell.
Most significantly, the expectations of the antagonists of the law that a ruling in their favor will bring about a calamitous end to the law have not materialized. Under Chief Justice Roberts, the US Supreme Court have averted any attempt to undermine, restructure or reword the intent of the law. Once again, the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed the initial promises of the law; and, probably halted any further attempts by antagonists to weaken or undermine the law. One could therefore appreciate why President Barack Obama surmise this morning at the Rose Garden: “After more than 50 votes in Congress to repeal or weaken this law, after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.” Bingo, the common man and woman win again!
While some 2016 Republican Presidential hopefuls are attempting to draw attention to the financial burden and associated risks of providing subsidies to all Americans seeking to buy health care insurance policy on federal or state exchanges, just as many antagonists of the law have done in the past, the truth still stands: OBAMACARE is the law of the land; and there is no ambiguity in the language or intent of the law. The law is neither unconstitutional, illegitimate nor unwelcome. Furthermore, there is no reason to doubt that the federal subsidies are meant to support affordability of health care insurance on the online marketplace, called exchanges; and, there is no reason for further questioning of the law. Henceforth, competing insurance plans can be bought on federal and state exchanges and Americans are guaranteed there will be federal subsidies, if needed, to make this possible.
The most significant bane of contention by the antagonists of the law in recent times has been laid to rest and public perceptions of the viability of the law is probably no longer in doubt, consequent to this new ruling. Although it may be premature to pronounce that antagonists will not find other means to undermine the law, there is ample evidence to believe that the law has weathered the worst storms and the remainder are manageable or insignificant. There is no doubt that the new US Court ruling has introduced new thinking about the essence of the law and why the law was introduced in US Congress in the first place. OBAMACARE will afford for the purchase of health insurance policies, create room for health insurance companies to compete on exchanges, while providing a more transparent health insurance policy marketplace. No longer will any American be subjected lifetime spending limits or denied policy underwriting because of pre-existing conditions. More so, children who are under the age of twenty-six, who are either enrolled in school or seeking support from their family members can remain on their parent’s policy; thereby, reducing significantly, health poverty in America. Instead of allowing for a treacherous and cold hand of the marketplace to snatch away the opportunity to carry health insurance policy, the federal government will assist with subsidies to help Americans obtain and received health insurance coverage. This new US Supreme Court ruling affirms the promise of the constitution that all men are created equal and before the law, they will remain likewise; and, when it comes to their health, they all will all have equal chances of buying health insurance coverage in either state or federal exchanges, operating a competitive market place for health insurance policies. Whether you call the law “SCOTUScare” as the US Supreme Court Justice Scalia, a leading dissenting ruling opinion will like to call it, or OBAMACARE, the truth today is this: ‘No one can limit the credit or subsidies for purchasing health insurance policies to state exchanges’ as earlier interpreted by antagonists of the law.
Today, there are more Americans rejoicing for the US Supreme Court ruling; an estimated six million Americans would have been thrown off their health insurance policy or plan, if the Supreme Court had adjudicated contrarily to its current ruling. Proponents of OBAMACARE will now have formidable offensive arguments, including a track record of two consecutive rulings in support of the law from the US Supreme Court, when it comes to arguing on behalf of the need and benefit of the law to Americans. But overt moral support of the intent of law is the first step in ensuring the viability and lasting survival of probably the main hallmark of Barack Obama’s Presidency, there are also going to be need to keep a watchful eye on US Congress as it goes about funding federal subsidies to support the exchanges.
One of the many consequential effect of today’s ruling, is the fact that all Americans now have the opportunity to see a doctor when they need one and do not have to wait until their health status is too deplorable to get assistance. Further, OBAMACARE stands as a legacy legislative achievement of a Democratic President and it will be incumbent on American voters to put in place another Democratic President, if they want to ensure that the law survives political and legal attacks beyond President Obama’s term in office. Also, the priority henceforth for proponents of the law will be, orchestrating the benefits of the law as they continue to advance and rally further supports from hitherto pessimists. In particular, the message about the law should be two fangs: one, how the law provides for increased number of Americans with health insurance; and two, the opportunities the law affords for those who could not afford health insurance to buy a policy on the cheap at a federal or state exchanges, with federal subsidies to assist.
It seems likely Republicans are hardly going to roll over and accept defeats as you’ve heard a few of them, issuing braggadocio statements as: 1) But this decision is not the end of the fight against OBAMACARE – Governor Jeb Bush; 2) I remain committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it with my consumer-centered plan that puts patients and families back in control of their health care decisions – Senator Marco Rubio; 3) The court’s decision means Republicans in the House and Senate must redouble their efforts to repeal and replace this destructive and costly law – Governor Scott Walker; 4) This decision turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head – Senator Rand Paul; 5) It was never up to the Supreme Court to save us from Obamacare – Governor Rick Perry; 6) The Supreme Court cannot legislate from the bench, ignore the Constitution, and pass a multitrillion-dollar ‘fix’ to Obamacare simply because Congress misread what the states would actually do – Governor Mike Huckabee; 7) Outrageous - CEO Carly Fiorina; 8) I am working to ensure the next President repeals and replaces Obamacare – Dr. Ben Carson; 9) President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress rammed through their hastily and deeply flawed legislation to create Obamacare, apparently without even proofreading their own bill – Senator Lindsey Graham; and, 10) Today’s Supreme Court ruling is another reminder that if we want to get rid of Obamacare, we must elect a conservative President – Senator Rick Santorum. These statements seem more like blind devotion to failed partisan rancor over the passing of the law in US Congress about five years ago. A very decapitating stance that has nearly grounded the ability of US Congress to complete its legislative responsibilities; these aspiring Presidential candidates are signaling the same old line of thought that hasn’t gotten the nation very far from where we were on legislation. American voters probably have no idea about the position of these 2016 Presidential aspirant; however, one thing is now certain, we know what their position is on OBAMACARE; and as voters, we have the obligation to protect our interests.
In contrast to 2016 Republican candidate’s unrelenting antagonism and claim of a broken health care system, the leading 2016 Democratic candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, was as jubilant over the ruling as can be with her, twitting twice: A great day, add your name if you agree – affordable healthcare is a basic human right; and, yes! SCOTUS affirms what we know is true in our hearts and under the law, health insurance should be affordable and available to all. Even such enthusiasm is contagious; and if you are facing a dire health issues in your life, you’ll probably wholeheartedly subscribe to her enthusiasm. The call from President Barack Obama for greater conviction and confidence in OBAMACARE is hardly lost among supporters of the law; and today’s US Supreme Court’s ruling, reaffirms what is more likely to be the wishes of many Americans benefiting from the federal subsidies: “thank goodness, what a relief?”
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Keywords or Terms: Racial Harmony; Confederate Flag; Generational Divide; American Civil War (1861-1865); Innocent Blood of Citizens; African Episcopal Methodist Church, Charleston, South Carolina; Southern Governors; Amazon.Com; and, Wall-Mart; eBay
The next phase of America’s development and advancement has very little to do with the expansion of World Wide Web or Internet commerce, or space exploration. Neither does it have to do with a legislatively productive and stable US Congress; although that would be helpful. Further, the next phase of the development and advancement has much less to do with newer markets’ penetration in Asia, Africa or Europe; and or, combating international terrorism; although those would be helpful in advancing America’s hegemony and softening the burden of the huge national deficit.
The next phase – ensuring that all races of citizens in the democracy are welcomed and feel part of the holistic experiment – calls for retirement of not only the confederate flag but also, old prejudices inherent in the socio-economic and political arrangement of the democracy, including endemic issues of disaggregation, unequal treatment of races, particularly attitudes and insensitivity to the problem of racism and associated claim to historical dominance of one race over the other(s). These handicaps and shortcomings are hardly tenable in the twenty-first century.
The interpretation of events surrounding resolution of America’s Civil War and the moral imperative of continuous flying of the confederate flag have greatly impacted race relations and encouraged some rather unwholesome behavior and or altercations that are reprehensible at a minimum. It isn’t the issues of freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right of equal representation; or right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness that will make this country a much mature and viable democracy; it is the nation’s ability to look at itself intermittently in the mirror and reflect: is the current dispensation the America we all want? Is this the America we want with the level of racial tension and gun violence? Is this the America of promise, with all social injustices and suspicions among the races? Is this the utopia once hopefully conceived by the forefathers in 1776?
The crisis of distrust or mistrust generated by the slaying of innocent blood in a Church’s basement last week has yielded bitter debates and generated a new geopolitical and historical understanding of the main reason of America’s civil war of 1861-1865. The challenge of reconstruction years subsequent to the end of the war seems now to be a piece of cake when compared to needed attitudinal reconstruction of the people. Since the end of the civil war, the democracy continues to experience aftermath ripple effect of the nation’s worst sin; and to some extent, it seems the wages of the sins are undoing the peace between the two major races.
Notwithstanding, we can all agree that the opportunities that this great democracy has created and offered, probably far outstrips the expectations of men and women who fought in the civil war; and or, those of succeeding immigrants to American shores. In almost every sphere of American life, you see dynamic transformation that indicate wide strides being made in commerce and international relations; however what is absent, is genuine trust among the races within the geographical demarcation, USA that all are on equal footing regarding socio-economic-political arrangement, and or rewards, of the democracy. For example, it isn’t only the disparate interpretations of events that led to the American civil war or the call for retirement of the confederate flag on many States’ Capitol that is so telling; it is the insensitivity among many citizens, rightly or wrongly, that compounds the issue of racial harmony; and this, by many objective observers, is a crucible of confliction that may torpedo the hornets’ nest if everyone does not take the time to learn from the experiences of history.
The historical experiences of the civil war and its divisive interpretation between Whites and Blacks, have made the justification or non-justification of modern day mayhem as the slaying of nine citizens at the African Episcopal Methodist Church, Charleston, South Carolina, a difficult understanding to a claim of a freer and fairer American Democracy. Many Southern Whites and mostly prejudicial Whites across the nation, interpret the civil war and associated paraphernalia, including the confederate flag as symbols of regional heritage; blacks all over the nation with a few exception, interpret them as shameful emblems of the nation’s most grievous sins. It is hard enough tackling the challenges of the widening gap between the rich and poor or the oscillating national unemployment rate, it is even harder to deal with mistrust among the races; an issue that may make a mature and patriotic citizenry, difficult in a thriving democracy.
One may admonish collective national agreement over combating international terrorism and how to organize state security apparatus so that everyone within the borders of the nation feel a sense of safety and security. Further, one may subscribe to multilayered security strategies to combat international terrorism to make the homeland safe. By concurrently exploring a broad range of strategists to fight ISIS, the nation can actually vouchsafe for itself, offensive capabilities that could undermine groups bent on destroying it from outside. However, when the nation finds itself in throes where the issue of combating international terrorism is becoming secondary to domestic terrorism and hate crimes, then the nation has a huge issue at hand. When the nation is recording more deaths among its citizenry from expanding domestic terrorism and hate groups than the number of deaths from international terrorism, it is about time the nation begins to see things in appropriate context and put things in proper perspective.
With minorities, especially blacks, believing they are discriminately or inappropriately treated in the socio-economic-political arrangement, the nation is finding itself revisiting old wounds and wondering, if it was not time to put to rest, many divisive issues, starting first with the retirement of the confederate flag in some of the Southern States’ Capitol. Further, many minorities, not only blacks, believe the current socio-economic and political arrangement is skewed against them. American minorities are convinced they are hardly treated on equal footing, or with an even hand, with the majority in the society. For them, they are either scapegoated as different or mistreated and construed as outsiders, an enemy within. Apart from last week's Killings in a Church, the recent mass murder of Muslim College students in North Carolina and Asians in a Wisconsin Sheik’s Temple are examples in point, where minorities feel so much that they are being treated as outsiders in a country they only know and call home.
Just as America has retained its balance of payment deficits regime while the whole world has moved to a floating exchange rate system in international commerce, so also has America retained its racial prejudicial patterns as the world moved to recognition of multiculturalism. America has extensive international commitment to militarism across the globe, to people and nations they can hardly locate on the map or pronounce a word in their language; yet, lacks the will to recognize the continuous flagrant discrimination against minorities and or their contributions within the borders. Many politicians who should know better, or ought to know better, fan racial hatred and maintain institutions of racial divides within their states or political influences, yet call for harmony among the citizens. Profound and volatile restlessness and anxiety remain among blacks, and probably other minorities; however, mainstream America insists mistrust among the racial composition of the nation is unfounded. If this course is not averted, it must be understood that the road to racial harmony is going to be a steep one; and hardly will any leader be able to overcome the threats of the mistrusts and the intermittent upheavals that surround them.
The fact that hitherto staunch Southern Governors are calling for old symbol of prejudices be retired, with Governor of Alabama ordering the removal of the confederate flag from the State Capitol and Governor of South Carolina saying the time to bring the flag down in her state capitol is ripe, the usual divide between generations, is still obvious regarding issues of racism, not only the confederate flag. While former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is saying that the Confederate flag is offensive to some Americans, another older Southern Republican Governor, Haley Barbour, is quoted as saying he is not offended by the Confederate flag, on an MSNBC-TV interview. There are other governors working to bring about long-term harmony among the races of the nation, with some showing inclination to retire licenses plates and probably old insignia with confederate flag; however, the choice in attitude towards racial harmony is still at an individual level. Yes, Wal-Mart, Amazon.com and eBay may be charting the course for racial harmony for economic reasons; Pastors and lay readers may be working hard for racial harmony because of their religious convictions, it still behooves the citizens to chart a new attitude or course for this long-standing challenge. The adjustments needed to bring about better harmony between races cannot be attained with a wound from politicians, religious leaders and businesses, but must also involve a new orientation towards a better beginning within ourselves.
There are few alternatives: the nation may continue to identify with the current prejudicial attitude towards its minorities and inevitably reap the reward of destructive consequences or chart a new course of light that will afford for a much peaceful, fairer and equal society. Further, it is very well incontestable that the nation has the potential to reach a more equal society, an egalitarian society, or one with lesser hate crimes; it is also undebatable, that issues that divide the races as we speak, are manmade and as such, can be resolved by man. Can America have the will to do what is right?
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Keywords or Terms: Tragedy of Gun Violence; US Congress; Vice President Joe Biden; President Barack Obama; Second Amendment Right; Charleston, South Carolina; Primitivism of the conquered; Unwholesome failure of civic sense; Sandy Hook Elementary; Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church; and, Old Wide West
Second Amendment Right in America and the ever so repeated gun violence in the public space, remind us today, again, of carnage in South Carolina, Connecticut, Colorado, Wisconsin, Arizona, Virgina and endless other States and places, where blood of the innocent have been shed for no reason. From Charleston, South Carolina; New Town, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; Oak Creek, Wisconsin; Tucson, Arizona, Blacksburg, Virginia; to many other places that I’ll rather just not mention, before I quit writing and start to cry; before I begin to question the essence of government and politics if they cannot attend to the repeated wounds of a nation; before I start to wonder where are the elders in United State Congress?
We’ve come this place before zillion number of times, and every time, we’ve promised to tackle this problem once and for all. I remember after Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, how Vice President Joe Biden put his integrity on the line and went to the floors of US Congress to see if he could get legislators to come around to doing something about the repeated mayhem. I remember President Obama forwarding specific plan to protect children and communities against gun violence, yet the cry for legislative action in US Congress has gone unheard. Sometimes in life you have to stomach your privileges and rights, so other humans can live. Life is precious; it has no duplicate, once gone, forever, gone! This is why I blame all of us for the deaths yesterday night at, of all places, a Church; a place of worship; the only place I’ve been known to fall asleep, apart from my bed, even during thunderous and moving sermons. My wife will gladly attest to that!
Debating could be fun; it could also be exasperating, when you know the issue at hand is probably never going to be resolved through debates. All Americans have the right to bear arms; so also is the right to live and worship wherever we choose. Yesterday, it was the Church, I remember the elementary school; I recall the movie theatre; did I hear the word, Mall; I’ve even seen a Sikh temple; I’ve known a college campus; and many more places that just make me wonder, is there anywhere safe to go anymore. Gun violence and deaths are now common place to everywhere in the homeland; yet our lawmakers and those who know better would rather we would not talk about: 1) requiring background checks for all gun sales; 2) strengthening the background check system for gun sales; 3) passing a new stronger ban on assault weapons; 4) finishing the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets; 5) giving law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime; 6) ending freeze on gun violence research; 7) making schools and public spaces of congregation safe, instituting emergency response plans for all public spaces and nurturing a climate of gun use responsibility; and, 8) ensuring quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people. If you say these eight listings are familiar; yes you are right, they were the last ones recommended by President Barack Obama after the Sandy Hook Elementary gun violence nightmare. Again and again, we are re-reading, re-evaluating, re-sympathizing, and re-imagining, what should never have been; just because, as usual, you guessed it, failed to act. Excuses and inactions have often been our crutches because of our second amendment rights; or, because of our choice to always look away elsewhere; to forget the tragedy of yesterday, yester-month and yester-year(s). At the rate we are going, we are gradually being inoculated against the grief and tragedy of gun violence; soon, we’ll become experts in forgetting the pains of death as a result of gun violence in all public spaces.
Before we get into our usual mode of finger pointing, let us now agree that we have failed as a society to address what is considered nightmares in many countries of the world, and forget the usual western industrialized society epitaph. The historical national divide between those in support of the rights to bear arms and those, who would rather work with common sense gun laws, has once again, reared its ugly head. We have failed to reform our gun laws, legislatively. Common sense tells us we need to move beyond the point of seeing gun violence as a routine order of doing business; however, we have failed to influence each other to see the need for resolution. In order to preserve the rights to bear arms as contained in our constitution, we have found it, uncomfortable to discuss resolution of a problem that constantly nags us and our conscience; a problem that continues to kill us, our neighbors, our friends and our elderly, even in a place of worship, a place expected to be peaceful and full of moments of reflection, not violence.
Lifesaving gun laws and gun violence research have been scuttled. In the case of immediate resolutions to some gun sales and ownership laws, especially those that attempt to curtail movement of guns from the manufactures to those, who are least expected to own guns, let alone use it, we have refused to position ourselves as responsible adults, who find a problem in our communities and move ahead to solve it. The people’s hope and momentum after the last national tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary have been discountenanced and the details of our government action to ensure this same nightmare does not repeat itself, is left in ruins. The willingness to tolerate ownership of guns, assault weapons and associated paraphilia are so inextricable that we have forced ourselves into a corner to believe that our rights to guns and concealed weapon carriage, trump the rights of others to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Regardless of the hopes of communities that have suffered from senseless gun violence, we have failed to confront our unsettling fears; veer away from workable and practical solutions or laws that reclaim our rights as humans, people with red blood flowing in our veins. We have grossly failed to attend to what makes us whimper anytime news like Charleston South Carolina, break. Within the past six years, even with all assurances that President Barack Obama was not coming after our guns, we have ramped up sales for the assault weapons manufacturers, created a generation of uninformed people with very limited control of their behavior, engaging in dastardly acts that make mothers and grandmothers cry with exasperations. The future ability of any incoming President and Congress to do anything about this stale problem, even by crude assessment, is gradually fading to oblivion.
The gun lobbyist groups and manufacturers have been beneficiaries of our failure to act, failure to demand of our legislators to reverse the tide of gun violence, whichever way possible. Concerned opinions of impacted gun violence communities, reflect the need to have some control over the use and availability of guns and armor-piercing bullets in our depressed and sometimes, dilapidated communities. Gun violence is now endemically fashionable; and, our children are watching the adults look like helpless and clueless drifters, unable to chart a course for a better future for them.
No one will deny that the absence of the will to act legislatively in US Congress is real; you can even hear and feel it from our Commander-in-Chief as he delivers the usual condolences to residents of Charleston, South Carolina. Gun Control and Mental Health treatment are undoubtedly central to the resolution of gun violence, especially in many states where mental treatment of the troubled have been discouraged or suspended for reasons of budget shortfalls. The probability of limiting the rights to carry some assault weapons are somewhat laws in some states; however, there are no enforcement efforts in many, either by law enforcement professionals, or community leadership. Our communities have turned out to be the old Wild West, where gun running and usage are everyday matter of fact. The scope and character of gun violence are well documented, the corresponding need for change in direction in the movement and sales of guns, nationwide, are not out of way. The plight and pains of communities which have gone through the dastardly act of gun violence, are not only felt across the country every time these very unfortunate incidents repeat themselves, but also across the globe. Unfortunately, we have accepted the disgrace of being labelled a gangster society; yet, we continue to lack the spine to call our legislators to do what is right for the welfare of everyone.
National gun violence has come to a point, where we can no longer question the need to get over our fears and rightly pass and enforce laws that not only keep guns and assault rifles from demented minds, but also require that manufactures stop making these guns. The depth, strength and complexity of resolving our long-held fascination with the second amendment right have failed us woefully; and, we have resolved ourselves to the primitivism of the conquered, unwholesomely refusing to prescribe solutions to what hurts us all. The political and institutional powers are close to absent at this time, else something would have to give, with the insistence and repeated occurrences of these dastardly acts. Anyone attempting to lead this country, must now provide a path for the nation, to once again, address the following questions: How can America welcome a greater level of gun control without necessarily violating the constitutionally protected right to bear arms? How could the nation prevent the repeated gun violence in all spheres of our lives and public spaces? Is the nation not due for a much radical review of protected second right amendment?
The large number of second amendment right enthusiasts, legislators and ordinary citizens, sympathetic to the right to bear arms, must address these questions with a reflection: supposing each of them was at the receiving end of gun violence; supposing each of them lost a family member, a brother, a sister, a father, grandmother, a son or daughter, last night, would they still be holding fast to their unresolved position? Answer to this particular question may help transform long-held beliefs regarding gun ownership, concealed weapon carry permit, sales and use of assault rifles. Who in his or her right mind, buys a loaded gun as a birthday gift for an unstable human being? The fastidious position of many gun enthusiasts and second amendment rights protagonist are not really rooted in unyielding tradition as some may want to believe; the massive failures of the laws on the books and refusal of our legislators to do what is constructive in the wake of the repeated unfortunate events across our country, is the real problem. No one is held accountable for the deaths of the innocent at the highest level of our law making body; and, until we compel or legislators to the rude awakening of the ever so torching and stomach crunching pain that we all feel every time incidents as what happened at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church, yesterday, we will continue to face the horror of our inaction to gun violence, in all our communities.
P.S. These are the lives that were cut short in South Carolina
P.S. These are the lives that were cut short in South Carolina
1) Ethel Lee Lance, 70; 2) Tywanza Sanders, 26; 3) Cynthia Hurd, 54; 4) Depayne Middleton Doctor, 49; 5) Rev. Clementa Pinckney, 41; 6) Susie Jackson, 87; 7) Myra Thompson, 59; 8) Daniel L. Simmons, 74; and, 9) Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, 45.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Keywords or Terms: Republican and Democratic Aspirants; White House Oval Office; Rich and Famous; US Presidency; Aristocratic or Imperial Presidency; American Voters; Political Dynasties; Spousal or Family Lineage Presidencies; Global World Trade Imbalances; Plurality of Opportunities; Mutual Restraints; and, Reciprocal Concession.
The unquestionable dilution of the number of Republicans seeking the 2016 nomination will profoundly change give another week. The number of announcements of candidacies in the past few months for the 2016 contest has offered new political characterization or meaning for those running for the White House’s oval office. “They’re Impressive, they’ve got a lot of youth, they’ve got a lot of energy, they’ve got some significant diversity and they’re no dummies”, if you ask President Bill Clinton?
As other Republicans in the pipeline indicate their intensions or ambitions, American voters are confronted and confounded with the divergence of views and reasons for running for the American presidency. Is the 2016 Republican Party Primary going to turn out to be a confusion; or, will the willowing process that leads to attrition, finally resolve the chaotic band wagering effect that seems to be the current dispensation? Perhaps it is just the perception; however, when last did we have so many Republicans seeking the lofty office of the Presidency? An Aristocratic or Imperial Presidency - with the power to overlord it over the Legislative and Judicial branches - has never been the norm or constitutionally accommodating; however, maybe that is the lure? Why then do we have one of the richest men in America, Donald Trump; and, the third succeeding child in the Prescott Sheldon Bush Dynasty, Jeb Bush, announcing within a space of one week, their intentions to gun for the oval office in 2016?
Perhaps there is nothing much to it; perhaps it is a chance to give American voters the opportunity to have choices; perhaps, it is the season for multiplicities, hence, the number of Republican Candidates as of date, who have shown Interest. However, these presumptions or presuppositions are inadequate; many voters are challenged by the construct of having so many candidates showing interest in becoming the President of the United States, without providing solid advances in their announcements that could be conceived of worthy consideration.
For example, here is a glossary of one-liners in announcements in the past month, beginning with the most recent: 1) Sadly the American dream is dead… but if I get elected President I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before – Donald Trump; 2) [America] is on a very bad course; and, I have decided to run for the Presidency [as a solution] - Jeb Bush 3) I want to be President to defeat the enemies trying to kill us, not just penalize them or criticize them or contain them, but defeat them – Lindsey Graham; 4) I’m running for the Presidency [because] this is our fight, we stand together for liberty – Ted Cruz; 5) I’m running for the presidency [because] I’ve led the most successful state in America – Rick Perry; 6) I’m running for the Presidency because I have a deep understanding of how the economy works – Carly Fiorina; 7) I’m a candidate for the President of the United States [because] I believe in our Constitution – Ben Carson; 8) I’m running for the Presidency, [because] working families don’t need another president tied to big government or big money – Rick Santorum; 8) Any drunken redneck can walk into a bar and start a fight; however, a leader only starts a fight he’s prepared to finish – Mike Huckabee; 9) I don’t need any expert to give me a crash course in [foreign policy] – George Pataki; and, 10) We have come to take our country back – Rand Paul
Excluding the ridiculous verbiage from Donald Trump – most successful person ever to run for the presidency, owning a Gucci store that’s worth more than Romney; Jeb Bush’s foot in the mouth statement, we are not going to clean up the mess in Washington by electing the people who either helped create it or have proven incapable of fixing it; and, other very off-the-curve comments from Republican aspirants at each of their launching, one can hardly tell, if these Republican aspirants have a long and lasting interest in helping America confront its socio-economic-political challenges in the next millennium. The need to confront global world trade imbalances, multiple years, against America’s interest; and, the changing dynamics of global terror and terrorism, are stubborn issues demanding an understanding of the intricate nature of leadership and presidential powers. Anyone ready for the job must articulate a new order of thinking, far outstripping one liner comments regarding the responsibility of the Office of the Presidency and or, one’s wealth or past achievements vis-à-vis the constantly changing roles of the occupant of the office.
The complex nature of the international world order has offered unprecedented opportunities and difficulties for occupants of the White House’s oval office. On the domestic front, the need to address issues of widening gap between the rich and the poor and job losses or growing unemployment, due to negotiated trade deals, and the ever so-alarming trade imbalances between China and the US, demand better preparedness of anyone seeking this lofty office. How about the chameleonic global and domestic terrorism issues? It is evident and essential that the occupier of the White House oval office, male or female, understands the interrelatedness of some domestic and international issues; and visualize himself or herself addressing multiple interrelated issues and functions, inherent in the occupancy of the office. Candidly, He or she must be able to build a bridge to the future while at the same time fighting domestic and global terrorism.
In the foreign arena, issues of political geo-strategy, defending Europe in post-industrial or information age, arms reduction and deterrence, maintaining peace in the Middle East, practical internationalism and maintaining America’s National Interests are all in play. Today, the change is moving towards issues of stability in the Arab World, Emerging Asian and African Economies and the slowing or non-performing economies in Europe. The old Southeast Asiatic regional hegemonic doctrine of the last century is dead, and no one must be dragging the nation back, in the context of the Arab World and or Africa. The new President come January 2017, must be able to seize the opportunities which these issues offer; and, cope with the difficulties of proffering solutions to many of them without losing his or her patience; or being perceived as overtly nationalistic. Thus, flamboyance, arrogance, untrusworthiness and loose talks, or inability to hold judgement before all facts are in, are not really qualities America wants in someone seeking to become President of the United States.
Coincidentally, the current spate of Republicans seeking the 2016 White House Oval Office have the American voters debating issues of the probability and possibilities of each of their chances. Some keen political observers are concerned over the occupancy of the oval office shifting between preeminent political dynasties and or spousal lineage, Kennedy’s Bush’s and Clinton’s. The unseeingly preeminence of fame and generational powers are acknowledged in the current context, with the advent of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a 2016 Democratic Presidential aspirant. However, other more conciliatory observers maintain there is not much to fear or worry about, since ordinary mortals as Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, with little name or no-name recognition, have risen from so-called nowhere, to occupy the lofty office. Further, these heroes and past or outgoing occupants of the White House, proved in many ways that money onslaught and traditional support of party loyalists and power brokers can be overcome in a presidential contest for the oval office. In addition, to the conciliatory observers, President Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama proved once again, what the fore-fathers admonished: a non-monarchial governance and a Republic of the citizens of the United States of America!
If Americans subscribe to plurality of opportunities, and are concerned about dynastic and or aristocratic Presidencies, there are chances for them to nominate candidates away from the Bush and Clinton in 2016. However, if either Jeb Bush or Hillary Rodham Clinton, become each candidate left standing at the end of the primaries for Republicans and Democrats, then the debate at that time will be merely intellectual. The issue for the future may then become how to prevent former spouses and progeny of past senators or senators from becoming the United States President. How to reinvigorate the plurality of candidacies for the White House oval office, without relying on the traditional power houses or families seeking to replace each other, would be a fascinating subject for political scientists and vote pollsters of the future.
Encouragingly or discouragingly though, the spate of Republican candidates for the 2016 are diverse enough for either party to put to rest whatever misgivings opponents of dynasties and fame aspiring to become President of the United States. The challenge today, according to critics of the current spate of Republican candidates is this, if the contest is about doctrinaire conservatism, anti-minority or immigrant prejudices, narcissism, religious awkwardness, maybe these spate of Republican candidates stand a chance. Incidentally, the 2016 contest is going to be more than these. This is probably, one reason, one should be circumspect in completely criticizing the famous, rich and privileged seeking to win the greatest prize in American Politics: the Presidency of the United States. Hopefully, these candidates will be admonished by what Charlie Black, John McCain’s 2008 Presidential Campaign Chairman articulates about a candidate, putting public service ahead of going out and making money and getting wealthy and getting really solid finances. Essentially, this is the ideal; this is what it means to be patriotic and nationalistic. Anything less, is selfish and wrongheaded.
Without sounding as trite on this very confusing topic, my favorite choice of candidate is anyone who is able to articulate a system of mutual restraints on both domestic and international front or issues, because it serves America better and afford for reciprocal concession on issues of governance.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Keywords or Terms; Presidential Campaign; Politics and Politicians; Immigration; Social Security; Tax Reform; Hawkish Conservative Republican; Central, South Carolina; Islam; American Muslims; 9/11; Domestic and International Terrorism; Lindsay Graham; Rand Paul; American Patriot Act; Waterboarding; Preventive Strikes; National Security Policy; and Religious Bigotry and Alienation
Of all the announcements this week of a run for the White House in 2016, none is as predictive and fascinating as that of South Carolinian Senator Lindsey Olin Graham, whom we had earlier predicted at the end of January, will be throwing his hat into the race, soon. The Hawkish Conservative Republican finally made his announcement this week, revving like the fume from an exhaust pipe and the aggression of a lion on Monday with the words: “I want to be president to meet our problems head on.” What are these problems you might ask? The Republican Senator, who made his announcement in his hometown, Central, South Carolina, crystallizes them as: terrorism against America has resurfaced and there is an earnest need, scratch that, "Simply put, radical Islam is running wild.”
To Senator McCain’s probable protégé, honestly and realistically, without a perception of taking advantage of the resurfaced threat to America’s security, as President, “[I will] defeat those who are trying to kill us, not just penalize them or criticize or contain them!” Boasting of his national security credentials, the South Carolina senator on Senate Judiciary Committee, wants America to know: "They [America’s Enemies] have more safe havens, more money and capability, and more weapons to strike our homeland than any time since 9/11. They are large, rich, and entrenched. As president, I will make them small, poor, and on the run." Could the senator be playing on the fear of terrorism; or, arousing once more, religious bigotry against Islam or fellow American Muslims?
More significantly are the revolutionary changes that have taken place in the fight against homeland insecurity and international terrorism. Under succeeding Presidencies, George W Bush and Barak H. Obama, America has experimented with a number of strategies to keep American lives at home and abroad safe. No one would doubt the commitment of our presidents to keep America safe; each of the last two, worked so hard, some even say, trashed the constitution a few times with the help of federal agencies, to ensure that American lives are not only safe but also preserved, wherever they choose to go or reside. President Obama just signed the USA Freedom Act, a compromised version of the Patriot Act, with some libertarians, including fellow Graham’s Republican Senator, Rand Paul, who also has his eyes on the White House in 2016, railing against the provisions and extension of the patriot act, even with the new limitations.
It is clear that Lindsey Graham’s Presidential Campaign team will have to work overtime, in explaining what the Senator meant on Monday, by the world is: “exploding in terror and violence.” Such a grandiose statement seeks to seize the opportunity of instilling fear in the populace to the advantage of a campaign; and or, an aspirant. Thus, if it could be assumed that Senator Graham is right on his assessment, perhaps it is time once again, to revisit our national security policy.
On the other hand, it is also safe to recognize that the Senator is probably attempting to differentiate himself from other far-right, or hardliner candidates on the Republican Campaign trail. With Graham’s campaign message, there is a presupposition that the last two US Presidents have not done enough to disarm homegrown terrorists and international terrorism. Republicans would say President Obama has not done enough, and Democrats will point finger at the overzealous efforts of water-boarding by President Bush’s Administration; and, libertarians will highlight the trashing of constitutionally protected rights of Americans by the Presidency, for the continuation of many provisions of the American Patriotic Act, by both Presidents. Furthermore, there is every reason to doubt the first Presidential Campaign message of the South Carolina Senator, Lindsey Graham, who is fascinated with confronting radical Islam with military force.
In the confusion of the Presidential launching of the unmarried fifty-something senator of the Palmetto State, there is all reason to doubt the authenticity of Lindsey Graham’s Campaign Message, considering some Republicans see him soft on immigration, social security and tax reforms, with some of them insisting that the Senator sounds very much like Democrats on climate change; and spending, through his suggestion that the rich must pay a little more in order to help the poor. A Republican moderate, assuming the word means re-conciliatory on issues of passing congressional legislation; a long shot candidacy, assuming you taking into consideration, the star qualities or powers of other candidates on the Republican Campaign trail.
Notwithstanding the reservation(s) in some quarters, there are two dimensions to consider in this Presidential Campaign message: 1) Is there a need for reform of America’s National Security Policy in light of candidate Graham’s assertions; 2) Is there room for reflections, presupposing that his message carries with it, element of religious bigotry against American Muslims?
The most significant factors influencing future national investment on defense and spending will depend on the degree to which Americans see the presupposed emerging threats from domestic and international terrorism. It is premature, if not bigotry, to assume that Islam equates terrorism; and Muslims all over the world are to blame as they are all bent at destroying America. 2016 Presidential Candidate Graham believes that the world, is; “exploding in terror and violence”, and the only solution to this malaise is to send American Military to the Middle East to fight ISS or radical Islam. No one is doubting that there are existentialist reasons to combat domestic terrorism and international terrorists; however, very few will associate terrorism with the practice of Islam. Further, while some may disagree along the line on how best to fight terrorism, domestic and international, there are ample reasons to believe that the past two presidents after September 11th, 2001, have put a lot of efforts to combat attacks from terrorist groups and persons across the globe.
The initiatives to fight terrorism, domestic and international, by both President W. Bush and H. Obama, have introduced some level of new thinking into the efforts, exponentially. This new thinking, as much as they are criticized by either libertarians, Republicans or Democrats, foreign allies and sometimes partner-countries, should be seen as genuine effort to address a problem that no one today, has a definite and complete answer to: why do some people engage in dastardly act of terrorism, domestically and or internationally? Why do governments, direct and or indirectly, finance global terrorism? Until we are able to resolve these questions, association and blaming one religion, hardly seem a useful direction. New thinking must envision that, a common security reason, safety for everyone, is necessary, if not totally sufficient to guarantee a reduction in domestic and global terrorism. If there are proposals and policies to counter the gradual expansion of terrorist networks and groups fascinated by dastardly acts, let’s put them in place to prevent future mayhem at home and abroad. No responsible politician should use this very grievous issue as a pedestal for presidential ambition.
It is entirely possible that, even once we achieve success at combating this global canker-worm, another enemy will arise that will have a domestic and or international dimension. It depends on the willingness and eagerness of Americans, to pull ourselves by the bull-straps and direct our frustrations on the culprits, the financiers and their leg armies, who continue to destroy lives and disrupt governments across the globe. The greater the underlining reasons, why a sub-urban European Kid or his friends from inner city Boston, Massachusetts or St. Paul’s, Minnesota finds solace in leaving the convenience of his or her neighborhood to find their dreams in a world they have never met or lived, is actually the duzzy? The inflow of new peoples into America may appear as a problem; however, that hardly seems the case, there are new immigrants entering Europe every day and there are people of many other faiths coming into America that have not only assimilated, but has become model citizens, some Muslims others, Bhai’s, Seeks, Zoroastrians, Hindi, Jewish and many more faiths.
Significant to our present and future security goal, including fighting domestic and international terrorists, are fundamental restructuring of the way we have often addressed minorities among us, during wars: Japanese Americans during the Second World War; and, American Muslims, during the current rise of global terrorism. While it is unlikely we can completely resolve the impact of the current malaise by encouraging the involvement of every American in fighting domestic terrorism and many foreign governments in fighting global terrorism, we must still make the efforts because all our lives depend on it. There is no need castigating everyone who look alike as the same; or everyone in a religion, as the devil. If we have to reform our national security by increasing spending to combat terrorism in our federal budget, so be it; if we are to build greater public consensus towards increasing spending on international surveillance and preemptive strikes, so be it. However, we must never turn against ourselves in fighting an enemy, many of us, including those practicing the Islamic religion, hardly or completely understand.
The most viable manifestations of a candidate’s campaign message to address a national problem is its efforts to prescribe workable and non-discriminatory assertions – that is, how it speaks to the issue of terrorism, without labeling many who can hardly define the problem. I am postulating that Presidential candidates resolve to carry messages of hope, not of disunity; one that is based on realistic assumptions, not inflammatory assertions that demonize a selective few; a message that introduces competitive strategies to make use of our advancements in technology and substantial lead in understanding the world’s environment, to combat the new enemy, global terrorism; and, a promise to never relent, until the problem is resolved or eradicated across the world.
Realistically, this is a very difficult proposal, because of the nature of politicians and politics. However, this must never prevent us from trying or encouraging our politicians to move in the direction that prevents alienation of fellow Americans. We are in the nasty season of politics season, we must never allow the nastiness to degenerate to politically infeasibility or difficult situation, where some of us, are perceived as the enemy within.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Conservative Evangelic Religious resurgence in American Presidential Campaign: What Reverend Huckabee 2016 launching bid means?
Keywords or terms: Reverend Huckabee; Jerry Farwell; City of Hope, Arkansas; Evangelical Religious Conservatives; Presidential Campaign; Republican Party; Extremism; Religious Right; Stumbling blocks; Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender - LGBT; Caitlyn Jenner; Neo-Conservative Religious Groups; and, Alienating Voters.
Seldom in recent presidential campaigns has the attention of the public been drawn to the impact of Evangelical Religious Conservatives on American politics; or precisely, on the possible flag-bearer for a major political party? Not since the 1984 Jerry Farwell’s, founder of Liberty University, an Evangelical Southern Baptist televangelist conservative commentator, who vehemently denounced LGBT lifestyle, castigating it as a way to an apocalypse. Jerry Farwell, like Reverend Huckabee, hold very contrarian view of LGBT lifestyle to the extent that you come to believe it was and is, personal for both. How Reverend Jerry Farwell or Mike Huckabee would react to our new Ms. Caitlyn Jenner; or, is there no place for transgender in our present or future America? You come to realize rather quickly, that Reverend Huckabee’s candidacy for the 2016 White House race, launched about three weeks ago, is symptomatic of the 2004’s Farwell Moral Majority Coalition denouncement of anything that has to do with alternative lifestyles.
With the former Governor of Arkansas appealing in the “name of your children and grandchildren” for campaign contributions, the 44th Governor of Arkansas anchored his bid for 2016 White House, on the need to break the cycle of poverty and fight the rise of alternative lifestyles. Saying: “America will never break the cycle of poverty by pushing people to their minimum wage, but by empowering them to reach their maximum wage.” His declarations at the launching of his campaign, like his religious convictions, are closely reminiscent of a Social Cultural War. Interestingly, the campaign and launching were coming out of the City of Hope, same City where good old President Billy Clinton came out. Governor Huckabee’s pronouncements in his home state, put forefront, once again, evangelical religious conservative ethos, one that many Americans far from that culture or religion, very well feel is limiting or wholesomely unwelcoming. Could Governor Mike Huckabee pull this one off, this second time around?
Just as Jerry Farwell was the leading force behind the political rise of religious right in early 1980’s and 2004, FOX-TV News host Mike Huckabee and supporter of the Common Core Education Standard or curriculum, entered the 2016 Presidential Campaign race with the following denouncements: 1) any pressure from America on the State of Israel to cease building bedrooms for their families in Judea and Samaria, than Iranian’s pursuit of the nuclear bomb; 2) “unbalanced” trade deals that could shrink job prospects and the middle-class; 3) any attempt to erode Social Security and Medicare Benefits; 4) abandonment of Biblical principle of natural marriage; and, 5) dynasty presidency, where it seems one family or couple rotate the presidency among or between themselves. Any of these denouncements could have stood in for whatever Reverend Jerry Farwell stood for - literary interpretations of the words of the Bible. Reverend Huckabee religious conservatism upset or shook up the array of 2008 Republican candidates seeking the White House oval office, just as the coming out of Caitlyn Jenner shook the Internet and News media yesterday; however, the question this time around is: Can Huckabee burnish a political legendary of a time past?
Like Jerry Farwell, Mike Huckabee is against abortion, evolution, alternative lifestyle, LGBT. However, unlike Farwell, the persona of Huckabee is hardly radiating of hatred and outright degradation of other people who are not Christians. The visceral hatred from conservative evangelists to any outsiders to their religion and culture, make us want to delve further on some of Reverend Huckabee’s messages at his launching; and, explore the subject of the separation of state and religion, once again. Further, with recent week’s gang violence, many of whom wore Christian Crosses and Emblems, and the outing of some neo-conservative groups regarding attacks on Islamic mosques, the question of separation of state and religion, is once again as important as it was for our forefathers. Can America survive if relevant religious groups and our persons continue to interject their beliefs into governance? Can America stay true to the provisions of her constitution if party stalwarts, power brokers and candidates seeking the highest office in the land, espouse beliefs and convictions, which relegate many to the outsider status?
Since it is unlikely that an American Presidential candidate - as history has shown, can amass enough votes in a general election to win the grand-prize of American politics, if s/he makes religion the central piece of her/his campaign message, it is a one-dimensional risk that may ground the purpose of any campaign. Nonetheless, this is exactly what it seems Reverend Mike Huckabee has done? The candidacy of FOX News host interjects issues considered as rather too divisive or controversial to a Presidential Campaign that is already very much confusing. The venerable Reverend and former governor of the state of Arkansas committed this political sin at his Hope City Presidential Campaign launching; and, only time will tell, if he would be able to get away with it on his ride to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
For general debate sake, since the governor’s complete commitment to his religious and cultural ethics has not diminished his success in past executive position(s), why should he expect his very outlandish declaration for the 2016 Presidential Campaign bid, to handicap him as his party’s flag bearer, or deny him the ultimate prize of the 2016 contest? In fact, going by his personal declaration that his experience as a minister has afforded him special insights to executing executive functions, why must anyone feel or think contrarily that this same experience and current campaign message will not only win Huckabee the White House; but also, make America a more civil and religious society, where the faith and conviction of her seating President, transform the whole issues of poverty, income inequality, trade deficits, police brutality, and social injustices? How can the experience of a Governor who once commuted twice as many prisoners sentenced than three of his predecessor executives in Little rock, Arkansas, fail to accomplish and resolve all the mistrusts and suspicions of the judicial system, the negotiations for peace between Arabs and Jews, the declining productivity of the Euro-zone, the Canadian Oil Pipeline Project, and unresolved national immigration issues?
Governor Mike Huckabee, once wrote: “My experience dealing every day with real people who were genuinely affected by policies created by government gave me a deep understanding of the fragility of the human spirit and vulnerability of so many families who struggled from week to week. I was in the ICU at 2 a.m. with families faced with the decision to disconnect a respirator on their loved one; I counseled fifteen-year-old pregnant girls who were afraid to tell their parents about their condition; I spent hours hearing the grief of women who had been physically and emotionally clobbered by an abusive husband; I saw the anguish in the faces of an elderly couple when their declining health forced them to sell their home, give up their independence, and move into a long-term-care facility; I listened to countless young couples pour out their souls as they struggled to get their marriages into survival mode when confronted with overextended debt.” This declaration appears so messianic, some gullible supporters of the venerable Reverend’s candidacy, May very well wonder, why other people do not see in him, what they have. The choice of conviction and declarations of some leaders are so encapsulating that a few people who are carried away by the lure or charisma of these leaders, may just fail to objectively understand a different universe, from where they exist. How about Ms. Caitlyn Jenny’s 9:17 AM – 1 June 2015 Twit: [I’m so happy after such a long struggle to be living my true self. Welcome to the world Caitlyn. Can't wait for you to get to know her/me?
Neon- conservative religious values have a place for some people; however, how about others who hardly cares? How about those who maintain that, whether you are atheist, Catholic or Protestant, LGBT, Feminist, Muslim, Jewish or any other religious denomination, you should be welcomed at the table of American Democracy? Some rather pertinent questions from the so-classified outsiders to neo conservative religious groups are: 1) is the 2016 Presidential aspirant, Mike Huckabee, going to force his neon-conservative religious, ethical and social values on all Americans? 2) Can non-religious or ethicist, stand a chance in the meting out of justice under and Huckabee Administration? 3) Will LGBT communities be protected under an avowed antagonist of their lifestyle? 4) Will evangelical religious conservatives prompt decisive geopolitical upheaval across the nation? 5) Given the fact that foreign policies cannot be operated on the basis of religious beliefs and convictions, what alternative strategies will be followed in an era of global religious anarchy and cultural chaos? These are issues that must be resolved by American voters, who may be considering voting for, or contributing to the campaigns of the Reverend Christian Brother from Hope, Arkansas.
Back to Separation of State and Religion. Our constitution mandates the separation of state and religion; the need for a secular state, asking that the social roles of the Church or any other place of religious worship, be distinctly separate, including funding and use of state funds. This definite distinctions, categorized by different groups and sometime nations as secularism, religious liberty or pluralism, is so much part of the foundation of modern day American Democracy, as the apple pie. But many neon-conservative religious groups and aspiring political candidates, national, state and local, are simply incapable of accepting this very distinction. This has important implication for a Presidential Candidacy, or any political office candidacies, built on religious and social conservative values.
Given the fact that a Presidency or its party membership cannot discriminate against a set of people on the basis of their religious affiliation or conviction, and some will like to take it as far as their sexuality, it is very challenging to see a situation where consensus can be built on the narrow interpretation of religion in the lives of all Americans. Further, given the fact that it may be rather difficult to harness enough fellowship or voters, when your presidential campaign message(s) is built on evangelical religious and conservative ethos, it follows that the only alternatives to a campaign like Reverend Mike Huckabee’s, are to depend only on the goodwill of the number of people or voters that share same premises. This could have an adverse impact on the campaign primary results in many states of the union, especially in many religious liberal states as well as conservative ones. For those voters who are tuned to Governor Mike Huckabee’s political campaign messages on neon-conservative religious values, his oratory are God sent. For those in other religions, Jews and Gentiles, the message(s) could be as infuriating as an infringement on constitutionally protected rights.
These considerations, in turn, underline the relative reservation of many political candidates to build their campaign for a political office on the narrow definition of the place of religion in the lives of their constituencies. The narrowness of defining one’s presidential campaign message on an issue or issues that are collectively or disparately divisive is as risky as playing a lotto or bingo at my friend’s neighborhood casino. The disproportionate possibility of losing your chances are greater when your campaign message(s) points finger in the eyes of some indecisive voters, those whose goodwill, you are actively courting or seeking to win the ultimate prize. In effect, the fact that Governor Huckabee has built his campaign on the narrow message of evangelical conservative religious values, puts his candidacy at a disadvantage or risk.
Admittedly, that also implies that he stands greatly to win a windfall from many voters who share his conviction and places their religious values, over and above, party affiliation and or national identity. American voters are independent thinkers and are able to make good choices in their own interest. It is gradually becoming evident than in years to come, the United States will become a more diverse, religious, ethnic, gender, and or sexual orientation society. For the contest of a high profile office as that of US Presidency, aspirants would more or less, have to build a bigger tent, one as inclusive as including the preferences and choices of Ms. Caitlyn Jenner and more; my apologies to the Republican National Conference. The effective result of that accommodation, is the odd of having a better chance at winning the political trophy. The analogy that comes to mind is not that a candidate must not seek to differentiate his campaign messages, but rather, that those messages cannot be as alienating, as to prevent voters from considering their candidacy or creating revolts that could directly or indirectly, undermine the candidacy. Candidate must never forget, the goal is to win general election into the elected office, not make enemies along the way!