All posts by Thomas L. Knapp

Op-Eds

Religion and Politics and Presidential Qualifications

Leave a comment
Leona's bumper sticker.
“Coexist” bumper sticker. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Religious belief as a qualification or disqualification for the presidency of the United States is an old can of worms. Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon running near the front of the pack for the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, cracked that can open and invited the body politic to feast on September 20 on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” Carson told host Chuck Todd. In a follow-up interview with The Hill, Carson elaborated: “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country … Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Public response has been swift on both sides — affirmation from segments of the GOP base, including evangelical Christians and neoconservatives, outrage from civic-minded Muslims and, oddly, some “separation of church and state” advocates. Interestingly, US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), also seeking the nomination, pointed out that the Constitution forbids “religious tests” for public office.

Cruz is right as far as he goes. A Muslim cannot be legally forbidden to seek, or be elected to, the presidency if he or she is otherwise constitutionally qualified.

On the other hand, voters are free to impose any tests they please when considering candidates. Mitt Romney’s Mormonism gave some voters pause in 2008 and 2012. John F. Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith was a big issue in 1960, with critics wondering if he would “take his orders from the Pope.” If Carson continues in the top tier, his own Seventh Day Adventist beliefs might come under scrutiny.

I don’t come down in the moderate center very often, but that’s where I find myself here.

Most Americans adhere to some system of religious belief. I’m one of those Americans. I don’t consider that a disqualifier for public office. What I do expect from candidates vis a vis their religious beliefs are two things:

First, if their beliefs forbid them to do the job and follow the laws relating to the job (cough … Kim Davis), they should neither seek nor accept the job.

Secondly, even if their positions on issues are informed by their faith, they should be prepared to justify those positions, using reason and logic, to persons of other faiths (or of no faith) if they expect to be elected.

Like Carson, I admit to skepticism as to whether a devout Muslim would pass these tests. Unlike Carson, I put Christian candidates to the same test and give some of them — Baptist minister Mike Huckabee, for example — a failing grade.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

They Want to Talk About Israel. OK, Let’s Talk About Israel.

4 Comments

American and Israeli Flags (public domain)

In The Best and the Brightest, David Halberstam quotes US president Lyndon Baines Johnson on his desired qualities in an assistant: “I want loyalty! I want him to kiss my a– in Macy’s window at high noon and tell me it smells like roses.”

Nearly every “major party” presidential candidate this year and in past election cycles seems to have taken that advice to heart, but in an odd way. They come off less as applicants for the presidency of the United States than for  the position of personal aide to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The second Republican presidential primary debate looked a lot like Macy’s window at high noon:

Jeb Bush: “[T]he first thing that we need to do is to establish our commitment to Israel …”

Carly Fiorina: “On day one in the Oval Office, I will make two phone calls, the first to my good friend to Bibi Netanyahu to reassure him we will stand with the state of Israel.”

Marco Rubio: “If I’m honored with the opportunity to be president, I hope that our Air Force One will fly, first and foremost, to our allies; in Israel …”

Mike Huckabee: “At the end of my presidency I would like to believe that the world would be a safe place, and there wouldn’t be the threats. Not only to the US, but to Israel …”

Ted Cruz: “If I’m elected president our friends and allies across the globe will know that we stand with them. The bust of Winston Churchill will be back in the Oval Office, and the American embassy in Israel will be in Jerusalem.”

If you expect to hear anything much different from the Democratic candidates, you’re engaged in wishful thinking. Immediate and unqualified obedience to Benjamin Netanyahu has replaced Social Security as the third rail in American presidential politics — don’t step on it or you’ll die.

The question for me is not “pro-Israel” versus “anti-Israel.”

Nor is it, as conservative pundit Ann Coulter tweeted foot-in-mouth, about courting the “f—ing Jews,” who are no longer the swing voting bloc they used to be, if for no other reason than that American Jews tend on average to be a little less “pro-Israel” than major party presidential candidates.

What it’s about is whether or not American voters should continue to give a foreign power’s  well-financed lobby significant control over US foreign policy decisions and presidential choices.

In future debates, presidential candidates of all parties should be asked whether or not Israel is one of the 50 states — and if not, why they think it deserves large welfare checks drawn on the treasury of, and veto power over the actions of, the US government.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

In Praise of Polarization

Leave a comment
English: I took photo of William Lloyd Garriso...
English: Photo of William Lloyd Garrison at National Portrait Gallery. (Photo credit: Billy Hathorn)

Wikipedia defines political “polarization” as “the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes,” asserting that “when polarization occurs in a two-party system, like the United States, moderate voices often lose power and influence.”

According to a 2014 Pew Research Center survey, American politics is currently extremely polarized in the sense that “Republicans and Democrats are further apart ideologically than at any point in recent history.”

Most political analysis assumes that polarization and “extremism” are bad things and that the best solutions to social problems lie somewhere in the “moderate” middle. I disagree.

Politics is, in large part, a process through which some people’s wealth is forcibly taken and given to other people.

Democratic “extremists” want to take your wealth and give it to “the poor.”

Republican “extremists” want to take your wealth and give it to “defense” contractors.

Democratic and Republican “moderates” make a show of “reaching across the aisle” to “compromise.” Their solution is to take your wealth and give it to “the poor” AND “defense” contractors.

If the “moderate” solution seems worse than either “extreme,” that’s because it is. The “moderate” middle is the worst of both worlds. Progressive populist Jim Hightower titled one of his books There’s Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos. I don’t agree with Hightower on a lot, but he certainly nailed it with that title.

Answers to political problems, if they are to be found, will be found on the “extremes,” because all problems eventually break down to binary distinctions: Yes or no? Right or wrong? Trying to mix the two options via “moderation” and “compromise,” as Ayn Rand (a philosophical political opposite of Jim Hightower) wrote, fail because “[i]n any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”

But what if BOTH “extremes” are wrong, as is the case in modern American politics? Better that the extremists be forced to publicly wallow in their errors than that they be allowed to disguise those errors in “moderate” rhetoric. Polarization is good because it exposes truth. And in this case the truth sends us looking for a third, better set of “extremists.”

William Lloyd Garrison, the namesake of the advocacy journalism center for which I write, exemplified this approach. He stood full force against chattel slavery for decades as the Democrats, Whigs, Free Soilers and Republicans floated multiple compromises, provisos and other schemes that culminated in the Civil War … and in complete victory for Garrison’s cause.

Libertarians are the third, correct “extreme.” We don’t want to take your wealth and redistribute it. Not to “the poor.” Not to “defense contractors.” Not to anyone. We think you’re a better judge than “extremists” or “moderates” of either major political party when it comes to how to spend what you earn.

So forget “moderation” and “compromise.” Time to get “extreme.” But search out the genuine libertarian article and accept no substitutes.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY