Presidential Preference

Judging from the great response to the recently-expired poll about who you Readers would least like to see as President, I seem to have hit a nerve. Twenty-nine responses is pretty good for this blog.

The question was written to make a forced choice — if you had to pick between these alternatives, you would be willing to accept X over Y.

Just over half of the respondents said that the kind of person they would least like to see as President was someone who had not graduated from college. That seems right to me; sure, Presidents like Harry Truman didn’t graduate from college but the era of history when college wasn’t a necessary step in one’s career is long past. We rightly demand that our leaders be well-educated.

But five of you — 17% — said you’d rather have a President who didn’t finish college than an atheist as President. Seriously? Hopefully, you’re not just trying to needle me. If you really dislike atheists that much, what keeps you coming back here, to keep on reading what this atheist has to say about stuff?

What is it about atheists, in your minds, that disqualifies them for the job worse than people who are not well-educated? Is it a Star Jones kind of rationale? If so, I have to ask — do you think that the only reason a President (or anyone else) does something good and moral as opposed to something bad and immoral is the fear of divine punishment or the promise of divine reward? Because that’s not morality — that’s a carrot-and-stick mentality. It might get you the results you want, but that’s not the same thing. And as we’ve seen with our past two Presidents, an overtly religious leader is hardly a guarantee of moral conduct while in office.

Let’s say someone were to say this in a public speech: “The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.” The sort of thing I might say. You would not vote for that person for President of the United States. Right?

There were some other responses, too. Three votes for “Muslim,” which means that three respondents would rather have an atheist President than a Muslim one. In the current geopolitical environment I suppose I can see and understand, if not necessarily agree with, that position. I think that one brand of religious doctrine is pretty much the same as another; none of it is real. I don’t care if my President prefers Star Wars to Star Trek or vice versa; same thing with the Old Testament, the New, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or any other holy book you could identify. As for a Muslim being disloyal to the interests of America, I think that’s nonsense. I trust the voters to be able to at least figure out whether a candidate is going to be loyal to the country or not, regardless of their religion.

Two votes for “Mormon.” This is interesting. You’d rather have a Muslim than a Mormon in the Oval Office? Personally, I don’t see any reason why a Mormon shouldn’t be President although I can think of a lot of reasons why a particular Mormon running for that office this cycle is not a very attractive choice. Maybe you were referring to that particular person rather than Mormons in general.

Two votes for “Homosexual.” Back in the days when being homosexual was an embarrassment and a reason to blackmail someone, I could see that. But these days? No big whoop. Jodie Foster sort of came out of the closet today, not that her fifteen-year relationship with a woman has been much of a secret. I doubt it will have any impact at all on her ability to attract an audience to a movie she stars in, directs, or writes. Certainly we’re not talking about an entertainer with this matrix, but there just isn’t the same kind of stigma associated with being gay now as opposed to what there was fifty years ago. Nor should there be. There has been some theorizing that both Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan were gay. (Okay, perhaps there could have been better role models for gay Presidents. But the point is that it might not be breaking any new ground to have a gay President.) But it doesn’t make sense to me that the sort of person who would be repelled by the idea of a gay President (a minority of Americans, by the way) would prefer an atheist to a homosexual.

Two votes for “Philanderer.” Umm… haven’t we had quite a few philanderers as Presidents? Some of them have been rather effective administrators who presided over peaceful, prosperous eras of our history. Who the President sleeps with doesn’t seem to have anything to do with how he (or she) does the job. Well, I suppose it’s fair to say that one might not want any more philanderers, and cheating on one’s spouse might be seen as a bellwether of other kinds of moral laxity. But again, you’d rather have a gay, monogamous President than a straight President who sleeps around?

No votes for “Woman,” “African-American,” or most interestingly, “Naturalized American.” Since a woman and an African-American are very serious candidates right now, I’m not surprised at that. “Naturalized American,” though, is a bit interesting — several Republican candidates for President were reluctant to suggest that the Constitution should be amended to allow a naturalized American to hold our highest office. Personally, I don’t see a problem with the idea — I think the voters can figure out, and the rigors of a modern election will certainly prove, the loyalty and character of any candidate. It seems you agree with me on that. I don’t know that there is an imperative to do this, though; the only political figure who merits any particular consideration is Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I’m not entirely sure that there would be a huge public demand for his candidacy if he could run.

I’ll have to give some thought into how to get such a good reaction in the future. The polls are a lot more fun when a lot of people play.