Politics - U.S. style

While we were in Boston we saw the second presidential debate. Not “Joe the Plumber”, but the “THAT ONE” one. It was inevitably hard to avoid with TV news reports, commentaries and adverts providing some interest to the casual spectator (i.e. me).

This linked with one of my Boston highlights – visiting the John F Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. It’s really worth a visit if you’re in Boston (although I thought the stuff on the Cuban missile crisis was a wee bit short and lightweight – but I’m probably being picky!)

Two aspects of the museum triggered thoughts about the similarities and differences with the current campaign.

The stunning similarity for me was the exhibit that showed excerpts from the very first televised presidential debate – between JFK and Richard Nixon. One was eloquent, photogenic, energetic, calm, composed, thoughtful and talked a lot about vision and the need for change; the other was quite brusque, awkward, reactive, direct in responses and talked a lot about experience. Sound familiar?

The difference – for me – was the issue of religion. In his speech accepting the Democratic party nomination JFK emphasised that he did not want his religion to be an issue in the election, he wanted to be judged on his policies alone. This time around there has been much talk of religion – especially that of Barack Obama. The fact that religion is an issue still comes as a surprise to me, given that it’s not a big factor in elections over here.

I heard someone recently suggesting that the emergence of faith in U.S. elections was a reaction to Watergate (Nixon again!) and the need for the population to be re-assured about the moral integrity of their potential President. However, I am concerned (as an ill-informed onlooker) that the test of authenticity as a Christian is largely based on the issue of abortion and to some extent homosexuality. Why highlight these two? Why not use the attitude towards poverty and injustice, which would be more biblical?

Anyway, it’s intriguing that Obama has been keen to talk about and expand on his religious views. Of course, there are issues relating to his family background that mean he has to establish his own position – to some extent. But I admire the way that he has not chosen to give the ‘correct’ answers to the questions that he’s been asked. He seems to have remained true to his beliefs and principles, even when he knows that he will get a negative reaction (as at the Saddleback event).

I will watch with interest to see the outcome on November 4th.