January 2, 2008
When Mrs. Chancellor wanted to make the point that the answer was obvious, she would say it was “immediately obvious to the most casual observer.”
Point made.
That was Algebra II at Bryan Adams High School and it’s a phrase that I have used for the 30 years since it was burned into my mushy sophomore mind.
Although math’s truths are clearer than those in politics and human events, I think of that phrase when I read about the founding of our country and the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths (e.g., all men are created equal) to be self-evident or “immediately obvious to the most casual observer.”
There’s another phrase that was burned into my mind three decades ago by our very strict math teacher: “All things being equal.”
When comparing options in math she would say that this one was the preferable method over that one all things being equal.
And while I can’t use the “immediately obvious” standard with ‘08 presidential politics, “all things being equal” fits quite nicely for me. This phrase allows me to compare where the candidates stand on issues that are important to me. If their stances are close enough, I am then free to pick the one that would be my preference.
There are many Christians who feel compelled to support Mike Huckabee for the nomination for the GOP. I am sure some do so because they agree with his record and his proposals. But many, I fear, support him because he’s one of us.
That’s a good way to pick a buddy or a travel mate or a president for the country club. But it’s a dreadful way to decide who should be Commander-in-Chief of the world’s only super power in a time of war.
To be clear, it doesn’t mean he might not be the best selection, but the reasoning is faulty.
For the record, as of yet, I have not publicly endorsed any of the candidates for the 2008 presidential race. Honestly, all things being equal, I would like it to be Mike Huckabee. But, as they say, therein lies the rub. Things are rarely equal.
When speaking to friends who support Huckabee, I have tried a little experiment. I want to know whether they agree with his record and proposals, or simply identify with him and want to vote for him for that reason.
“Why haven’t you come out for Huck,” I am asked. It’s sometimes asked the way you might ask the question, “Don’t you love the Lord?”
Well, I say, I am still waiting for a few things that are bothering me. Huckabee’s response to the recent NIE on Iran’s nuclear capabilities was surprising and a bit disturbing. Would he or would he not have vetoed the SCHIP bill that President Bush vetoed? I am looking for reconciliation between Huckabee’s position just weeks ago that children of illegals should be given breaks on tuition for state schools in Arkansas and his current position of sending these same people out of the country for being here illegally. Which is it? And is it a true deportation or is it a “touchback” which is, in my view, meaningless? Was it his desire for Wayne DuMond to be set free? Does he still believe (as he said to me in an interview on June 15th) that Rudy as the nominee would mean “President Hillary Rodham Clinton?” These are just some of the questions I have, but by no means all.
When their eyes glaze over—when it becomes clear to me that they don’t know about NIE or touchback or SCHIP or Wayne DuMond—then I know that they’re in the category of supporters for whom issues and positions are less important than identity.
If political candidates were identical, I believe people are inclined toward people like themselves. I think it’s human nature and I don’t think it’s wrong or bigoted. Mormons are inclined toward Mormons. Evangelicals toward Evangelicals. Blacks. Women. That’s all understandable and acceptable to me—all things being equal.
What is troubling is when identity politics demands (or counts on) the setting aside of reason for feelings. That is, when mere identity is the basis for acceptance of our leaders, there is the potential for disastrous consequences. Why? Because all things are not equal.
There are real differences between the candidates. If identity were all that mattered we’d have a woman, a Mormon, a mayor, an African-American, a Hispanic, a war hero, a preacher, an actor and a trial lawyer.
Candidates are more than those descriptions and voters should look past all of those things to find out where the person they’re inclined to support stands on the border, the courts, the war, taxes, family, life and law and order.
First and foremost it is not their identity that matters, but which issues each candidate identifies as most important—and where they stand on those issues.
For me, so far, the choice is not immediately obvious to the most casual observer—because all things are not equal.
Scott Wilder is host of “The Scott Wilder Show,” recognised by the National Religious Broadcasters as Talk Show Host of the Year in 2004. His program is heard weekday afternoons in Dallas/Ft. Worth on The WORD 100.7 FM. Contact Scott at [email protected].
