Reason: The Gold Standard of Politics (A Girl Can Dream)

I was reading Time magazine online earlier, and I came across this article titled “The Origin of Obama’s Pastor Problem.”

First, let me say that I found Obama’s speech to be awe inspiring. I’m not sure how many people share that sentiment. Initially, I found many people who connected with the speech on one level or another. The speech got them talking; for example, the speech seemed to have somewhat cracked open the socio-political barriers inherent in discourse on identity politics regarding race. That I can admit. Subconsciously, however, there seemed to be some sort of dissonance, some sort of lacking element that was essential to making the speech truly successful, truly progressive, what could have really helped it avoid the inevitable “pandering” title.

Listening to and reading public commentary both on TV and online, I recognized something I initially missed, and the concept did not appear anywhere in public discourse. It did not appear on television, on radio, even online—at least I didn’t see it until this afternoon.

What bothered me as I watched the speech live, streaming over cnn.com, was not the emotional presentation and delivery (which I believe is genuine—I have no reason to believe otherwise); it was not the nearly perfect linguistic structure or perfectly situated word choice. No. It’s that in the 21st century, Obama still embraces a dogma (i.e, Christianity) and the physical representation of that dogma (i.e., Wright) that propagate nonsensical beliefs, superstitious drivel, blatant gobbledygook, and vacuous platitudes. These purposely distort information; they produce disinformation. They are exploitative and downright wrong.

So what? Simply chalk it up to pandering? Claim Obama was forced to right a social wrong (or at least anesthetize the public to it in an attempt to solidify the party’s nomination)? I don’t think any of this type of commentary does the speech justice. Obama, it’s claimed, dictated the initial draft himself. I have no doubt, after watching the speech, that it was given from the heart. I see no disingenuous motives.

But this still bothers me.

Obama—embracing said nonsense, elevating faith-based beliefs, and glorifying willful ignorance and the inherent barbarism within Christianity, utilizing such elements as a way to communicate with people, to connect with constituents. Think about that. I don’t know about you, but that bothers me. While this seems to be acceptable (even expected) by millions of Americas, my moral principles dictate it an automatic disqualification for any person who runs for president and requests my vote.

Of course, I don’t vote my principles. I wish I could. I vote for the person who best represents what this country needs (and we need a lot), even if that pragmatic part of me doesn’t always coincide with the intrinsic ethical principles in my psyche.

So yes, I have a problem with Obama’s speech. The problem is not overwhelming enough to prohibit me from voting for him should he secure the Democratic presidential nomination, but I think Sam Harris said it best in a recent article in the Huffington Post:

Despite all that he does not and cannot say, Obama’s candidacy is genuinely thrilling: his heart is clearly in the right place; he is an order of magnitude more intelligent than the current occupant of the Oval Office; and he still stands a decent chance of becoming the next President of the United States. His election in November really would be a triumph of hope.

But Obama’s candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country. We may be ready for the audacity of hope. Will we ever be ready for the audacity of reason?

And so I wonder when the day will come when a politician can say, in all candor, “Personal beliefs are personal. They do not belong in the public sphere. I will not speak on my own beliefs, I will not judge what is best for this country based upon my own personal beliefs. Faith will have no place in my administration. Reason is the gold standard.”