Candidates in presidential race give voters chance to make history

  • Follow Letters

I am excited about the possibilities on the national scene in 2008.

Albeit more symbolism than substance, the election of a black or a woman to the White House could be very significant, indeed -- a defining year in America's political history. What can be more exciting than the possibility of breaking a longstanding stigma against certain groups of persons in this country -- a stigma that says they cannot be elected to the highest office in this land, at least in the near future? That has been the thinking, generation after generation. However, that does not have to continue beyond this November.

BEING PRESIDENT is like no other job. One does not train for it. And one does not walk into it knowing what in the world to do, for sure. At best, all one can do, if elected, is to surround himself or herself with competent people who are good at what they do; have the interest of the country ahead of the interest of special groups; and are willing to serve to that end. Of course, the buck stops at his or her feet, where a decisions is made.

Since no incumbent is running, experience for the office is a non-issue in this race, I would think. There is no guarantee what a candidate can or will do, if elected to office. That has always been the case, and most likely will continue to be. For instance, we have experience in the White House now. Does this tell us something about experience and how much it counts? If this is what experience gives us, then spare us from experience, and just give us somebody we can believe in, in addition to somebody who has a sound mind; a strong love for this country; a willingness to protect it; and an understanding that we do not live on an island separated from the rest of the world.

The other candidates, be they Republican, Democrat or independent, also fit the bill to serve in the highest office of the land. The election of any of them would be a breath of fresh air to who is in the White House now. However, the election of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would have a special affect on the lives of so many Americans in ways we cannot yet comprehend.

I am naÃve enough to think that either Clinton or Obama will be the next president of the United States. I believe this because, so far, no one has offered any compelling reasons, other than philosophical differences, why this should not happen. Except for race and gender, Clinton and Obama are not unlike any of their contenders. Now, whether either of them ends up being a good president remains to be seen, as it has been with every president we have had. I see no reason to put unreasonable demands on their candidacies.

NONE OF THE women and blacks who have run for president before was viable. And they had no illusions about winning. Let us say they were just testing the waters. In 1972, Shirley Chisholm, A U.S. representative from New York, became the first black woman with some standing to run for president. She ran under the slogan "Unbought and unbossed." When she arrived at the Democratic National Convention in Miami, she had 151 delegates pledged to her, and was given a coveted speaking slot. That was the extent of her campaign.

Most of the black candidates who have run for president have come from the civil rights activist rolls rather than from political office. Comedian Dick Gregory ran a write-in campaign in 1968 and received 47,000 votes. Lenora Fulani and Al Sharpton did not fare well in their bids. Jesse Jackson was the most successful up until now. In 1984, he won five Democratic caucuses and primaries. This set the stage for a more ambitious run for president later in 1988, and also paved the way for Obama to run this time.

In this election year, "change" is the buzzword. Even Republican candidates are using it. This is not so strange, considering the many lost opportunities our current president has squandered to move this country forward. Change could be good or bad, depending on whom change will affect and how. This election, like no other in this country's 222-year history, would give us the opportunity to turn a page and destroy the glass ceiling that has hung over the heads of non-whites and women alike, and has kept them from the highest office in government: the presidency. This could be the greatest change of 2008. How could we pass up such an opportunity? Just think of the legacy we would leave future generations. I plan to be a part of this history, and hope you will as well.

However, I am mindful that there are people who are unwilling to take this risk. The reasons range from the sublime to the absurd. Most come out of fear -- fear of the unknown. It is sort of like overcoming the fear of water and learning how to swim. One cannot get rid of that fear until he or she gets into the water. Just thinking about it will not change a thing.

Most interesting, though, is the fact that polls tell us that blacks are more pessimistic about a black becoming president than either whites or Hispanics, or America as a whole. Could it be that we are not only pessimistic, but also fearful? Is it a fear borne out of knowing how we have treated one another when in power? For some of us, it's just plain old jealousy. What a sad state of affairs it is when others have more faith in us than we have in ourselves.

FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. I am proud of the progress this country has made in my lifetime, and I am optimistic that we can overcome this present fear. Early on in my childhood, it was unthinkable that a black -- or a woman, for that matter -- would be or could be elected to local office, let alone national office. We have crossed that threshold and many others.

Electing a woman or a person of color to the office of president would move this country to new heights. What makes this so exciting is the fact that we can make this happen this year.

(The writer is a retired labor relations manager from Bechtel Savannah River Inc. He lives in Martinez.)

Comments (6) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
The Knave
24
Points
The Knave 01/20/08 - 11:49 am
0
0
Re: "Electing a woman or a

Re: "Electing a woman or a person of color to the office of president would move this country to new heights." This is a silly statement that belies the shallow criteria that the average American voter uses to chose a candidate. The only "new heights" that this country is destined to achieve are debt, destruction of manufacturing capability, out-of-control spending, empire-building, war-mongering, dependence on resources controlled by others, and the mendacity and self-aggrandizing behavior of American criminals (whoops, I mean "political leaders'), including the current crop of presidential candidates, save Dr. Ron Paul. ----- "Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." (Ambrose Bierce)

patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 01/20/08 - 12:11 pm
0
0
I agree with you the Knave.

I agree with you the Knave. Paul might be the best answer,but certainly electing some one just because of their race or gender makes no more sense then electing someone just because of their membership in a certain party. While I always appreciate Mr Abrams wisdom and knowledge, I feel the "change" concept needs to include "for the better". MORE social programs and MORE taxes isn't the type of change most of us are looking for. Not many of the 'viable' candidates today want to change anything but the captain of the ship.

grouse
1635
Points
grouse 01/20/08 - 12:18 pm
0
0
I agreed with you Patricia up
Unpublished

I agreed with you Patricia up to the point about more taxes, etc. Republicans traditionally have raised taxes more than Democrats. I don't understand why Republicans don't understand that government is here to serve the people, not business.

patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 01/20/08 - 12:29 pm
0
0
grouse,All politicians raise

grouse,All politicians raise taxes. As to who raises them the most is arguable. However, why the taxes are raised is more arguable. Thus the two major parties. It's my contention that providing a national defense, a strong national infrastructure, and an environment that is conducive to business and an opportunity to be successful is the only thing a national government is for. When the people feel the federal governments job is to provide subsidies for the everyday maintenance of the people, then the end of the nation is near.

jack
10
Points
jack 01/20/08 - 04:31 pm
0
0
Grouse, I don't know what

Grouse, I don't know what history book you have been reading that says Republicans "historically" have raised taxes more than DIMocRATS, but if you read a real history book, you would find the exact opposite is true and those running now promise more taxes if elected. Charlie Rangel already is developing a thre trillion dollar tax increase. Yeah, that's trillion with a T.

jack
10
Points
jack 01/20/08 - 04:33 pm
0
0
I have no problem with

I have no problem with electing a female or a person of color to the Presidency, just not socialists such as Hitlery and Obama. A Margaret Thatcher would be great. Don't know any blacks I would vote for.

grouse
1635
Points
grouse 01/20/08 - 06:31 pm
0
0
Government has no
Unpublished

Government has no responsibility to business and capitalism would support that. It's for the people, by the people, and if Rangal is proposing a tax increase, it's only to pay for this invasion and all the corporate welfare. I may have been thinking spending rather than taxing, but the end result is the same. And jack, please grow up and stop calling names. It's very unbecoming. Besides, I don't think, given the past seven years, the Republicans have anything to be proud of.

patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 01/20/08 - 06:44 pm
0
0
it's four years grouse. The

it's four years grouse. The Dems controlled the senate the first two years and for the past year. The environment for business should be all the government is involved in. Anti-trust, reasonable taxation, and controls on cut throat competition, including imports. Without these influences, we'd be just another socialist entity.

grouse
1635
Points
grouse 01/21/08 - 09:45 pm
0
0
Now Patricia, you know that
Unpublished

Now Patricia, you know that the Dems don't have the votes to do anything.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs