Politics by bogus question.

[detbuch]

Republicans running for President in 2016 are being asked by various media if they would go to a gay wedding. The presumption being, I suppose, that the answer would be a significant factor in their "qualification" to be President. If it really, and truly, were a qualification, then, I would think, it would be as much so if they were to go to any and all other weddings. "Straight" weddings, Muslim weddings, bestiality weddings, polygamous weddings, Communist weddings, death row weddings, your wedding, my wedding, and all other weddings that might or might not take place. After all, the President is so of and for ALL the people.

Somehow, whether the candidate would or would not go to any of those weddings is supposed to have an important bearing on his or her performance as President. That anyone, in this day and age, believes that either the question or the answer to it are important, relevant, in respect to a candidate for President . . . reveals how much that office has been "transformed."

I understand the old-fashioned shake-your-hand, kiss-your-baby, popularity brand of politicking. I understand the baby kissing and hand shaking and event attending photo-ops. But why not wait for them to happen and then take the photos? Why ask beforehand if they would kiss babies, etc.--in effect, taking the photo before the event happens?

The answer, I believe, is that the "photographer," the media, doesn't want the candidate to dictate the photo. Unless, of course, the media favors the candidate. The candidates the media doesn't favor, must not be allowed to set up the photo, but the photo must be a set-up of the candidate strictly by the media.

That's fine. Media, corporations, interest groups, collectives, as well as individuals, all have a right to "define" their opponents in negative lights. Time magazine is well known for filling their cover with a full facial portrait that is well and flatteringly lit when it wants to promote or commend someone, but portraying the face of someone they don't "like" with harsh and scary lighting.

So, on the one hand, its just typical shallow journalism meant to influence more than to inform--highlight somebody's "negative" characteristics if he is to be defeated, or her "positive" characteristics if it is desired that she win. Otherwise, if every personal characteristic of your preferred candidate was revealed, you might not like her. On the other hand, there is more than that going on here. After all, it is not everyone's taste, not even, necessarily, the majorities taste, that not attending a gay wedding is a negative characteristic. In any event, there are no "perfect" candidates to suit everyone's taste. I believe that "on the other hand" has to do with how far our national government has been remodeled.

What is relevant in terms of character, to run for POTUS? As it stands today, it is commonly believed that you must be all things for all people. That you must somehow bring about justice and equality for all, that you must provide for all those in need, that you must eliminate all forms of "discrimination," that you will root out all injustice, corruption and predatory practices in our country and protect us from all of that which threatens us outside of our country as well.

That it is not possible for one person to do all that, unless he is a dictator with a bureaucratic mechanism and police force/military under his control, does not seem to blunt the perception of what a President must be and do. And if the prevailing perception that the President is all things to all people were true, there would be no need for the other government structures now in place, such as Congress with its Senate and House, the SCOTUS, States with their governing structures and constitutions, separate policing structures--municipal, state, and federal--sheriff departments, and so on. Somehow, the President is supposed to rise above all that, and those other structures and institutions are merely bumps, annoying obstacles, which he should be allowed to overcome and to bend to his will. He should be the final arbiter.

But if, upon honest reflection, we don't want a dictatorial form of government, and if we still do want government power to be diffused into a wider and more limited sphere, then we might look to the structure which is now being abused and insist that it be refurbished. Such a change would not concern the President with matters such as gay weddings. It would restrict her to specific duties to be faithfully executed whether she would go to gay weddings or not.

And if she were asked if she would go to a gay wedding, she might ask the interviewer to stay on point. She is running for President, not wedding counselor. That she would faithfully execute those duties for which and to which she is assigned by the prescribed structure of United States government and to the supreme law of the land to which she has sworn to uphold, to protect, and to defend. And whether she attended a wedding or not has nothing to do with the responsibilities granted to the office of President. And that, as ALL Presidents must do, she would not let her personal preferences or biases or various weddings interfere with her duty.