The Precedential Election of 2008

In an op-ed piece in the September 1, 2008 edition of Newsweek, Ellis Cose states boldly that "Once Barack Obama emerged as the Democratic candidate, it was clear that the presidential contest would become a referendum on race." Mr. Cose gives no clue whether he thinks that statement should give cause for rejoicing or terror, but it scares the bejeebies out of me. Does that statement terrify anyone else as much as it does me?

Why should this election be a referendum on race? We might as well have an election that is a referendum on eye color, or would that be really too ridiculous? I suppose it could be argued that we have already had several elections that were referenda on male pattern baldness or physical stature.

While Hillary Clinton was in the race it looked like the election might be a referendum on gender. Now that Senator McCain has tapped Sarah Palin as his running mate, it may be that the gender card will trump the race card after all. At least that's what the McCain campaign is hoping for.

For a brief time in the spring it also looked like the election might become a referendum on religion. Mr. Cose gives a brief acknowledgement of Governor Romney's woes and then gets to the real meat of his article, the question of Senator Obama's Christianity and rumored Muslim connections. Why, Mr. Cose asks, should it matter what religion a presidential candidate professes? That's a very good question indeed and I think it should also be asked about race and gender and maybe even baldness.

Every presidential election should be a referendum on character, leadership qualities, and fitness for office and nothing more. Matters of genetics and faith need not apply. Unfortunately, as Mr. Cose intimates, the American voter is far more apt to vote for a precedent than for a president. Most people who vote this November will vote for or against a precedent. "Do I want a president of African heritage, or not?" "Do I want a female Vice President or not?" "Which precedent do I want to support or oppose?"

I fear the question of historical precedent will far outweigh qualifications for office in the minds of American voters this year. What a great pity that is. I suppose Adolf Hitler got it right when he said, "What luck for rulers that men do not think."