Irresponsible Choices
By Thomas Sowell
TownHall.com
The latest Gallup poll indicates that 14 percent
of the people "moderately disapprove" of Barack
Obama's performance as president and 39 percent
"strongly disapprove."
Since Obama won two presidential elections, chances
are that some of those who now "strongly disapprove"
of what he has done voted to put him in office. We
all make mistakes, but the real question is whether
we learn from them.
With many people now acting as if it is time for "a
woman" to become president, apparently they have
learned absolutely nothing from the disastrous
results of the irresponsible self-indulgence of
choosing a President of the United States on the
basis of demographic characteristics, instead of
individual qualifications.
It would not matter to me if the next five
presidents in a row were all women, if these
happened to be the best individuals available at the
time. But to say that we should now elect "a woman"
president in 2016 is to say that we are willfully
blind to the dangers of putting life and death
decisions in the hands of someone chosen for
symbolic reasons.
If we were to choose just "a woman" as our next
president, would that mean that any criticism of
that president would be considered to be a sign of
being against women?
No public official should be considered to be above
criticism -- and the higher up that official is, the
more important it is to hold his or her feet to the
fire when it comes to carrying out duties involving
the life and death of individuals and the fate of
the nation.
We have not yet had a Jewish president. If and when
we do, does that mean that any criticism of that
individual should be stigmatized and dismissed as
anti-Semitism? What of our first Italian American
president, our first Asian American president?
Human beings of every background are imperfect
creatures. When they are in a position high enough
for their imperfections to bring disasters to more
than 300 million Americans, the last thing we need
is to stifle criticism of what they do.
It is by no means guaranteed that this country will
survive the long-run consequences of the disastrous
decisions already made by Barack Obama, especially
his pretense of stopping Iran's becoming a nuclear
power. Obama may no longer be in office when those
chickens come home to roost.
If we wake up some morning and find some American
city in radioactive ruins, will we connect the dots
and see this as a consequence of voting to elect an
unknown and untried man, for the sake of racial
symbolism?
Among those who look around for someone to blame,
how many will look in the mirror?
Presidents already have too much insulation from
criticism -- and from reality.
When President Calvin Coolidge caught everyone by
surprise in 1928, by announcing that he would not
run for reelection, despite a prosperous economy and
his own personal popularity, he simply said, "I do
not choose to run." Coolidge was a man of very few
words, despite his knowledge of multiple languages.
Someone once said that Coolidge could be silent in
five different languages.
But, when he later wrote a small autobiography,
Coolidge explained the inherent dangers in the
office of President of the United States, especially
when one person remains in the White House too long.
"It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the
malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded
by worshippers. They are constantly, and for the
most part sincerely, assured of their greatness.
"They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation
and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their
judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming
careless and arrogant."
Of presidents who served eight years in office, he
said, "in almost every instance" the last years of
their terms show little "constructive
accomplishments" and those years are often "clouded
with grave disappointments."
Another president chosen for demographic
representation (whether by race, sex or whatever),
and further insulated from criticism and from
reality, is the last thing we need.