To the readers of the Carr essays, I am pleased to announce that Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, and your old essayist have declared their intention to run for the first Tripartite Presidency in American history. A tripartite presidency would work like this. Let us say that Barney Frank starts off as President with Charlie Rangel as Vice President, and with your old essayist as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of Agriculture or some other secretaryship. Each month there would be a shift in the positions. For example as March became April, Barney Frank would assume the title of Secretary of Agriculture and I would move to the Vice Presidency while Charlie Rangel would step up to the Presidency. The theory behind this movement is that no one would be in office long enough to commit thievery, or to rob you of your civil rights, or to an act warranting impeachment. In addition, if Barney Frank runs the Agriculture Department, he might develop a strain of Kosher pigs suitable for serving at Bar Mitzvahs. Certainly the Tripartite Presidency would be a vast improvement over the Presidencies of Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, and Richard Nixon.
Our candidacy represents geographic balance as well as sexual and religious harmony. It also has the virtue of presenting a candidacy of multi-ethnicity.
Charlie Rangel, who traces his ancestry to Africa, has represented a Congressional District in Harlem for 40 years or more. As far as is known, Charlie is a Protestant and is believed to be a heterosexual.
Barney Frank is one of the most eloquent thinkers and speakers in Congress. He has represented a Congressional District in Massachusetts for many years. Barney really adds spice to the ticket in view of the fact that he is a homosexual who subscribes to the Jewish faith. It is my belief that one should never get into an argument with Charlie Rangel or Barney Frank.
This old essayist adds balance to the ticket geographically in that he comes from the great state of Missouri. He is alleged to be a straight heterosexual. He also represents disadvantaged people because he is largely bald and has other disabilities. But under our Constitution, there should be no bar to any one of us holding the American presidency.
One of the Amendments to the Constitution holds that there shall be no religious test to hold the office of the Presidency of the United States. Theoretically, a Protestant or a Catholic or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu is not barred by the Constitution from holding that office. The Constitution and its Amendments also have no bar against homosexuals, transvestites or crippled people from holding that office as well.
Now let us see how this has worked in practice. In 1928, the Governor of New York, Al Smith, a Catholic, ran for the presidency against Herbert Hoover. Smith was defeated largely through the votes in the American South which amounted to his rejection on the grounds that he was a smart New Yorker, not that he was Catholic. At least that is what the Southern Bible-thumpers will tell you.
The next Catholic to try for the presidency was John F. Kennedy. He was elected because the electorate concluded that Richard Nixon was a crook and also that Kennedy had a beautiful wife. These are compelling reasons to vote for a candidate for the presidency.
Now we find in the race to become President of the United States, a Mormon. As a general rule, Mormons prefer to be called Latter Day Saints. In substance, the Latter Day Saints are guided by the writings of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. Smith lived in Troy, New York and contends that an angel from the Lord told him to look in his pasture where he would find golden plates. The plates were transcribed by Joseph Smith and became The Book of Mormon. I believe it is fair to say that many Christians do not consider Mormonism a Christian religion. Perhaps this is because Mormons address Christians as Gentiles, which seems to be the most probable cause for this reaction. But I am not an expert on that subject so I will let it pass. I will simply say that over the years I have known a few Mormons. As far as I can attest, they were all good American citizens, even though one was an AT&T New York lawyer.
A candidate for the presidency in 2008 on the Republican side is Mitt Romney, a recent Governor of Massachusetts. The citizens of the Bay State do not hold his belief in Mormonism against him and elected him Governor. I am told that he has a beautiful wife who wears tons of makeup, which would be a significant reason to vote for Mitt Romney. Some have the belief that her use of makeup rivals that of Tammy Faye Bakker, the former wife of the deposed TV Evangelist. Tammy Faye used a steamer trunk for her makeup kit. But we shouldn’t hold Mrs. Romney’s makeup against her husband. However, I think the qualifications of Barney, Charlie and myself far outweigh any Mormon candidate for President.
The founders of the United States planned on this being a secular democracy. They did not choose a monarchy or a theocracy. They chose a secular democracy where everyone could have his own beliefs as long as they didn’t intrude on the freedom of others. Now having said that, it would appear that a candidate for the presidency of the United States could be a Moslem, a Hindu, or a Buddhist. If candidates from these three religions were to seek the presidency, I doubt that many people would vote for them, but who is to say? In the end, I suspect that the American electorate is determined to vote for people just like themselves. If those candidates carry religious preferences that suit the electorate, they may well be elected regardless of their competency and regardless of the fact that this is a secular democracy.
Now we go a little bit further in our examination of the Constitution, which does not bar homosexuals from seeking the presidency. The tripartite candidacy that is being announced today may have two strikes against it, in that one of the candidates is a Jew as well as a homosexual. The fact is that Barney Frank, for all of his intellectual ability, would not have a chance in the American Deep South. What those Americans want is another Southern Baptist who believes in total immersion as a means of baptism. But if Barney Frank were elected, he would be a moving target but the yokel Southern Bible-thumpers would not get their brains in gear in time to trash him.
As you may have noticed, the candidates declaring their desire to be President have almost always claimed middle American Protestant religious roots. Methodism seems to be the favored sect among the candidates. Nonetheless, there are those in the Protestant ranks who would oppose anyone from the so-called “uptown religions,” such as the Episcopalians or perhaps the Presbyterians. I suspect that if a candidate declared himself to be a Congregationalist, he would get few votes from the far right of the American spectrum such as the Nazarenes and the Pentecostals. Ah, but when it comes to push versus shove, those folks would not tell you that they voted against a candidate because of his religious beliefs, but rather because of his views on such things as the war in Iraq or homosexual marriages. The helpful thing about the American Constitution is that when it comes to elections, people can disregard it. Certainly that would be the case where a Jew, an African American and a homosexual were involved.
Now let us move on to non-religious matters. Charlie Rangel is an eloquent statesman who unfortunately has reached the age of 76. There is no bar in the Constitution specifying age limits, but the American electorate would probably consider voting for someone else simply on the matter of age. The fact that Charlie Rangel is also of African American descent might have something to do with it as well. It really makes no difference about Charlie’s accomplishments in Congress. It may be that Charlie is too old and too black. It would take a miracle for the electorate in Mississippi and Alabama to vote for Charlie, regardless of his accomplishments. The electorate in those two states would most likely support the candidacy of someone like Trent Lott, who lost his Senate majority leadership over his support of Strom Thurmond and his segregationist policies. Again, this reflects the views of the electorate which wants to elect someone not because of competency, but because their views on religious matters and racial matters are in accord with their own.
Now we turn to the third member of this tripartite candidacy who is your ancient essayist. He is not a Jew, he is heterosexual, although he has strong vegetarian tendencies, and he is Caucasian. That would seem to make him an ideal candidate. However, there are significant disabilities. For example, this fellow is affiliated with no organized religion. But worse than that, he is bald. In the last election, in 2004, John Kerry and John Edwards bragged about what a full head of hair they had. Obviously this would eliminate me from serious consideration for the presidency not only on religious grounds, but on my appearance.
And so we have gathered together three candidates who would not ordinarily be in the pack hunting for the presidency of the United States in 2008. There is a black man, two elderly people, and then there is a Jew and a homosexual. If the three of us could find a female illegal immigrant who is a transvestite and belongs to the Protestant faith, we may well add her to the ticket. But in the meantime, we ask you to give our candidacy serious consideration on the ground that none of us will occupy the presidency long enough to steal your liberties from you. Beyond that, Charlie Rangel and I are of such an age that we may not be able to serve out our term. But in that case, the electorate can claim that they voted for a Jewish homosexual as well as two old men. That should demonstrate how far the American electorate has come. And we may not know what we are missing. If Charlie Rangel from Harlem or Barney Frank from Boston were to assume the position of Secretary of Agriculture, for example, while they are not the president, there might be innovations beyond our wildest expectations.
But in the final analysis, the American electorate is going to look for people who believe what they believe and competence will have little influence. And as for Hillary Clinton, I suspect that for all of her competence, the American electorate may find it hard to stomach the candidacy of a female with sharp elbows. Perhaps Charlie, Barney and myself ought to add her to our ticket. We are all the losers when we elect to vote only for those who are much like ourselves, as distinguished from those who are competent. Be that as it may, I hope that this essay has persuaded you to support the idea of a tripartite presidency. I guarantee that with the eloquence of Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel, the American electorate will be moved as never before. If nothing else, the American electorate can say “We voted for competence,” which would be a majestic change in our fortunes. And it would finally give our Constitution a meaningful interpretation.
E. E. CARR
February 23, 2007
Essay 236
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: Though this essay is a bit tongue-in-cheek, there’s certainly some real wisdom here. As a people we are still very afraid of those who are not exactly like us. If you need proof of this, just look at the path that someone has to take in order to become a citizen. I wonder what we’ll hit first — a society without organized religion, or a society where a majority of people will vote for a candidate who belongs to a different religion. I’m kinda leaning toward the former.