For the last few decades, American politics have devolved from the democratic process into the theocratic process.
When asked of his religion being an issue in the upcoming 1960 presidential election, John F. Kennedy replied, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic."" A fitting quote for the present, considering politics and religion have yet to figure out that they're only associated by coincidence rather than necessity.
In the early stages of the Republican primary, the GOP found an early front-runner in former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, riding what many called the ""strong evangelical support"" of voters in Iowa. As an ordained Southern Baptist minister, Huckabee found strong support amongst the religious conservatives in the Midwestern states.
He came under fire during his run for ""exploiting"" Christ, using his religious background to sway religious Republicans and undecided moderates.
Despite his early strong performances among religious conservatives, the party has nominated the more moderate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., although it would've been interesting to see what an impact such a religiously active candidate would have had on American voters.
Why might it be interesting? The past two elections show that a religious conservative took home the presidential nomination, based largely on his theocratic following.
Throughout the election and re-election of President George W. Bush, religion played a dangerously significant role.
In the 2000 election, those who attended church regularly gave Bush 56 percent of their vote.
In 2004, the number rose to 63 percent, due in large part to Bush's campaign preying on Kerry's lack of emphasis on religion in his campaign. Even with slowly depleting approval ratings from the Iraq War, many religious conservatives and moderates were conscious of Bush's strong religious roots, enough to convince them to re-elect ""God's candidate.""
Today, Bush's presidential reign still employs the same religious allusion in order to preserve approval ratings.
During the Iraq conflict, Bush has said he often ""consulted with God"" on what course to take. However, it's difficult to believe that the omniscient ruler of creation could also have faulty intelligence in regard to WMDs, al-Qaeda's influence in Iraq and how long such a deployment could take. And to my knowledge, God has not paid income taxes in over 4.5 billion years (6,000 years, if you ask the Bible), so perhaps Bush should begin listening to the people who do pay taxes and demand a democratic representation.
In a recent CNN poll, 64 percent of the respondents said they now oppose the Iraq War, while a Gallup poll shows 57 percent find the initial invasion of Iraq to be a mistake. Even the creator can't argue with those numbers.
However, there are certain political figures that have made the distinction and separation between religion and politics. Also running for the GOP bid this primary was Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a character likened to John F. Kennedy because of his faith, deemed unorthodox by mainstream America.
As a Mormon, Romney faced pressing questions about whether or not his differing faith would conflict with politics. To Romney's credit, he gave a speech addressing the issues of religion and politics, strongly advocating a separation of church and state in all matters, but his inability to shake the public's Mormon stigma later led to his dropout from the race. However, Romney demonstrated an understanding of how religion and politics have no place together, much like Kennedy's words before him.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a president who demonstrates strong religious beliefs, but there is a problem when this is a strong influence behind his election and his policies.
The problem also threatens the very tenets of democracy when religion influences voting trends, as recent elections have shown. Both politicians and the voters themselves must identify that politics and religion, while both respectable in their own devices, have no place together.
Thus far, the 2008 primaries have shown that religion's influence upon politics has not been as prominent as in the past.
However, there is always the chance that Bush may try to pass around the collection plate in order to solve the national debt. Until then, it appears that politics and religion are on the path of divergence, a good sign for the democratic process and U.S. policy-making.
Jon Spike is a sophomore majoring in English education. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
