Decision 2008: Four Fundamental Requirements for Our Next President
Voters Should Insist Our Next President Embody These Critical Values
1. Belief in God
The United States of America is a nation of diversity and one that should respect the religious freedom of all, including those who profess no faith. However, the United States was not founded in a vacuum, nor were the architects of our Republic neutral when it came to the existence of God. You may be an agnostic or an atheist, but our Founding Fathers were not. And the country they established was thoroughly committed to a monotheistic worldview that cherished Judeo-Christian values and principles.
The Declaration of Independence couched its very authority on the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" and the "unalienable rights" given to all people by their "Creator." We shouldn't disregard this belief, since doing so subjects our rights to the whim of the majority and/or to the good graces of our government. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson once asked: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"
Not only are our fundamental rights based on the authority of God Himself, but the ability of the people to govern themselves depends on their allegiance to religious-based values. George Washington, the first President of the United States and the most important and indispensable American in the history of our nation, warned that "religion and morality were indispensable supports to political prosperity." No American should cast his or her vote for a presidential candidate that disagrees with the Father of our Country on that point.
To the extent that the United States drifts away from its monotheistic foundation, it does so at its peril.
2. Allegiance to our Founding
Closely following that first requirement, our next President must respect the founding principles of the United States. Indeed, he or she must submit to them.
The distorted history and slander of "historians" such as Howard Zinn notwithstanding, the United States was not founded on passing interests or callous opinions. It was founded on a set of ideals that were intended to transcend time, personal bias, prejudice, and "factions" (or, as we would call them, "special interests.")
Critics of the Founders (particularly those from the ultra-leftist camp) usually, at this point, savagely attack the Founders over issues of race, sex, class, etc. That they do so reflects the kind of superficial, shallow, and emotionally-driven culture that I referred to at the outset of this article.
First, a distinction needs to be made between the assertion of principle and an individual's ability to live up to said principle. If polls are any indication, for example, most people believe it is wrong to commit adultery. Yet many of those people, at some point in their lives, engage in adultery. I realize it's not quite on the same moral level, but I believe it is important for people to eat right and stay fit. And yet, I frequent Dairy Queen and rarely frequent the local health facility. Virtually all of the Founding Fathers condemned slavery, including many who actually owned slaves. Though they fell short on the issue, the Foundinf Fathers nevertheless asserted a principle of equality that was later used to completely abolish slavery and eventually overturn segregation.
In addition, the Founding Fathers made significant progress against the institution of slavery, especially in the North. Momentum was also moving against slavery in the South, until Eli Whitney's cotton gin.
3. Trustworthiness and Character
We need a President we can trust. A President that we can depend upon to take the oath of office seriously. And one who will stand behind his or her promises to the American people.
President George W. Bush, for example, signed a campaign finance reform bill early in his presidency. The problem is that, at the ceremony in which he signed the bill, he acknowledged he had some "constitutional concerns" with the legislation. If that were so, it was his constitutional duty to veto the bill - and not sign it. The President is sworn to "uphold the Constitution of the United States." If he or she feels that a particular bill violates the Constitution, he or she is duty-bound to oppose it.
When Bill Clinton looked into the camera and told the American people he "did not have sexual relations with that woman - Miss Lewinsky," he was telling a bald-faced lie that was later found out. Whether this was an impeachable offense is not the point, it was a breach of trust. It isn't too much to ask that we be able to trust our President.
Likewise, consider George W. Bush telling reporters before the congressional elections of November 2006 that Donald Rumsfeld would finish out Bush's term as Secretary of Defense. Immediately after the elections, Bush announces Rumsfeld's departure. Clearly, George W. Bush was dishonest. We have a right to expect more from our President.
4. Patriotism
I'm not talking necessarily about wearing lapel pins or peppering speeches with "God-and-Country" rhetoric. What I am talking about is a true, heartfelt, deep and abiding LOVE for the United States of America.
Will our next President be more faithful to his or her own political ambition or to the needs of the American people? Will she or he care more about how a decision will affect poll ratings or the overall direction of the nation? Will he or she be able and willing to make tough choices for the public good even if it costs popularity in the short-term? John Adams, for example, sacrificed his reelection in 1800 by pushing for peace with France.
One other angle to this issue of patriotism is history. A presidential candidate's love for the United States will be reflected in his or her knowledge of American history. If a person doesn't care about the history of their country, they can't say they really love their country. That would be like a man telling his wife that he loves her, but has absolutely no interest in her life or background. An American President should have an appreciation for and a strong knowledge in American history.
Bottom line...our next President should be able to say, like George Washington once said, "I have no other view than to promote the public good, and am unambitious of honors not founded in the approbation of my Country."
Published by Brian Tubbs
Brian Tubbs is the Feature Writer & Columnist for Protestantism at Suite101.com, the principal blogger for the American Revolution & Founding Era blog, and the founder and course manager for ChristianMarriag... View profile
The Media and the 2004 Presidential ElectionMedia coverage of the 2004 presidential campaign lacked the intensity to encourage voters and provide them with the necessary information to make an informed voting decision.- George Washington CarverGeorge Washington Carver was a noted African-American scientist who specialized in agriculture. The brilliant teacher and scientist developed almost three hundred products from peanuts and revolutionized Southern agri...
- The Presidential Election of 1788: George Washington and a New NationA brief review of the 1788 election, won by George Washington and the first election under the American Constitution.
- The 2008 Presidential Election: An Overview of Potential NomineesThe 2008 Presidential election will be quite different from other years, as the variety of the candidates from both major political parties already indicates.
- The Presidential Election 2008 - an Already Burned Out TopicThe Presidential Election 2008 will take place on November 4, 2008. That is still more than a year away, yet a lot of people are already tired of hearing about it. Aren't you?
- The 2008 Summer Olympic Games in China
- How Barbados Helped George Washington Win the American Revolution
- First American President: George Washington or John Hanson?
- George Washington or Britney Spears
- What Happened After the 2000 Presidential Election
- The Victoria Woodhull/Frederick Douglass Ticket in the 1872 U.S. Presidential Elec...
- Hispanic Population Could Play Large Role in 2008 Presidential Election
- George Washington: "religion and morality" are "indispensable supports to political prosperity."
- Our next President should be trustworthy and a person of high moral character.
- Our next President should put the nation before his or her political ambition.





10 Comments
Post a CommentLucida, there is a proper way to amend and change the Constitution. The Founders put that amending process in place, and it's been used (to directly elect senators, grant women the national right to vote, etc.). That's all great!
also, i must say that despite what the constitution says and does not say, there are amendments to laws and necessary changes as a country grows and changes. this firm belief that what the founding father's said was law is not only dangerous but ignorant of their actual intentions. do we really believe that those progressive men wanted this country to abide by their word for centuries, despite a changing world? unlikely. the magna carta was a great, world-altering document. yet most of it has been repealed because it is out-dated. eventually, this country will have to accept that a governing body is not a static entity and change will occur whether we like it or not.
with the beliefs listed here the leader you desire would alienate a huge portion of the citizens of this country by the implication that 'judeo-christian beliefs' are what drive the country and should, in turn, drive the goverment. it's time the government and constitution came into the global era, where diverse peoples of all backgrounds and religions are welcome to this great country which we so often refer to as a melting pot. we cannot be a melting pot if we have rules governing which 'kind' of religious freedoms we're allowed. let's embrace the political system we have and the diverse populace of this country instead of carrying out a would-be missionary task by demanding a religious leader.
The Constitution does not specifically say Separation of Church and State however it is considered one of the "implied powers" much the same as the right to a fair trial or right to privacy. Neither of these are written into the Constitution however we cannot interpret the words of the Constitution as meaning otherwise. Separation of Church and State better known as the Establishment Clause has been tried and upheld in the highest court in our country in cases such as Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky.
Oh, and Alyce, I didn't use the word "lefties." I wrote "ultra-leftist." That is a fair political description as is "ultra-rightist" for certain groups or individuals.
Alyce, please show me where "Separation of Church and State" is written into the Constitution. Just curious. Not that I disagree with you, but I'd like to see where in the Constitution those words are. Let me know when you find them.
Once upon a time the people believed the world was flat, and the Chinese thought it sat on the back of a turtle. Last year the government in a Southern state wanted to declare the state Christian. They wanted new text books stating that the sun revolved around the earth. Maybe, sometimes, long dead men, did not have all the info that is available today, so what does your question have to do with the 21st Century and qualifications to lead today?
The foundling fathers were very wise to write "Separation of Church and State" into the constitution. If a person can not check their personal religious beliefs at the door of he White House s/he is not impartial enough to lead a nation of diverse individuals. Religion has been causing mayhem and death for centuries. Using words like "lefties" shows that you are not concerned with a UNITED States of America, but one run by someone who caters to you. A good President will lead, not rule, and knows the government is "of, for and by the people". S/he is our servant, not we the ruled class.
Clarification - I said nothing about the melding of church and state. My point is that a President should believe in God and understand that our basic rights come from God. This was the position of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and so on and so on. Do you disagree with ALL these men? If so, why should someone listen to YOUR opinion?
Also...I didn't fault Bush for not keeping Rumsfeld. I faulted him for not telling the truth.
The first qualification is not just wrong, but very dangerous...its what led countless sheep to vote for Mr. Bush. To demand that a candidate support a melding of church and state while believing (in error) that we were not intended to be a secular nation is telling indeed. It is also telling that the two shortcomings you name for Bush are his position on campaign finance and his not keeping Donald Rumsfeld...if those are the biggest flaws you can find in Bush's character, you shouldn't expect people to listen to your opinion.