Part of the human condition is a constant search for patterns, parallels, and metaphors. Our brains are constantly seeking to relate a present observation to a known, past situation in an effort to better understand the present observation. Often times this works, but frequently the metaphors we choose don’t really shed much light on the new thing. (Remember the “information superhighway”? Highways didn’t turn out to be a very good metaphor for the Internet.)
So, with the understanding that past history doesn’t guarantee future performance, it occurs to me that the Obama/McCain race looks a lot like Nixon versus JFK back in 1960. Young, attractive candidate of vision faces off against old, curmudgeonly candidate of the status quo. In particular, the issue of race this year struck me as having parallels to the issue of religion back in 1960. I wonder if Obama can do for blacks in politics this year what JFK did for Catholics in politics half a century ago.
One of the panelists at the story linked above said that, ideally, race should be irrelevant. And, I agree. But, it will be relevant until it isn’t; which is to say that, there is no chance of race being irrelevant to Presidential politics until someone who isn’t white wins the Presidency if only to demonstrate that it can be done. JFK’s victory seemed to result in a political landscape where the particular flavor of the candidate’s Christianity wasn’t relevant. If Obama wins, we can keep working on the woman President and the non-Christian President and all of those other personal traits which ought to be irrelevant to our choice in a candidate, but aren’t. Maybe in another 232 years all of this will seem quaint, as we debate whether a candidate’s status as a cybernetic life form ought to be relevant to its candidacy.
See? You’ve already fallen into the trap. Nixon was only 52 years old in 1960. Do you really consider that old and curmudgeonly?
Good point. But, spiritually, I think Nixon was about 157 by 1960.
Agree with points that “perhaps, one day–” but and it may be a big BUT when questions a to one’s religion could be viewed as presenting a situation that denotes philosophy then the question may be valid. The reference to JFK was not purely academic at the time since a) there were the “anti-” voters for sure, but b) also a serious question as to exactly the potential impact of church control of members thus would the pope (or other high ranking persons) have undo influence.
Hopefully the day will come when qualifications and philosophy will be the overwhelming reason for evaluating a candidate but we are not anywhere close to that today and not likely until a whole lot more funerals occur (that is, 2 or more generations will have to be gone including mine.)
Nixon aged prematurely due to the PTSD of being in the trenches with J. Edgar Hoover smoking out bed-wetting commies from the State Dept reception staff.
He looked younger in 1968 than in 1960.