It’s interesting that all of the candidates across the range of political parties and ideologies in this presidential season believe they are qualified to be the next commander-in-chief, yet none of them ever served on active duty in our Armed Forces, none ever faced danger in a combat zone, none ever felt the sting of battle, none ever saw a fellow man or woman killed in action, none ever took part in any battle or campaign to further a cause against an adversary, and none ever paid their dues in blood, sweat, or tears that might have conditioned them and allowed them to reach within their souls to find the courage and the wisdom with which to lead a nation in times of war or peace.  Still all believe they have the skills, the leadership qualities, the wisdom, and the vision to lead the world’s foremost fighting force against any foe.  To say that each is under the delusion of a limited characterology of self-appraisal, and that they have not a clue about their grandiose imaginations of what fighting and leading are all about is to state the obvious.  To a person, none measures up to the lowest ranking foot soldier who ever put forth the effort to achieve even one of those attributes of leadership.  How, then, are we to know who among them is the best qualified to lead when all have not the honesty to admit to a paucity of virtues and their lack of standing before us and the issues of the day that demand the skills and experiences that common sense tells us they lack?

Is it enough to rely only on place of birth and 35 years of life to assume that there lives among us millions of citizens who are able to set personal biases aside, to acknowledge the limitations of having lived a sheltered life, to rise above their limitations, and to lead a nation in spite of their lack of qualifications to do so?  Or, is it safe to assume that even one exists who can do the same?  If so, then the burden falls on us to narrow the field of contenders down to the least objectionable from among a list of candidates who are so woefully lacking in the qualifications for which they seek approval.  That is our challenge in this election year.

Plato once put philosopher-kings ahead of guardians of the state in relative importance to lead any society.  Perhaps he assumed that the philosophers were all wise and virtuous, that they understood the human condition better than all others because they had at least reflected on peace and war, love and hate, what is and what could be, our strengths and our weaknesses, and in what it takes to overcome our inadequacies while drawing from the depths of their souls in leading us away from our frailties to a better tomorrow.  Perhaps.

On a cold January day in 1961, a 45-year old man stood on a platform in front of the US Capitol and delivered a stirring inaugural speech to the country and to the world.  Just two months earlier I had cast my first vote for him to be our leader.  He was wealthy, but he had served his country well in WWII.  His family’s wealth accounted for his elections to the House and to the Senate.  He was handsome, but I was more impressed by the beauty of his wife.  He was modest.  He was a gifted speaker with a sense of humor.  He was confident.  But it was his experience as a PT boat commander in the South Pacific that carried the day for me.  He had tasted the sting of battle, and he had risen to the challenge.  He showed by his actions that he had the right stuff.  In contrast, I was a poor kid, in the Armed Forces, stationed in an obscure post in Germany, struggling on $80 per month, with no future that I was aware of. I had done nothing of consequence, and I knew it.  I adopted him as my role model of what I might become. 

In less than three years, he suffered a failure at the Bay of Pigs, gained a substantial victory in the Cuban missile crisis, put us on a footing to land a man on the moon, and flirted reluctantly with war in Southeast Asia by sending in a small contingent of advisors.  He won the hearts of the Germans and freedom-loving people when he stood within shouting distance of the Berlin wall and proclaimed to the world “Ich bin ein Berliner!” He advanced the cause of civil and human rights at home with modest gains, and for which a sniper’s bullets ended his life.  It was a tragedy that left its mark of cynicism and mistrust.  But his words and his ideals never left my consciousness:

“Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.  This much we pledge and more…If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”

I would be content to replace the words to the oath of office taken by the President with the preceding pledge taken by John Kennedy just 55 years ago.  In addition, I would ask all candidates to our highest office that as a substitute for their lack of actual experience in war and peace, if they are willing to take this pledge to heart, and to take a bullet to defend it against all of our enemies, foreign or domestic, so help them God.

 --------------------------------

Watch and listen to Pres. Kennedy’s inaugural speech here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEC1C4p0k3E