When I was a child I sometimes resisted doing things that my mom and dad told me to do, even when I knew not only that it was the right thing to do, but that I also needed to do it. In the end I would do it and I would usually receive from my mom, in a stern but instructive voice, the comment: “Now, was that so hard?”
The President informs us that we – the nation presumably – don’t have time for this ‘silliness,’ that is, the two year long struggle by a number of people to see his birth certificate. Frankly, I was never terribly worked up about the fact that the nation had not seen his birth certificate, but a healthy percentage of the electorate was. What I am confused about is why the President didn’t release the ‘silly’ thing two years ago?
It is worth noting that the issue is hardly ‘silly.’ If perhaps 20% of the electorate question the fundamental legitimacy of the man in the Oval Office, if an officer in the Army has been brought up on charges for failure to obey an order based on his belief that the President was not a legitimate candidate for office, if thousands and thousands of broadcast hours have been consumed by the question, it is no longer silly.
Here’s a hint: if a substantial element of the electorate think something is important – it is. At least, it is important to the extent that the relevant elected official takes the time to explain why it isn’t important. This is something that the President simply refused to do. Instead of simply releasing his birth certificate several years ago, he and his staff dodged the issue, issued substitute documents and generally obfuscated the situation as much as they could. Was it any wonder that some people began to believe that there was more to the story then simple, ‘silly’ stupidity?
But there is another point, and it is far from ‘silly.’ Elected officials are servants of the people, they are not lords over the people. The electorate have every right in the world to ask questions about those who would serve in elected office. Anyone who would run for office but also insist that elements of his or her past are somehow off limits, that the people don’t have the right to see everything, is at the very least engaging in an extreme act of arrogance and disregard for the people. Do we really want to elect to office those who feel that we should vote for them, while they refuse to reveal their complete selves to us? Shouldn’t that preclude you from consideration for office; that is, candidates who won’t release their complete background should simply be rejected by the electorate of both, of all parties?
Beyond that, there is the question of practicality; does any candidate really believe that he can permanently hide some disturbing or embarrassing facet of his early life from those who might want to dig for it? Does anyone think, in this day of the wired nation, that they are going to be able to dodge every possible inquiry? If they do, then there are only two possible answers: they are hardened criminals who have been practicing covering their tracks for years, or they are truly silly. Take your pick.
Instead, they can simply open their files. As John McCain did when he told the press they could look at his medical records, politicians will find it much easier to let everyone see the ‘silly’ files. The truth is, if you don’t try to hide anything the press is going to find little to write about. And, it might even help your image if everyone learns that you drove too fast and crashed your car when you were 24. It would mean that you had had a few learning experiences, and that you had grown. That might make you a better leader. Besides, in the end, as with the President, you will release the information. Why not do it early and get it out of the way?
As my mother would say: Was that so hard?
