Time Magazine informed me politely but firmly that a foreigner would never understand the intricacies of the presidential elections. I bow unconditionally before that dictum, even though I have been residing for over 14 years on this continent, 3 of them in the USA. I understand a little bit, but since a little learning is a dangerous thing, I have cast about for some additional information.
Of course, I have access to several American weeklies and read them faithfully, for the simple reason that I like to have good relations with our neighbors to the South. Consequently I had the privilege to go on campaign tours with both candidates by way of armchair travelogue. Most of the popular American magazines are past masters in the art of reporting, and so I got. quite an eye full.
Total strangers, competing for such an exalted office as the presidency of the United States, were introduced to me as Jack and Jackie, versus Dick and Pat. To me they are the Kennedys and the Nixons but that no doubt is because I am a foreigner. A native son of the U.S. is permitted to say: Let’s back Jack without being regarded as impudent.
Jack had some radical ideas about pulling up socks and putting the U.S. back on the map, but he happened to be a Roman Catholic. To rum the off-shore islands were not worth a plugged nickel; yet he was almost ready to send the Marines to Cuba. He also intended to bring more money into circulation in order to bring more prosperity, without any dangers of growing inflation. He was prudently vague about the way in which this was to be accomplished. But anyhow, the teenagers were wild about rum and at times he appeared to be in need of a haircut.
Jackie insisted that she did not wear mink-lined underwear and reporters mused that there would be a doll in the White House in case Kennedy made the grade. (No reflection, of course, upon Mamie.) The ministers in Houston were bristling at the thought of a Roman Catholic president and invited rum to a showdown. Jack fielded all the questions admirably, while film and TY cameras were grinding away. He proved that a Catholic politician can be a real nice chap and that religion is an issue which is better forgotten, because it means next to nothing in politics. The bishops in Puerto Rico, admonishing the faithful to vote for a church-approved party, ought to have their heads examined.. Don’t worry, let’s back Jack!
The Nixons of course had their work cut out for them. They had to defend the present administration, because that’s what they got paid for. Pat was considered to be a real asset to him and would make a fine first lady, more of a commoner, defending the plain Sears Roebuck way of fashions, over against the house of Dior.
Nixon could point to experience and to the fact that he was not averse to debating in the kitchen with Nikita. No shenanigans in Cuba of course and let private enterprise carry the day! He happened to be a Quaker, though he never explained just what that involved. Pacifism was not to be found in his book; the inner light remained safely hidden inside. But, all in all, he was a Protestant who refused to make political hay out of the religious issue. Thus, being snowed under by all kinds of irrelevant details, it nevertheless became clear to us that the one candidate was a revived New Dealer, while the other one would be a conservative Republican. The whole campaign was at times confusing and frequently boring, at least to the foreigners. But let that be as it is.
Another way in which to gather further information was also available. There are thousands of Christian Reformed brethren living in the States, many of them native born. They, of course, would understand what it was all about. To them I am no foreigner, because I belong to the same fellowship of saints, worship the same God of our fathers, and believe the same creeds as they do. No doubt such insiders could explain and interpret for me. Almost all papers published by this household of faith, whether or not with the imprimatur of the church, took up the matter of the elections. It was no surprise at aU to me that Mr. Kennedy was not exactly the favorite son in their editorials. I read about papal encyclicals dealing with the relationship of church and state. I read about a pamphlet with a nebulous origin in which it was asserted that time would be running out for Protestantism, if a Catholic were elected. Later a confession followed that this pamphlet was spurious, a hoax. I got the general impression, perhaps erroneously so, that in case of a Kennedy victory, we Protestants had better write a poignant obituary to the sacred principles of democracy.
A Nixon victory would naturally open the way for eulogies on the Protestant way of life.
In the course of the arguments presented, I found that the old stand-by skeleton was dragged out of its closet: Separation between church and state, the hallmark of democracy. Kennedy may have reassured his audience that he fervently believed in this very principle, his church at least could never condone it.
This and more infonnation I was able to glean from several church publications. I was surprised, to say the least.
I am a member of the Reformed Fellowship, publishers of this paper, and subscribe whole-heartedly to its principles. But now I am in the dark. A Catholic president is not desirable, I hear, and that I won’t and can’t argue with. But is the election as simple as that: As long as you vote for the other person, you are doing the right thing? Is the election to be reduced to the simple mathematics of the elimination of one factor?
Are we really prepared to defend the principle of total separation between church and state; is that the tenor of Art. 36 of the Confession? And by the way, are we satisfied with the final(?) draft of this article?
I have read in our church papers that President Eisenhower believes in God and is a member of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. I am not talking about the private religious convictions of the President, but that he believes in God, (period) and is a member of a well known church (sic) does not mean anything to me. I am tired of hearing that a person believes in God. Has the President in his official statements ever made even a passing reference to Christ? Not to my knowledge. Is this consonant with the principles of Reformed people carrying a torch and a trumpet? Mind you, J am not after the scalp of any editor and I don’t want to sound cynical, but what is so good about a Quaker who has violated his principles and what is so bad about a Catholic who publicly renounces the decrees of the Vatican?
To me this is nothing but an indication of the dreadful secularization which is rampant in the churches, whether Catholic or Protestant. There is no historical proof that Catholic men in public office in democratic nations have attempted to turn the tables on the Protestants. Witness the Netherlands, Canada, Western Germany, etc. That is no argument, that is only a fact. Is our democracy really safe in the hands of such Protestant men who refuse to commit themselves on the religious issue? That is only a question, not a suggestion. But I am honestly beginning to wonder, in the light of all the hubbub surrounding the elections, what has become of our own Church.