Common Ground - Raj Verma

What is Popular Today?

You saw it yesterday, and you will probably read another one today. Media is littered with public opinion polls purportedly representing a national perspective. With the Presidential elections one year away and mounting scrutiny facing each candidate, the media is aggressively employing their resources to gauge public opinion and force candidates to respond to abstract hypothetical questions and esoteric polls. As in a once-popular television game show, ‘Family Feud’, where contestants are pitted against each other with the intent of determining the most popular answer to questions posed on a survey, American media tends to compel candidates to answer questions based on numerous and differing ‘public opinion polls’. However, this poses a serious leadership dilemma for the next President of the United States and our nation’s leaders. In fact, this dilemma has haunted modern American presidents-that is- how to balance the demands of popular opinion and accurately extract the will of the people (originally assigned as the role of Congress) while attempting to achieve what is in the best interest of the entire country given the social, economic, political and moral context, no matter what public opinion offers at any given point in time. The overuse and overemphasis of public opinion polls, especially in a media-saturated culture, has been and continues to undermine effective democracy because the nation’s leaders have emerged as mere panderers.

Winston Churchill once stated, “Nothing is more dangerous than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup poll-always feeling one’s pulse and taking one’s temperature.” Ironically, those candidates and current President who completely ignore or are impervious to polls are not likely to succeed, as they will be labeled ‘out of touch’ with the general public. Granted, the importance of keeping one’s eyes and ears close to the ground should not be underestimated. But there are serious and important policy issues that require effective leadership to transcend popular sentiment. For example, a recent Gallup poll, among several deployed every month, indicated that most Americans believe that Iraq and national security are the two most pressing issues facing the nation. Interestingly, immigration and the environment fell at the bottom of the list. It naturally follows then, that if a leader is to pander to public opinion, then the administration should place extra emphasis on addressing each issue in hierarchical order. Yet, we know that immigration, the environment and national security are inexplicably intertwined. Failed immigration policy and dependence on foreign oil were two of many compelling causes for this nation’s worst national security disaster in 2001. Relying on public opinion polls to measure popular political sentiment has inherent defects, such as small sample sizes, confusing questions, and other methodological errors. Even if the polls were completely accurate, heavy reliance on them derogates from the purpose of Congress to divine the will of the people. In turn, it is the role of the public to employ grassroots lobbying and participate in public debate to signal to Congress their desires. Overuse of polls extinguishes any value of discussion and Congressional receptiveness to public will.

The point is that the next American president and future leaders to come, must possess the courage, fortitude, and initiative to look beyond public opinion polls and read what lies ahead—even if the leader’s reading of politics contradicts public opinion, at times. It requires the President to evaluate his/her success not based on a man being the measure of all things (otherwise known a as humanism), but rather on values, mores, and moral code. He or she must elevate particular issues and build consensus on them, no matter what public opinion serves at any given time. Harry Truman once stated “I wonder how Moses would have gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt.” Similarly, strong, effective, and meaningful leadership will be able to withstand unfavorable popular opinion and execute what is in the best interest of the nation—even when the barometer indicates a paltry zero degrees.

Raj Verma, JD/MPA
Blog Contributor

Raj Verma is the President of the Future Leaders Council for USINPAC. He currently resides in Washington DC.

Common Ground - By Raj Verma

Back to Fundamentals

In response to last week’s USINPAC Quick Vote on whether the U.S. Constitution and American form of government was founded on Christian principles, the answer must be undeniably in the affirmative. What is remarkable to observe in our society is the degree of outrage and animosity displayed by some individuals and groups when a public official makes a statement affirming the idea that this country was founded on Christian principles. These groups find this assertion offensive and an affront to their own religious expression. More and more, we see an exaggerated sensitivity among various groups who deny the historical facts of this nation’s heritage. To say that this country was not founded on Christian principles and/or beliefs is tantamount to saying that the Apollo space mission to the moon was actually a bogus plot that was captured on film in the desert of Arizona. While the Constitution and American form of government was forged primarily out of a compromise among competing articulations of an effectively governed society and political expediency, nevertheless it is absolutely true that the Constitution rests on Christian principles. In turn, this is not to state that non-Christians in a democratic society cannot be leaders or stewards of democratic principles, nor does it imply that we are strictly a ‘Christian-nation’. It appears that we all too often are over-sensitive to public statements that simply iterate the historical truth about the nation’s heritage and foundation, which by all measures, has been eminently successful. Many times, we attempt to replace statements about faith, principles and values grounded in Christianity as remarks that condemn and submerge other religious groups. This should not and is not the case. Rather, by affirming the intellectual honest answer that the Constitution and American form of government possesses clear Christian principles, we can still have an ideologically diverse society, reconciled by the fact that universally-acknowledged values, albeit Christian values, drive our nation’s glory and not to the exclusion of other religious or non-religious groups.

The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution fully recognized, not by their own personal desire, but out of necessity, that a peaceful, organized, and enriched democratic society could not withstand the forces of divisiveness and depravity that exists as part of human nature unless a higher authority was invoked. In devising the Constitution, these ‘wise men’ did not simply grasp principles out of thin air. Rather, the Founding Fathers were entrenched in Christian intellectual thought (even though some of the Founding Fathers claimed to be Deists) and others were Christians themselves. The enormous pitfalls and political devastation in Europe prior to 1776 illustrates the perspective and context by which the American form of government and Constitution was crafted. Although the Founding Fathers were fully aware of the harm placed on a society that constructed government as a purely religious institution, unduly indoctrinating their constituents, the key issue that was to be addressed in crafting the document was recognizing the nature of humanity and what kinds of principles and beliefs accurately reflected human behavior. The Christian principles of human depravity and dignity were extracted from the Bible to influence the Constitution and American form of separate but equal government, precisely because these principles accurately reflected what was observed in the human condition. Furthermore, the written statements of James Madison, John Adams, and Daniel Webster, among others, evidence the principles of Christianity in the Constitution (although the term ‘God’ is not displayed in the Constitution itself, rather, the principles of Christianity are firmly exhibited). James Madison, considered the ‘architect of the Constitution,’ noted, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions on the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Whether it be religiously inspired or culturally inscribed, the average and common citizen can agree on universally acknowledged values that the Constitution rests upon. The principles of human depravity and dignity, respect for authority and rule of law, among others, are favorably recognized among many other religious and non-religious citizens. As a result, citizens from any religious or non-religious faith can emerge as leaders of this country, whether it be as board member of the local school district, to President of the United States, as long as that person can be held responsible for safeguarding the democratic and Christian principles and values enshrined in the Constitution.

It is important, as a nation, not to become overly-sensitive to comments made by public officials or private citizens who remark about the foundation of this country’s heritage as ‘Christian-based’. Hindus, Mormons, Muslims, Sikhs, and atheists should not feel alarmed or threatened when a statement is made that ‘this country is founded on Christian principles’. The statement is a recognition of what is (a fact)-good or bad- and in that sense can only be good, because this country has progressed over the course of 200 years to fully accommodate the different views, perspectives, and beliefs of a variety of people, without compromising its foundational elements. Of course, it is entirely appropriate to condemn and exercise outrage when public statements about a particular people and their beliefs are made in condescending fashion, such as the case with political candidate George Allen’s reference to Indian-Americans as ‘Maccaccas’. But to smuggle in the course of discussion legitimate statements made about this country’s Christian heritage into the category of Allen’s reprehensible remarks is misguided and unworthy, because it debases the truth and historical facts to that of lies and half-truths. The interpretation of many non-Christian groups about public statements made about the country’s heritage as an assault on their own beliefs is quite odd, and sadly, unnecessary. In the final analysis, we need only agree that the principles of this country, whether or not one believes are derived from Christianity, are effective and have successfully produced excellent citizens, and that to continue on this positive trend, we need moral and virtuous leaders (Christian or non-Christian) to safeguard these principles and values- the very principles that make this country unique and enriched.

Raj Verma, JD/MPA
Blog Contributor

Raj Verma is the President of the Future Leaders Council for USINPAC. He currently resides in Washington DC.