Tuesday, January 13, 2004

When the Rev. Al Sharpton assailed Howard Dean for not appointing minorities to his Cabinet during his 12 years as governor of Vermont, the Democratic front-runner officially crossed over the River Jordan of American race relations. You haven't arrived as a major candidate in the post-civil rights era until somebody has implied you're a racist.

In the final debate before next week's Iowa caucuses, Sharpton acted as if criticizing Dean's record of minority hiring as governor would somehow slow his momentum, despite the fact that the low percentage of blacks in Iowa rivals that of Vermont.

As the governor of a lily-white New England state, Dean was morally obliged to bus minorities to Vermont for job interviews, according to Sharpton, whose own Harlem-based National Action Network is surely brimming with white staffers. Never mind that most out-of-state minority candidates would have considered it demeaning to be appointed window-dressing only.

If Dean succeeds in his White House bid, he's never going to look as comfortable with black people as Bill Clinton, and that's fine. Few presidents have ever had as easy a rapport with blacks as Clinton did, but even that didn't insulate them from some of his more draconian policies. Clinton could drop bombs in Africa and still walk away with 95 percent of the black vote.

To his credit, Dean isn't vowing to eat more soul food to prove how in touch he is with the black experience. Such a notion would be ridiculous and insulting. That's why his decision to acquiesce to the temptation to appear "more Christian" as his presidential campaign heads into the South strikes a false note with so many.

Why is Dean risking annoying the electorate by loudly announcing his intention to pander for religious votes while straining to remember Sunday school lessons from decades ago?

Dean's gaffe about the location of the book of Job earlier this month is a prime example of why he should leave "religious talk" to those who can distinguish between the Old and New Testaments without checking with campaign aides.

And while it's smart politics to try to narrow the "religion gap" between "pious" Republicans and the "secular humanist" Democrats, it shouldn't be at the expense of whatever dignity Dean has accrued as a card-carrying agnostic, if that's his natural orientation.

Besides, there is no religious litmus test for becoming president of the United States. This country was founded by a motley crew of Deists, pagans and freethinkers who were elevated to sainthood centuries later by misguided Christians who consider piety and patriotism two sides of the same coin.

At a time when religious broadcaster Pat Robertson is assuring his viewers that God personally whispered in his ear that Bush will win the election in a "blowout" because heaven prefers dealing with a "man of prayer," it might be to Dean's political advantage to stand aloof from such heretical nonsense.

Giving the devil of electoral politics his due shouldn't include misrepresenting the fervency of one's faith for political expedience. Most Americans, especially American Christians, are dealing with enough self-deception, hysteria and bad faith to keep us busy for several lifetimes. We shouldn't have to carry Dean's load, too.

There are millions of believers who would happily vote for a sincere agnostic over a religious cynic whose prayers to God obviously consist of the mantra "Blessed are the rich." Maybe this time, assuming a fix really isn't in, God will see fit to bless the candidate who has the most faith in the intelligence of the voters.

E-mail this story   Print this story