A question that occasionally arises as candidates fire up their campaigns is whether there will ever be a minority president. It's a valid question. Will the high office ever live up to its call of freedom and equal opportunity?
Consider first that there has never been a female candidate, and women, are hardly a minority group.
So what are the minority groups? These are typically divided into race or sexuality. Will there ever be a black president, a gay president, a black gay president? Undoubtedly, one day there will be.
But what about the other minorities, the ones with a lower profile; amputees, the blind, the deaf, the diseased? How about a drug addict for president?
“A drug addict! Absurd! I'm going to stop reading this crap right now!”
Whoa there! Let's see if the shoe fits before we go barefoot.
Firstly, as early as 1966 the AMA began referring to addiction as a disease. There would hardly be an informed agency in the world today that would do otherwise. Drug addiction, including alcoholism, is a disease and the US does not discriminate against those with a disease, does it?
“Yes, well…er…”
Okay, so how about the other criteria;
Drug addicts are thieves. They steal to support their habits.
A strong argument. This is the primary reason why politicians are thoroughly vetted to ensure they are as pure as the driven snow. A politician would never dream of stealing as he is humbled by the guardianship of all those tax dollars.
Drug addicts are not really handy with the truth; they lie.
Another good reason for the rigorous selection process. If politicians told lies there would be utter turmoil - wars, health-care shortages, unemployment and poverty. There might even be an increase in the availability of illegal drugs, and, subsequently, drug addiction.
Drug addicts mix with unsavoury companions.
This is true. I seem to remember Jesus did the same thing. Would the land for whom "In God We Trust" find Jesus to be an unsuitable candidate?
Drug addicts have loose sexual morals.
True, some do. This is also true of some total abstainers. Just as true is the statement that there are some drug addicts who are total prudes. Many very active drug addicts cannot perform sexually at all. The argument is valid however. Imagine if some drug addict got in the White House and started messing with some girl, doing nasty things with a cigar…
Drug addicts cannot be depended on; they say one thing and do another.
This is true. It is a good thing our politicians always live up to their election promises, isn't it?
Drug addicts are violent.
Some. Most are not. Thankfully the gazillions spent on the military is done in the name of peace and love. It would be a dreadful waste if that money was put to use feeding the poor or providing medicines to those who can't afford it.
Drug addicts are corrupt.
I sure am glad the vetting process weeds these guys out! I would hate to hear of a corrupt politician.
It costs a lot to run for the presidency. Drug addicts simply don't have that kind of money.
Are you kidding! Some drug addicts don't have that kind of money. A lot do. Have a read of the tabloids. Rock stars, movie stars (although we couldn't have a movie star for president, could we?), some of these guys earn in the mega-buck league, and, are seriously addicted.
Then there are those addicts with thriving import businesses…
This list could go on. In fact we could probably find no human failing in a drug addict that is not already represented in the big-time political arena. So what does this prove? That politicians have a lot in common with addicts? That much is a given. Why then, has a high profile drug addict never been a serious contender for the presidency? What quality do successful politicians have that drug addicts do not?
This is the crux of the matter. What quality do successful politicians have that drug addicts do not?
Keeping secrets.
