Let me start by saying this is tongue in cheek. I’ve no doubt some readers read headlines and then bounce to random content and head away angry at the writer’s existence because they didn’t… well… read. They glanced. The world lost a great person today but they didn’t lose his greatness. He created a legacy of thought that only dies when we as a race become too foolish to listen.
It’s natural to reflect on someone’s life when they pass. You will no doubt be inundated with memorials, reflections, and celebrations of Nelson Mandela’s life, and rightly so. He was truly a great leader and a good person. A person who was true to his convictions though it cost him almost everything. Naturally, I asked myself, “why don’t we have presidents like that?” But the answer was so obvious: We not only have lowered our standards, we have almost dropped them altogether.
With that being said, I’d like to point out the obvious reason he couldn’t be president, he wasn’t born here. So let’s just get that out of the way. But let’s assume he was. As great a man as he was there are very specific reasons why no one would have backed him for the United States Presidency (and by no one, I mean the financial backers).
- He was a terrorist.
Well, yes and no. We don’t call him a terrorist. We don’t classify him as a terrorist. But, we kind of do. He helped found a militant group that attacked government installations. Now I don’t know about you, but if you put $5 into the Al Qaeda bucket downtown, the USA government will freeze your assets and put you on permanent lists just for “supporting” a terrorist group, even if you had no clue. Nelson Mandela helped found a group that was later classified as a terrorist organization by the USA.
Why this is good for South Africa: He was active in making a better life for his nation. Because of his willingness to stand against oppression an entire country was directly affected and the entire human race was given a contemporary role model of goodness and sacrifice.
Why this is bad for the USA: We don’t tolerate people who are willing to lay down their life to protect people from government. People like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin also fought like this. They would also be terrorists. Go ahead, look at our official definition. Terrorists.
Conclusion: Because of our view and the government’s definition of terrorism and if you have one stain on your past linked to anything terrorism, no one, and by that I mean the financial backers of politicians, would support you. No financial backers = not a chance in hell at being President. - He was Black.
These days, that’s not a bad thing. In fact, we are celebrating our first black president! But let’s put this into context, shall we? The people of the United States of America decided that black people weren’t an inferior form of human being, at least capable of voting in their elections, in 1870. (I’ve much to say about the arrogance of a people who believe that they have a right to guns to protect their own rights, but have the God-given authority to quash the rights of others. Another post, another day. Which wins here, hypocrisy or arrogance?) It took 138 years from the time black people were allowed to vote in white people’s elections to the time a black person was voted in. We don’t do change well. Women got the vote in 1920 and are still expected by society to keep their intelligence to themselves and show us them baby-making hips! (As evidence, I ask you to step into the cashier aisle of any market in the United States. Look to your left and right. There you go, baby-making hips. Not, Dr. Girl cured disease, or Astronomer Female found new planet, or Sister Woman helped saved lives. That trash is saved for Time magazine. We want the baby-making hips up front.)
Why this is good for South Africa: He was black. Segregation officially ended in 1990 (by our standard they shouldn’t have picked a black president until 2128). However, Mandela was elected president on the VERY NEXT ELECTION. I realize that some circumstances are different there, such as ratios of skin color, but the fact is they went from, “Say it,” to, “Do it,” in an incredibly short amount of time.
Why this is bad for the USA: As I said, if we had abolished legal segregation (regarding voting rights) in 1990, our history shows that it wouldn’t be until 2128 when we finally ponied up. Or at least, the financial backers ponied up. In 1994, there was no WAY a black person could be President. We weren’t ready for it; 124 years after benevolently declaring to God that black people were good enough to vote.
Conclusion: While we have grown enough as a nation to allow a black president, regardless of the magnitude of Mandela’s personality and the irrefutably positive effect he’s had on the many societies of this planet, the fact is that we simply weren’t ready for a black president when he was ready to become one. That says a LOT about us. And it’s not good. - He did serious time.
As a country, we have an amazing tolerance for our government agents doing silly things. In fact, senior leaders of our country can commit crimes (crimes to others, national defense to us) with impunity. We even have tolerance for small issues for smaller offices. Perhaps you were convicted of a DUI 30 years ago. Ya, we can still accept you for Mayor. But do you remember how much media surrounding President Clinton’s, “I didn’t inhale,” statement? (To which I would say, man up. If you’re going to put the stick in your mouth in the first place don’t be a pansy. Don’t step up to bat if you’re not going to swing. THAT says something about your personality).
Why this is good for South Africa: I cannot say that Mandela was a diamond going into prison, but you know what they say about coal, time, and pressure? He suffered the consequences of his actions, that of standing against the government, for which he was willing to put himself at risk. The magnitude of his suffering affected the magnitude of his impact.
Why this is bad for the USA: He was a felon. We don’t tolerate felons. Barring any stories of how some senior senators may have killed women during a drunk driving event, we typically, and by typically, I mean almost never, support a person who has been convicted of a felony. And by we, I mean the financial backers of politicians. You don’t invest in a race horse you know isn’t going to win.
Conclusion: If we have a hard time letting women or single men into the White House, a felon doesn’t even get to step onto the field.
It’s a short list, I know, but my point is that Nelson Mandela, through his faults which were undoubtedly there, was a tremendously good person who was willing to suffer incredible loss of time and freedom in order to fight for what many of us consider basic rights. But, we don’t put good people into our White House; we put financially backed people into the White House. “Good” is simply a political word used during election time to veneer a candidate so they’ll fit with your living room décor. Mandela was not a financially viable candidate. He was willing to lose everything for what he thought was right. We will only put people into our White House that will ensure the longevity of the investments the financial backers have made in the candidate.
In the end, perhaps Mandela’s greatest accomplishment was not in all the good that he did, but in showing us the good WE have the capacity to do, but do not.
