With Preachy Pete now taken seriously in the mix, we need to start thinking about the practical implications of a theoretical Buttigieg presidency.
Trump, as we know, is pressing countries around the world to change their positions on two issues.
One — that countries around the world accept and respect the right of religious minorities to freely live according to their religious beliefs.
And Two — that countries around the world bring an end to the criminal prosecution (or, in some cases, capital punishment) of homosexual relationships.
Both of these positions will cost Trump some of his political capital with other world leaders, capital he has been able to keep topped up through trade negotiations, through the projection of military strength, or any of a number of carrots and sticks he might have at his disposal.
But that shines a light on a serious subject.
It is the job of a President to negotiate with leaders around the world, many of which come from cultures very different from ours, cultures bringing their own baggage of values and prejudices with them into any negotiations we might have.
The Media(D-Democrat) had a lot to say about how America would be perceived by other nations on account of Trump being … whatever it was they accused Trump of being.
Of course, they meant the ‘pretty people’ that ooh and aaah over the UN and the cabal of well-connected globalist elites that know so much better than the rest of us about how the world should really be run.
They were right that Trump didn’t fit in very well with that crowd — that’s why we elected him. But if nothing else, after seeing what became of America’s economy, he has their grudging respect on at least that point.
Have we given any thought to who might be scandalized by Preachy Pete being elevated to the White House? The President is more than JUST his elected office and suite of responsibilities — he is his persona and all the baggage that goes with it, too.
We all remember how the whole impeachment circus centered around the Democrat claim that emboldening our enemies (which is what they claimed happened with the Ukrainian money being held or reviewed) was bad for NATIONAL SECURITY because it emboldened players like Russia.
Keep that idea in mind as we look at Pete.
The West might have decided that homosexual relationships aren’t as big a deal as we thought they were a decade or two ago, but that doesn’t mean he world shares that view. Not even a little bit. In fact, many cultures around the world assume — rightly or wrongly — that homosexuality can be used interchangeably with being effeminate and weak.
Not only does he have the baggage of whatever perceptions other world leaders may associate with his sexuality, that is compounded by the fact that he opposed the droning of Soleimani.
Have we weighed and considered what corrosive influence, if any, elevating a married gay man to high office might have upon the complexities of foreign relations?
We have any number of delicately-balanced and fragile foreign relationships among such places as — for example — the Middle East. We elevate groups and nations we have workable relationships with against rogue players in the region.
But what happens to those relationships — and more importantly, pressures from locals and radicals in those nations — if the person they are negotiating with is married to a dude.
It’s far better to think through and weigh these implications beforehand rather than be blindsided by an unanticipated consequence of culture clash.