No disagreement on that point.
As for perspective being colored because you're born American, this would only be the case if you were driven to become President. The thing is, there's plenty that could be done if you're foreign born to help run the country.
At that point, if it was so important that you become president... I'd question you're motivations.
Arnie, for example, is running the 5th largest economy in the world... if that's not high enough in the pecking order... I seriously question what he wants out of it.
Well, it's always been an interest of mine - politics in general, including the highest role. That said, I'm mindful of the facts that:
(1) My views tend to be extreme - either far left or far right; for years now, they've been an atypical combination of the two - to come to the center far enough to run for any nat'l. office, forget about President, would mean a lot of values compromise...unless my values balance out to the middle, which could happen of course
(or unless the middle balances to my values
)
(2) Right now, mainstream America is very comfortable with native-born Caucasian middle-to-upper-class heterosexuals married with two kids and preferably at least one pet and happily Christian. I am, one might say, "not that", not to criticize those who are. Unless Americans become more comfortable with differences, nat'l. office may be out of my reach.
(3) Local government law appeals to me more in a number of ways.
Um, the point being - yes, I'm interested in being President - or generally, in national politics (I never lost the five year old dream), but I'm also realistic about stuff.
OK, now that I've rambled on enough about me...
I tend to agree with you that there are dozens of other ways for non-native Americans to get involved. BUT. This in and of itself isn't a good justification, is it? Obviously, if we tell any other group (e.g. women), "Well, there are lots of other ways for you to get involved - just accept that this one thing isn't open to you" - that's not sufficient. So, what is our rationale? Are we assuming that
no matter how long immigrants spend in this country, or no matter how little time they spent in their home country, they will always have other loyalties? Even if they were adopted as babies and have no recollection of their country of birth?
Understand, I want to agree with you, but I think we need to find more of a rationale than "there are lots of other possibilities available" to such people.
- TP