In recent weeks, two pivotal events have reshaped the race for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, has surged in popularity, gaining ground on frontrunners Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, securing a strong second-place ranking in Iowa. Huckabee openly acknowledges that his faith shapes his policy decisions. Meanwhile, on December 6, Mitt Romney addressed critics regarding his Mormon beliefs at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, asserting that while he holds to the Mormon creed, he believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. Romney assured that no church authorities would influence his presidential decisions, emphasizing that he would prioritize the duties of the office and the authority of the law, serving only the common cause of the American people. In an era of increasing secularism, the integration of religion into the election debate is striking. Should Huckabee attain the Oval Office, fears among secular groups of a religious takeover of America may intensify. However, both candidates face scrutiny for their political stances. Romney, seen as a Northeastern moderate, has reversed positions on issues like homosexual rights, abortion, and stem-cell research, and is criticized for hypocrisy on illegal immigration. Huckabee, while aligning with social conservatives on abortion and homosexuality, is soft on illegal immigration and has a record of tax hikes and increased government spending, governing as a moderate despite frequent references to Jesus. The trend of incorporating religion into politics warrants caution, as decades of cultural secularism cannot be assumed reversed. These candidates, vying for the highest office with immense political power, may be playing the religion card to gain electability and secure the support of the Religious Right. History shows that mixing religion and politics often leads to corruption through delusions of power, and Americans should discern the difference between a religious person and a righteous one, especially when so much is at stake.

According to both American political parties, the recent campaign and election were deemed the most critical in our nation's history, defining American politics for the next generation. The media portrayed it with extreme exaggeration, likening its importance to monumental historical events, largely to galvanize specific voter segments and boost ratings through heightened rhetoric. Many partisans on both sides genuinely believed this election was pivotal, warning of dire consequences if the opposing candidate won. For these true believers, politics is not merely an interest but a religion, where they worship at the altar of government, dedicating time, money, and effort to honor their party and state. Each side reveres its own historical figures and party leaders, uses selected writings for inspiration or condemnation, and showcases their zeal and righteousness through patriotic displays and legislative actions. They even collect contributions from the public to fund their causes. Americans are deeply divided into Reds or Blues, residing in corresponding states, avidly following political news, and participating in record numbers, with about 116 million voting this year. Many displayed their political choices through signs, stickers, and buttons, contributed financially to campaigns, volunteered time for various election activities, and paid significant sums for brief encounters with political figures. For numerous Americans who devoted extensive time over the past year to the election or defeat of a candidate, politics has become their god, shaping their way of life.

Every few presidential administrations, America experiences a liberal Chief Executive who promises to change the nation, restore her reputation globally, and aid the poor and downtrodden, often sparking initial public euphoria and high hopes. However, crises frequently reveal that such leaders lack understanding of basic capitalism and the resolve for international challenges. The election of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth President raises concerns of repeating this pattern, given his liberal stance and policies that suggest redistributionist economics, which historically led to insolvency in other nations. Internationally, Obama's intention to meet with anti-American leaders without preconditions implies a position of weakness, potentially undermining America's leverage in negotiations. Comparing past administrations, Bill Clinton initially pushed liberal agendas but shifted to a center-left approach after failures like Hillarycare, while achieving little in foreign policy and failing to enhance America's global standing. Jimmy Carter, governing as a leftist, oversaw economic recession, high interest rates, and expanded federal bureaucracy, with foreign policy marked by the Iranian hostage crisis and defense budget cuts. Obama's rhetoric suggests a similarity to Carter's approach, and with a Democratic majority in Congress, he could push the country further left, potentially leading to challenging years ahead for conservatives.