Throughout his or her campaign the candidate may define his or her faith through a combination of sociological and theological terms which are very difficult to locate on the boundary line between sociology and theology. Since sociological data is about here and now in this mundane world, while theology spreads its wings to cover the world of phenomenon and the metaphysical world of the Prophets and philosophers, the modern American politician who wishes to occupy the Oval Office is caught in a fix.

He cannot deny the impact of science and technology in his consciousness and within his society. At the same time he or she needs to live and let live with the eternal challenges of religion and its formidable army of devotees. Banking heavily on the wisdom of the founding fathers, and more alert to and more widely subjected to the tyranny of science and technology, such politicians have learned not to be swayed by the sirens of science and technology on the one hand and religious bigotry on the other. As a result of this collective understanding within the body politics, candidates for the presidency have learned how to differ without making heretics of one another. Such negativism comes about only when religion becomes the final arbiter that can give victory at all cost.

What I am saying here is that the common humanity of all the candidates makes them sensitive to the question of life and death and to the implications of the struggle for survival among all Americans. Unless they are far to the left in terms of religion and therefore demonstrate no iota of belief in the generally acknowledged faith of the people, almost all candidates running for office in the US know that it is political suicide to show any evidence of disbelief. Even if you act in such a manner privately, as suggested by Stephen Carter when he described religion as a hobby. No serious candidate can afford that candor in public discourse of religion.

During the Cold War it was un-American to speak or act in any such manner. After the Cold War, the fact still remains that no candidate who denies publicly Christianity and the other faiths that affirm the existence of a Higher God stands any chance of making it politically in America. This is a fact of life and Democratic and Republican candidates therefore vie with one another not because of the lack of faith but because of the manner in which religion is presented as an ally of Man and Society or it is an obstacle that divides and threatens the state and the members of society.

Given this reality of different perspectives on the role and purpose of religion in society, one can argue here that all candidates would take a position that connects all their seemingly isolated mental dots on the line of Americanism.

Americanism is a powerful line that confers legitimacy and authority to all candidates by virtue of their earlier electability to the halls of power in the country. Their very attendance at such debates reveals to the informed and the uninformed the veracity of Americanism. It also helps to dignify the leaders and the led because it serves as a unifying force and a glue for spiritual sanity for the believer in the American Dream and in life beyond the grave. It is therefore the American Dream and the question of faith in God that provide the Democratic and Republican candidates the talking points about politics, the authoritative allocation of values.

In my view, the Democratic candidates have come to the realization that faith is central to most Americans and the matter should not be left in the hands of the Republicans. What made the Democrats extremely vulnerable in many circles has been their preoccupation with the rights of social groups whose numbers may be significant but their agendas most of time become the bait used by the Republicans to muddy the Democratic waters and to drive away other sensitive voters from this Democratic zone. This has been successfully done in the past and the Democratic leaders fell into the quicksand unintentionally, largely because they bank heavily on the notion that American social attitudes towards religion are so complex and so privatized that the religious articulation of the Republicans could be effectively countered with reasoning and social stereotyping.

This subtle and not so subtle strategy has not always worked. Two Democratic winners of the Presidential contests, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were somewhat privy to this American religious movement and they prevented their Republican rivals to use religion counter-productively against them. Interestingly, since the Iranian Revolution, American political winds have been affected to some degree by the revivification of religious emotionalism.

Those who are covering the presidential candidates will see them swim across the pool with a strong sense of Americanism while at the same walking softly to avoid the booby traps of ethnic, racial or religious bigotry. Their success is going to depend on their intellect, their self confidence and their ability to restore among the people they addressed.

It also depends on the changing moods of the people and the striking charisma of the candidates on the Democratic front.