War pigs, aristocrats and reality TV: Our only choices for 2004
Calvin Hennick
The Daily Iowan
IOWA CITY, Iowa
"Naturally, the common people don't want war.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country," said Hermann Göring, Nazi war criminal
"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad," said President Bush on Saddam Hussein
The FX network, Fox TV's red-headed stepchild, has plans for a 2004 television series called "American Candidate," which will allow viewers to phone in their votes as 100 regular people (two from each state) compete for the presidency of the United States.
No, really.
Actually, I'm starting to think it might be a good idea; in fact, I may even end up voting for the TV winner. God knows that, albeit commercial, this system has at least as much merit as our current one, which, although it is known as "democracy," more resembles the aristocracy of royalty.
Think about it. George W. Bush is the son of a former president who was the vice president of yet another president. That's Reagan, for those of you keeping track (and who would, anymore?), which means our current president is part of a royal family that began its reign in 1980.
Sure, there was a Democrat somewhere in there, but that's a whole different bloodline. After Clinton-Gore, there was almost Gore, and now another Clinton is likely licking her chops in anticipation of the throne. If she indeed is elected, we could be in the middle of a 36-year stretch that really only includes two administrations.
So what is the result of our royalty? We have a president (who was appointed not by the Supreme Court, but by breeding) on the warpath, apparently subscribing to Göring's theory of propaganda, with no real choice for someone better in 2004.
Let's examine the knights and bishops in our little political chess game:
Al Gore — There's a pretty good shot that this guy will run again, and here's why: He really, really, really wants to be president. So much so that he's stayed out of the public eye for two years to keep his options open, coming out of his cave only occasionally to rip apart Bush's policies.
There's a problem, though: Gore doesn't care about the policies he's ripping apart, and he's just as much an empty heir to a throne as Bush was (see Gore's non-presence as vice president and the fact that his father, too, was a major politician). If Gore actually wanted to initiate any positive change, he would have used his political downtime to promote activism rather than teaching journalism and making a few strategic public appearances.
Tom Daschle — OK, this guy probably isn't even going to run, but he may have a dark-horse following after his little outburst last week. Daschle's tirade was in response to Bush's accusation that Senate Democrats don't care about national security. Frankly, Bush was right, but (big surprise) for all the wrong reasons. Senate Democrats don't care about national security — at least not as much as they do the midterm elections. If they did, they wouldn't sit idly by as the war pigs of the Bush administration march us into Iraq.
Hillary Rodham Clinton — The better half of the creepiest power couple since the Kennedys won't run in 2004, and here's why: She's smarter than Gore. She knows that her best shot is to wait until 2008, when she won't have to run against an incumbent president. What this means, though, is that she'll likely be rooting for Bush in 2004 (because if he loses, she'll be facing an incumbent from her own party in 2008).
So that's it. We've got three people who care about their political careers in public service more than public service as an actual part of their political careers. It may not matter, anyway, because it is doubtful whether any of them possess the courage to try ousting a sitting wartime president.
In 2004, we may be faced with the choice of voting for a career aristocrat or someone chosen by the American public on national TV. If that is the case, I may just find myself putting my check mark next to this name: "Kelly Clarkson."
This column first appeared in the Oct. 2 issue of The Daily Iowan, the campus newspaper of the University of Iowa. It is reprinted here courtesy of U-WIRE.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Friday, October 4, 2002
