President Tanzarian
As with so many things I care to write about, the staff of The Simpsons have thoughtfully provided me with a parable by which to judge the present. I suppose that means I treat The Simpsons as a reservior of moral and ethical teachings much like fairy tales, the Bible, Greek myth, or Buddhist sutra, though the part of me that fancies itself a serious scholar recoils from what that implies. (The Simpsonian heresy? To the auto-da-fe with him! And while my flesh melts in the flames and vultures perch on the stake I'm tied to all I can think of is Ralph Wiggum crying out,"My mouth tastes like burning!".... I should probably accept that my intellectual growth has been irrevocably stunted.) But I digress.
Last night I had occasion to attend a John Kerry fundraising houseparty put on by a friend of mine. As far as I can tell, there were hundreds of similar parties going on across the country at the same time. Why, you might well ask, would I go to a John Kerry houseparty when I'm on record as "having my hate on" for him?
Well, there's a few reasons, but mainly I just felt like it would be fun to get together with some people for a night to talk politics, like a twenty-first century junto or salon. I'm not very much of a Democrat at heart, and I was hoping that my handful of Boston Republican friends would be there so that the night would not just be a self-affirming leftward circle-jerk. In truth, there wasn't much risk of that, because the party organizer's original email read in part, "Now, do I think Kerry is the best person the Dems have? No. BUT, I do think that he is a much better alternative for this country compared to Bush."
The centerpiece of the night was a conference call from the Man Himself. I was kind of hoping that it would be a live event, with an opportunity for a Q&A session at the end, but sadly that was not to be. At 6 PM we gathered around the conference pod and waited for the call to begin. We were notified that we would be listening to a pre-recorded address, and then John Kerry started to speak. It was a masterpiece of political rhetoric, with laugh points, applause points, and sweeping policy statements that clarified for all present exactly what John Kerry, President, would do for our country.
No, no no. I'm just fucking with you. In reality, the first laugh point of the evening was inadvertant, and came when Kerry called upon "each and every one of you across the country tonight to reach out to fifty people you know" to get them involved. We all knew that a call to action would be coming, and we all were nodding in agreement, "sure, sure, I can find a couple people to get on board with this thing" until Kerry dropped that number. Fifty. Do I even know fifty people? We all just looked at each other in disbelief and broke out in laughter-- "who the hell does he think we are? And does he really think we care?" We laughed through the next bit; no big deal.
Here's the short version of the John Kerry House Party speech: "I'm not Bush. Bush is bad for the country and I'm not like him. Fifty people! I'm not like Bush. International community. Manufacturing jobs. I'm not like Bush. Create jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs, environment, jobs. Not like Bush! International community, Bush bad! Health care, too expensive! Bush Bad! Eat your peas, Bush bad! Jobs! College, jobs, Bush, college, international community, bad Bush jobs!" All of which was punctuated by fake-folksy interjections, asides, and implied grins. As an example of public speaking it was ugly, and as a specimen of political image-making it was embarassing.
I'm not sure why I expected more from the junior Senator from Massachusetts, but I did. It's June, the campaign is in full swing, and all I know about John Kerry, candidate, is that he isn't like George Bush. Well, fine. Chlorine isn't much like lead either. How, exactly, does John Kerry plan to bring manufacturing jobs back to the country, and what does he think that will accomplish? And exactly how many subsidies will that require? And how will those subsidies be financed, and will the products of those subsidized industries be cheaper for it, or more expensive? And, if that's the plan, exactly how does this "plan" differ from a very expensive and roundabout form of sub-New Deal make-work welfare at $25 an hour? It's time to talk turkey, and all we the supposed True Believers got last night was pap.
But back to the Simpsons. John Kerry reminds me of nobody more than Armand Tanzarian, the imposter known to Springfield as Principal Skinner. The town knows he's a fraud and imposter, and that he's not much of a principal, but they accept him anyway. He's an awkward figure, a bit of a cold fish, spineless and vaguely incompetent to boot That's great for a cartoon figure, but are those really ideal, or even marginally acceptable, qualities in a presidential candidate? I was in a room full of left-leaning young voters last night, and not one of them were the least bit enthusiastic about a Kerry presidency. Not one. I realize that Kerry isn't even bothering to campaign in Massachusetts because he can't lose here no matter what happens, but last night John Kerry was speaking to a national audience and came across as a joke.
So I am left to wonder. When faced with a choice between a president who is taking the country in directions I deeply disagree with, and a contender who is little more than a cipher, what do I do?
on
| § 7
§ 7 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Kerry may offer few plans,
Kerry may offer few plans, but the fact that he defines the problems is a significant advance over Bush. It is a question of setting priorities for the country: getting back manufacturing jobs, restoring cooperation between American and the international community, making health care and education affordable.
Your other choice is Geroge Bush's anti-Hamlet: so blinded by his moral certitude that he can see nothing amiss in Denmark, and he cannot save it. To what extent does Bush recognize American problems?
Does Kerry really define the
Does Kerry really define the problems? How much can the US do, short of sackcloth and ashes, to restore our "good standing" among the international community? How can manufacturing jobs "come back," if the losses are 1) due to automation, 2) the result of the internationalization of industry, and 3) result in a net decline in commodity prices? Why is that a problem?
Education is affordable. In fact, it's free. Not everyone needs a university education. (Fixing public education is another story and an actual problem.)
Anyway, I just might be voting Green or Libertarian or Silly party in November. I dunno.
Restoring good relations
Restoring good relations would be easier than Bush would let on. Allowing French and German companies to benefit from French and German donations would bring in French and German (perhaps NATO) troops as well as critical European industries. The financial burden taken up by Europeans would allow US government to spend less. It would need to borrow less foreign capital, the principal source being Bejing. Stopping the outflow of dollars would help to focus investment in industry and maintain a strong dollar, making the purchase of essential materials (like oil) more affordable. Furthermore it would put breaks on investments in foreign countries into industries that could compete with out own.
One way of preventing the outflow of jobs has already been mentioned often: reform the tax code so that there is no reward for sending capital and jobs overseas.
I think the question that must be asked is whether we need "big plans" to solve these problems. Many small things can be done to make improvements. Is it not enought to undo Bush's "big plans"?
Nat, one thing I agree with
Nat, one thing I agree with Bush on is that it takes big plans to make the changes he seeks. In fact, certain of his ends I agree with (but not all!!). Where I differ with him is in what those plans should be.
And, I ask you, what outflow of jobs??
Fisher-Price opens a factory in Korea. Nissan opens a plant in Tiffin, OH. It's all outsourcing to SOMEBODY.
Reform the tax code so that
Reform the tax code so that there's no reward for sending capital and jobs overseas? Or reform the tax code to penalize these actions?
Two very different things. The first wouldn't solve the problem, as taxes are, at best, a tertiary reason for overseas outsourcing. The second would be a perverse and cackhanded form of protectionism, stupider even than Bush's kowtow to the steel industry.
And, as an overarching matter, outsourcing (into or out of the US) is not the issue - it's a net good for a country, but is carped about as bad by those who're affected by it. BFD. Nobody hears whining from those who benefit from such actions, and I think they outweigh by far the temporary losers. Such is trade, such are special interests, and so they will always be. As an "issue", this is a bullshit issue. Kerry's initial approach on the topic, then, is a bullshit approach. Note: he's periodically backpedalled to reasonable on the matter, depending on his audience, and as President, would almost certainly do the same things Bush now does, like stay the hell out of it, except for those times when his involvement would do the most harm.
Repairing the damage to our international standing? Allowing French and German companies to benefit? They can benefit now, just not as prime contractors. If it were really as one-sided as sometimes claimed, the "donations" would have stopped long ago.
According to a CFR report discussed in last week's [url=http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2668383]Economist[/u…], as well as to common sense, we're going to be an actual rival with the EU at some point, if we're not there yet. The goal is to avoid being a shootin' enemy. The report, which contains input and insight from many luminaries, including Henry Kissinger and Lawrence Summers, is described by Charlemagne thusly:
The way to avoid it, simply, is an extension of Johno's sackcloth and ashes alternative; we must also neuter ourselves as a nation, the better with which to be competed. So to speak.
I don't care how well Kerry enunciates his plans to do this, I'll disagree. As an alternative to being hated by all or part of Europe, I am more comfortable with the US remaining the master of its own destiny.
Which, I allege, brings us back to the issue - does Kerry define the issues better than Bush? Yes and no. The issues he chooses to discuss, he defines fairly well (without further comment on which are real issues about which the Federal government should be concerned). Until his audience changes, that is.
Does Bush simply fail to define issues? Objectively, I think not. He just doesn't communicate them. Where he fails, and where he's always failed, is in falling prey to the "Lump of Definition" fallacy (with apologies to all the economists in the audience). He's got plans, he's got ideas, and he's got people working on all the above. He also has duct tape over the mouths of all who could inform the public of these plans. Some of these plans may suck like a Eureka (see: Iraq), but without public discourse, there's no impetus for adjustment when it could matter. One sentence strategy pronouncements, followed by "Trust me", don't cut it. We don't need a poll on everything, but heck, I could stand the time to read a couple paragraphs of explanation for the plans of my government. And knowing a bit about the tactics to be used would be sweet, as well.
That, I think, is the root of the comparison between the choices for president.
Oh, and sorry to be so prolix about it. That's what my own blog is for.
"..all I can think of is
"..all I can think of is Ralph Wiggum crying out, 'My mouth tastes like burning!' " Ralph Wiggum has so much to teach us.
Or after Flanders squirts "eye soap" into Rod and Tod's eyes, and one of the boys says, "The burning is love!"
All presidential elections of
All presidential elections of my lifetime have amounted to some level of hold my nose and pull the lever.
The Bush administration has an ever changing rationale for each of an apparently limitless supply of dreadful policy failures and the rhetoric to explain why each failure is actually a Doubleplusgood Success! Independent thought is stifled. Second opinions are heresy. Credible whistleblowers are shot on sight for everything but the merits of their arguments. And a dreamlike state of unbelievable naivite envelopes the entire upper echelon ... trancendence through belief in policy and a boatload of wishful thinking.
So Kerry is an unlikeable changeling whose solitary mantra is "I'm not Bush."
Bush is an incumbent so the election is his to lose. All presidential reelections are a referendum on the sitting POTUS ayway. Kerry will win or lose not on charisma or ideas but on whether or not the voting public wants four more years of the current administration. It's looking like the public might not.
And Nader isn't on that many ballots this time.