I'll never understand the desperation to elect a squeaky-clean Presidential candidate. I find entirely wholesome people kind of creepy, actually. If someone seems absolutely flawless, I start thinking that they have done something so deeply dark and bizarre (i.e., having a third or fourth secret family, being the recipient of a face transplant, etc.) that they are already so far ahead of the curve in the way of cover-up such that I should be afraid of what must be their incredible skills at deception. So skeptical am I of people that when I hear about Newt Gingrich's confusing marital arrangements or Mitt Romney's massive fortune, I am hardly rattled. These issues seem like small potatoes to me. Also, I don't think those elements of their histories really matter in terms of policy. Consider past presidents with questionable character traits. Both terms of President George W. Bush were dominated by multiple wars. These were disastrous enterprises that were essentially unrelated to his wealth or history of drug and alcohol abuse. President Clinton's second term was marred by sexual improprieties that were completely divorced from his policy and yet he was nearly impeached.
In general I feel sorry for Presidential candidates. It seems like an impossible battle. We want someone who is successful like Romney yet when we find that he has made so much money that he can make ten thousand dollar bets, we are disgusted. He gets guff because the perception is that his wealth precludes him from relating to the middle class. Of course he can't relate to the middle class; he is one of the wealthiest presidential candidates in the history of this country. I am sure he has made plenty of multi-thousand dollar bets. He could probably wipe
his ass with ten thousand dollars and not think twice, let alone bet
with it. The fact that Gingrich has been divorced should make him more of a regular guy than ever; fifty percent of American marriages end in divorce. In fact, I find his wish for an open marriage that included his mistress so weirdly intriguing that this little peccadillo makes me actually want to know more about him. Otherwise he would just be ringing the real death knell of presidential candidates: being a smart and yet totally uninteresting guy (i.e., a John Kerry or an Al Gore).
As far as my own politics, I have always voted Democrat mainly because of social issues: I'm a pro-choice Indian-American atheist who thinks people should be able to marry whomever they want. Barack Obama's voting record was closely aligned with my positions, so I voted for him. However, I don't think I can relate to the guy. He was born in Hawaii, is multiracial, was Editor of the Harvard Law Review and was a Professor at University of Chicago. Regardless, I don't see how our personal historical differences make any actual differences in how his presidency has played out. Even if some dirt about him comes out, unless its illegal I don't care.
Everyone has had successes and failures. Everyone has peculiarities. Why do we expect anything different from our candidates for Presidency if these qualities don't relate to actual policy? Herein lies the impossibility of being genuine as a candidate; you have to somehow be more successful than your constituents to earn respect and yet also be the same as them to seem "relate-able." The sad truth is that I don't think I could relate to anyone who would want this job in the first place, so their quirky personal histories, while entertaining, are totally irrelevant to me. Except I liked that Clinton played the saxophone and even did so on The Arsenio Hall Show. That was really cool to me and won me over. Then again, I was eleven years old.
0 comments:
Post a Comment