The Debates Are Tiresome

Whether I speak in terms of what is considered to be important in terms of sexuality (or pretentiously called eros), or whether I present it in terms of a Brian De Palma movie about fate, apparently I must present it terms of the Republicans seeking the nomination in order to be take seriously. But if that is the case, then at this point I must say that all of the candidates are jack-asses, and I can’t believe that after writing several post about how stupid Rick Perry was, some still want to apologize for him. I told you two months ago and nobody believed me. So be it.

Yes the rejoinder should be why are you yourself not running. Well, I recognize I have neither the talent nor ambition, but I wonder about these qualities of any of the available candidates. I am taking the demotic privilege to voice my dissatisfaction with all of them.

I tend not to be one who needs to “fall in love” with his candidate for presidency insofar as I have never been in love with any candidate ever presented to me, and I find the infatuation of Kennedy (liberals in the ‘80s) and Reagan (conservatives to this day) to be ridiculous.

As I understand it, this nation which includes a multiplicity of opinions, passions, and interests makes for what is called diversity in terms of an office of one, an office which still avoids majority tyranny in all things at all times. After all, representation means that no one could ever represent me better than myself, but the “I” wouldn’t be representing but only be myself (whatever that is). But the presidency isn’t a “representative” office anyway.

So this notion of falling in love with a candidate must be one of the most asinine assumptions that could ever be. Isn’t this what liberals did with Mario Cuomo back in the 1980s and early 90s. Give me a break. That guy was an idiot but he could have been a decent president. But I was never in love with him anyway, and he never ran for the office—like Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie.

If you think otherwise, you ought to read James Bryce on why the best of the best don’t run for presidency. I know his analysis doesn’t fit the modes of selection today, but his analysis of American democracy is not off the mark.

Despite Bryce, beyond the bare constitutional requirements of age and natural birth, there are the requirements beyond that which is present to one’s own choice when one chooses a slate of presidential electors (unless one lives in Maine or Nebraska). We’re talking about prudence—and with the presidential energy and dispatch that the office affords. I tend to find the emphasis on the capacity for leadership to be a bit creepy, but I get what people mean by it nowadays. If I took presidential character as a measure of my own life, then I would have no basis by which I could choose my constitutionally qualified friends. But who knows any of these characters running for president, and does it really matter anyway? Herman Cain’s problems of sexual harassment are not different than some abstraction. I am not a Kantian who believes that institutions could so be designed for a nation of devils, but given that I want the presidency to be under the law—or even better “republicanized” as Harvey Mansfield puts it.

This is why I am a fan of the electoral college, and am getting tired of the presidential debates. This populism of direct popular election is stupid. “Hope and Change” becomes rhetoric against the richest of the rich or against the liberals who defend the richest of the rich. It’s all too abstract. Insofar as it is the richest of the rich, I don’t have a problem in having them not define American policy, but only because I don’t equate wealth with virtue, let alone intelligence. That said, in my stupidity I have saved money because I never believed the endless progress and productivity of American life. As a consequence I personally have some cash on reserve, and I don’t want these slackers taking my money—whether though taxation or through inflating the money supply. The Horatio Alger myth may as well be the Tom Waits line—“ain’t got not spare ain’t got no jack, you don’t give a shit you ain’t never goin’ back.” And it seems that Obama wants to tax this. However, the problem with a character like Tom Waits is that while you can regulate his money his person is not easily regulated. He still don’t give a shit.

That said, I think Perry and Cain are a joke. Gingrich is a fool, and Ron Paul is supposed to be an intellectual but he is a moron. I know these guys have experience, but as holding the executive office give me a break. Romney would be a good placeholder.

They’re all idiots. But insofar as they understand that the president is an office instead of a place for leadership which can lead us to Fair Deals, Square Deals, New Freedoms, New Deals, New Frontiers, Great Societies, Mornings in America, Bridges to the 21st Century, and Hope and Change. GHW Bush was right when he criticized the so-called “vision” thing. Save us from both the success and the failure of the vision. Yes—that’s why I didn’t vote for Obama, but at least he has become less for radical change.

Romney ain’t gonna do nothing different. You can talk about taxes and “entitlement” reform, but serious candidates have been talking about this stuff my entire life—for at least thirty years—and nothing happens. This is not a problem of “politicians,” it is a problem of what people like.

We’re doomed because we want it.