A Hasty Case for an Ingenuine White House
A man with a 6th-grade knowledge of moderate politics would plea for your reflection on what it really means to be your Commander-in-Chief.
I hope you’ve read something about “The Great Debate” this morning.
You know — the first televised U.S. Presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, 56 years ago today. The one “decided by makeup.”
If you don’t know the story, please Use Your Googler; I am the last source you should be receiving your first commentary from.
That so disclaimed, let us reflect on the fascinating — if somewhat universally disturbing — position in which we find ourselves. (Or, should I say — …you find yourselves.)
Two options: a ruthless, ridiculously-overqualified and progressively — appropriate flagship of a Democratic Party candidate, opposite an out-of-control, offensive joke of a destructive force that has been directed inward, toward his own Republican Party.
The only plausible hesitation for the former’s candidacy being a fundamental misunderstanding of the office’s necessities, and of the dangers of the “honesty” popularly idealized in the latter.
At least they are opposites, so I’m interested enough to write you.
“The Great Debate” was an ultimate test — not of television — but of the American intellect, and it failed. From the outset of democracy’s greatest leap in perceptive democratization, superficiality claimed victory over policy.
Today, we are to extrapolate in the journey we’ve taken in the 56 years hence, into — by any standard of measure — another world, entirely. Most importantly, into one with such gigantically-swelling intellectual disparity that it cannot possibly be monitored accurately, even moment-to-moment. The continued feasibility of Donald J. Trump’s candidacy is alarmingly conducive to the fact.
Note: Donald Trump will not be President of the United States as it has been understood. If he is elected by process, he will be promptly impeached, or the function of the office itself will be reexamined.
My bias is here: I genuinely believe sociopathic traits make for effective leaders, and am unable to respect anyone without control over their public persona. Trump’s defining acceptance of his undisciplined whirling relegates him — for POTUS, especially — to nothing more than an amusement. He is incapable of the duties that define the position as I know it. (e.g. a commemorative visit to Hiroshima, or participation in the G20 summit.)
In such spirit, I — perhaps one of the least-qualified political commentators with any sort of voice — have a question to ask of you: are you ready for the first ironic President of the United States of America?
Perhaps you’d counter, though, with something like: are *you* ready for the first *authentic* President of the United States of America?
No, America, I am not. And — forgive my patronization — neither are you. I know you feel profoundly devoid of an expressive leader. You, the most hardworking pillars of this society — I know you’ve craved a voice in the game for a very long time, but Mr. Trump’s is no nearer to your own than Mrs. Clinton’s. In fact — in the inescapable game that is the Presidency — she is the better representative simply because she posses the ability to assume any sensical power whatsoever.
The only insight I have to offer you is that honesty has not, does not, and will never have a place in the White House as long as it stands. This truth is neither good nor bad — it simply is.
I would plead you to acknowledge the complexity of political maneuvers — regardless of your own moralism — and the truer nature of the role you will ask one of these individuals to fulfill.
I would ask you to imagine which of the worst of the two you’d rather hold the nuclear briefcase — the tactful, or the primal?
But — if nothing else — I would suggest you ask yourself if you’d really like the same mouth that formed these words about women to deliver your next State of the Union.