About 2 & 1/2 years ago I found myself in the same place as many other American citizens, and for that matter, citizens around the world. In front of my television finally hearing the ultimate verdict on who would take office as United States President. As someone who voted for "the other guy," I felt an unpleasant feeling of surprise over the conclusion, at least as much surprise as one could have left over from having witnessed such an unprecedented election. But there was another feeling. There was a feeling in me that felt uncomfortable or... nervous about having this particular president for at least the next four years. It was a feeling that I had been vaguely nurturing in the prior days leading up to the final election results that were suddenly made more visceral once the announcement was actually made. Within moments I decided that I needed to put words to my sense of unease, rather than simply waffle despondently within it. So I began. First, I began to type. Then after a while of typing and minor editing, I searched out political newsgroups, democratic, republican, independent, whatever... and began posting. It wasn't long after I posted that I began to read reaction. I only had a couple of contending posters respond but I found these exchanges compelling, inspiring me to post further thoughts in response to theirs. I found the whole experience brought out a lot of perceptions that I had over the implications of this political shift that seemed about to begin. I found a voice for my concerns regarding the country's future as influenced by this new administration whose "vibe" seemed to have already revealed itself during its preceding campaign. This "vibe" that I got, as I watched the candidates compete for the office that would finally go to George W. Bush, on some level seemed , as I saw it, to be potentially destructive towards the progress world affairs. This posting all took place before the economy was completely shot, before 9/11, before the war, before the UN conflicts, before the global anti-Americanism, before the de facto blacklisting. So, not too long ago I decided to read it again after these few years to see and remember what the nature of all my concerns were. After re-reading it, I felt a distinct shudder run through my spine over what I had written and its seemingly uncanny reflection of the events that had taken place since. Draw your own conclusions, but here's the unedited posting with all rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. It's kinda wierd to look back on.
Wednesday, December 13, 2000 11:50 AM
Subject: So... the W's in... And, now a few thoughts...
Election technicalities aside, George W. has gained the support of about half the American people primarily using character representation, charm, and charisma. Qualities that can no doubt lead an actor to a successful performance as president in a two-hour movie. But successful performance as a real president in a four-year term? Martin Sheen plays the president in "West Wing" receiving rave reviews. He very well could have played all of George W.'s televised appearances with the same, if not more compelling authority. Would Martin Sheen from this ability alone be viewed with the same standard of legitimacy by the American public were he suddenly to run for president? Can the solid construction of benevolent policies and systems for the nation, and in many situations, the world be constructed and based on character representation, charm, and charisma? Certainly, a TV performance can. Apparently, at least about half of America has the propensity to be politically swayed by these three qualities paramount to many others. Perhaps when some people see the president on TV they primarily long to just see a man who can move them the way they're moved when they see the benevolent character of "Mr. President" in a movie. Perhaps, for much of America this has become the new most compelling criterion for why they vote for a candidate. The first choice of an entertainment-media-affected nation. (How many people wanted the election controversy to end merely because it was going on too long for their "tastes"? Perhaps, in the same way a movie or TV plot-line goes on too long, thus ceasing to be entertaining or involving as it strains all patience of those just wanting to find out how the story ends?) Performance notwithstanding, George W.'s underlying personality profile seems to suggest that he promotes a somewhat adversarial attitude regarding this nation versus others. He seems unconcerned with global health, harmony, and integration and is instead,focused on American
superiority and dominance. He wants this nation to be "above" all others. I dread that he, as the political representative of arguably one of the world's more influential nations may be, however subtly, prone to inciting political conditions that aggravate or inspire resentments toward the US, while exacerbating war-like sentiments in the world. It will take time to see what fruit is borne of his approach. But we'll all wait. And we'll all see. We have four years to learn where these leadership philosophies begin to take us in our world. As for now, the George W. legacy begins and so, perhaps, does a painful four-year lesson for many American citizens. What makes a good
American president on the screen has nothing to do with what makes a good American president in the office. Let's just hope we can use the eight years after, hint-hint, to unearth and undo any damage done or begun. So strap in folks 'cause here we go.
[And now a couple of responses and my counter responses.]
Get a grip Mr. Hollywood.
[prsnlzd wrote in message news:918hvi$2r18$1@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...]
>"Election technicalities aside, George W. has gained the support of about half the American people primarily using character representation, charm, and charisma. Qualities that can no doubt lead an actor to a successful performance as president in a two-hour movie. But successful performance as a real president in a four-year term?"
Apparently you have forgotten the Ronald Reagan make up job the gore [sic] creation got for his second performance, I mean second debate. You also forget the efforts the DNC made in showing off their great image consultant, naomi wolf (Dr. Moreau) who created the many faces of the creature called "gore". You also seen [sic] not remember the PR nightmare the gore people had to explain in the "Canoe and Dam" incident where al gore played Yule Gibbons in a infomercial. It turned out there wasn't enough water to float al's canoe so the water management district turned up the flow allowing al to play with is boat. al wasted one million dollars worth of water.
>"Martin Sheen plays the president in "West Wing" receiving rave reviews. He very well could have played all of George W.'s televised appearances with the same, if not more compelling authority. Would Martin Sheen from this ability alone be viewed with the same standard of legitimacy by the American public were he suddenly to run for president? Can the solid construction of benevolent policies and systems for the nation, and in many situations, the world be constructed and based on character representation, charm, and charisma? Certainly, a TV performance can."
You limp wrist's in Hollywood wouldn't know reality if you ditched your Prozac. All the movie theaters are closing, your strike hasn't got you shit but still the cast of Friends demand a mill an episode. How much are lipstick commercials during Friends now?
>"Apparently, at least about half of America has the propensity to be politically swayed by these three qualities paramount to many others. Perhaps when some people see the president on TV they primarily long to just see a man who can move them the way they're moved when they see the benevolent character of "Mr. President" in a movie. Perhaps, for much of America this has become the new most compelling criterion for why they vote for a candidate. The first choice of an entertainment-media-affected nation. (How many people wanted the election controversy to end merely because it was going on too long for their "tastes"? Perhaps, in the same way a movie or TV plot-line goes on too long, thus ceasing to be entertaining or involving as it strains all patience of those just wanting to find out how the story ends?)"
It's the media that has created the me generation, X gen and now the immediate gratification junkies that shoot people thinking they'll get right back up.
>"Performance notwithstanding, George W.'s underlying personality profile seems to suggest that he promotes a somewhat adversarial attitude regarding this nation versus others."
It's al gore's motto to fight. With George Bush you know what you see is what you get. There is NO pretentiousness or illusions. He's a uniter, not a fighter...unless the libs want one
>"He seems unconcerned with global health, harmony, and integration and is instead,focused on American superiority and dominance. He wants this nation to be "above" all others. I dread that he, as the political representative of arguably one of the world's more influential nations may be, however subtly, prone to inciting political conditions that aggravate or inspire resentments toward the US, while exacerbating war-like sentiments in the world. It will take time to see what fruit is borne of his approach. But we'll all wait. And we'll all see. We have four years to learn where these leadership philosophies begin to take us in our world."
Your flower child mentality of Utopia is sickening. The reality is terrorism is coming to America. Are you gonna offer Ben Laden, Sodom and those who would see America fall open borders? Lock your doors, the clinton era is here and jesse jackson is promoting Helter Skelter.
>"As for now, the George W. legacy begins and so, perhaps, does a painful four-year lesson for many American citizens. What makes a good American president on the screen has nothing to do with what makes a good American president in the office. Let's just hope we can use the eight years after, hint-hint, to unearth and undo any damage done or begun. So strap in folks 'cause here we go."
Ya, thank God the Hollywood hype on al gore lost, long live accountabilty and the law.
CB
[And now, my counter response to CB which also contains someone else's rebuttal to my initial post and, in turn, my counter to that, as well.]
>"You limp wrist's in Hollywood wouldn't know reality if you ditched your Prozac."
This statement alone seems to demonstrate the degree to which your rebuttal is not inspired by or based in thoughtful, rational contention, but rather presumptuous and careless emotional reaction. I believe you may, perhaps, have legitimate arguments to make, but your approach has undermined your credibility of being able to fashion these assertions with true objectivity. In other words, you're making your position look bad, and doing a disservice to those who may share any of your sentiments. I am always interested in another person's point of view because I'm certainly not above ever being wrong. As a human being, there's always more to learn and understand, so I'm ready to re-evalute when previously unconsidered points present themselves. Unfortunately, your counter hasn't shown to be engaging or compelling enough to warrant re-evalution of my assertions. Your approach is self-defeating. Understand, I'm in no competion here. I merely have thoughts to bring to the table, and if others have different thoughts I hope they are successfully brought to the table in a way that helps me expand my understanding of my own positon, or enlightens me to the merits of another's position. Allow me to present another person's rebuttal to my position that at least carries more validity in it's representation, followed by my counter-rebuttal which, in turn, more explicitly characterizes my thoughts:
"Joshua T. Heard" wrote in message news:u5QZ5.302166$3E6.3953215@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
> "Charm and charisma were all Clinton had. In fact, he was basically corrupt behind all that. That was the painful lesson we learned in the last 8 years: character counts. The American people can sense honesty in George W. Bush. He has a good character. He has proven the ability to lead one of the most populous states in our country and has equal or more experience than Clinton when he took office."
And, CB, my response to Joshua was as follows:
"Clinton did have charm. He had an awful marriage, and a disrespectful way of handling things in view of the American Public with respect to that situation. Incidently, we all know that a handful of the founding father's, including George Washington, himself, were regularly unfaithful in their marriages, but I digress. I don't know if if Americans learned a painful lesson in how the country itself operated including with respect to other nations. I agree that the morale has suffered in this country, and thus that has been painful to a degree, but thankfully not at the expense of how the country itself has pragmatically progressed. Indeed, in this area it seems that the country has progressed quite nicely in a way that it hasn't in some time. In a way that has benefitted America and it's part in the world beyond the short term embarrasment of the scandal. I think this may be due to Clinton having something in addition to his charm and his illegal evasiveness about his infidelity. Although it seems that he certainly lacks it in some areas of his behavior, he seems to have demonstrated by virtue of America's administrative progress, an unwaivering integrity in how he actually executes American policy for Amercan and worldwide benefit. He screwed Lewinsky and lied to the public. Bad. He did not screw the PUBLIC and lie to the public. Better. He benefitted the public through the policies of his administration, though many may not wish to acknowledge the benefits because of how insulted they felt by his handling of the scandle, not one of the benefits. And I don't invalidate that people should feel insulted. Just simply not at the expense of recognizing what was accomplished. I know of a lot of doctors that smoke. How can a man or woman who has such little regard or understanding for the criteria of good health by smoking be trusted within his or her profession of healer to know what he or she's doing and have any, let alone extreme benefits for others' health? How? If that doctor saves the lives of others to the best of his or her abilty, even one day saves my child's life, or my wife's life, contradictions aside, the merits of those actions will be what I will weigh the most. Though I may not approve of, and have initial fears about the smoking doctor's level of appreciation for health and life, my loved one's health and life, and the lives of others he's benefitted will be the primary standard up to which I hold this doctor. Though smoking's not wise, this doctor may have and employ different wisdom with respect to doctoring others. I know some people who don't smoke, eat right and excercise who I wouldn't trust in a million years to simply look after an ill loved one.
That being said, a couple of other points.
To the extent that character does count, it can be represented on TV by a person without that person actually possessing it. I'm sure we all can think of plenty of actors who play a role with such compelling character as to be dear to our hearts, and yet in their real lives, in the way they conduct themselves with respect to others, this character is in short supply. The true measure of character is in what a person's actions will be and have been, not how they appear on television. When the American people are emotionally moved by an actor's performance they are not sensing honesty in the actor's being. Rather, they are sensing the quality of honesty in the actor's performance. Perhap's that's why it's so troubling to some to see talented actors who play such endearing characters, demonstrate in their own life's actions behavior contrary to these characteristics. I would propose the possibility that half of the American public sensed a
good performance of character in George W. and were swayed much in the same way they would be in a very well executed film. There were many that strengthened their belief that Warren Beatty would make a decent political candidate after seeing "Bullworth". Indeed, if I were casting the role of president in a movie, I certainly would consider George W. over Gore. But when using the actions of George W's political life as the measure of character, I become somewhat concerned, finding myself, again, led to the impression as formerly stated:
> ...George W.'s underlying personality profile seems to suggest that he promotes a somewhat adversarial attitude regarding this nation versus others. He seems unconcerned with global health, harmony, and integration and is instead, focused on American superiority and dominance. He wants this nation to be "above" all others. I
dread that he, as the political representative of arguably one of the world's more influential nations may be, however subtly, prone to inciting political conditions that aggravate or inspire resentments toward the US, while exacerbating war-like sentiments in the world.<
The final point, with respect to whatever implications Clinton's scandal has suggested, it seems pretty clear that Gore is not to be under suspicion for cheating on his wife and lying about it under oath. If there are those who feel otherwise due merely to his working with Clinton, I would call such style of reasoning of said people into question. Furthermore, as to Gore's character, I'll admit I'm not completely decided on the issue, but I don't think his actions demonstrate the characer of a person who promotes an adversarial nation with respect to other nations. I do think his actions seem to have demonstrated a concern for American and global integration, health, and harmony. And, there is compelling evidence within his actions through this election that he doesn't give up too easily for what he believes in, even in the face of seemingly the most insurmountable adversity, though I agree that the merits of these actions can be debated. That aside, the most important demonstration of character with respect
to my concerns is in Gore's actions to establish this country as a benevolent nation amongst nations, rather than the most dominant and superior one above them. Reference George W.'s interview in which "Republican George W. Bush Wednesday [December 6th] warned U.S. foes against trying to take advantage of uncertainty over the presidential election and vowed to send `a chilling signal to terrorists' if he won the White House."-(Reuters) A cryptic, unprovoked threat to, perhaps, very irrational factions just looking for an excuse to lash out violently. This one statement alone, suggests the character of someone who will, unprovoked, risk exacerbating a delicate, potentially volitile pre-existing situation for the chance to put a chip on this nation's shoulder and say, "I dare you to knock it off." You don't begin negotiations with a hostage taker by saying "We're gonna come in and get you!" Not too shrewd. Perhaps, too adversarial. It may be this particular action is one example of the true nature of his character. I don't know that he's neccisarily dishonest, though he may be as well. But I don't know that lack of honesty is the main threat with George W. But I truly do hope that my suspicions and perceptions are not verified. Or, if they are, at least not to the overwhelming detriment to this nation and this world. I hope your viewpoint prevails. It would be better for all. I worry that it won't. And If it doesn't, I hope we recover."
[CB responded to me and my quoted exchange with Joshua as follows.]
WWWWWWWWaaaaaaaaaaa
Hey, I don't pretend to be articulate, educated or pompous. I simply point out the obvious.
[My counter-response.]
The many aspects and realities of complex situations, such as the political conditions of one nation or many, aren't always made to be obvious. Focusing only on issues which seem to be obvious, moreover, by someone who admits to not being articulate or educated enough, basically admits a lack of thoroughness in one's assertions. In other words, it lessens the credibility of your position in the eyes of your dessenters, and even would-be consenters while making it seem like your opinions, if you want to just believe them first and justify them later, are not too difficult to manipulate through the media or otherwise. I respect your having your own opinion, it just doesn't seem to be based in enough insight to compellingly affect anyone else's. And I'm glad, at least you do not claim to be pompous. That wouldn't make things better for anyone.
CB's final response:
"Yep, you got me pegged."
(link to original posting)
Since writing all of this, the U.S. nightmarishly had that chip knocked off its shoulder in the form of the World Trade Center tragedy, the U.S. economy has fallen apart and stayed there with no remedy in sight, war has been declared with debatable provocation or agenda, whose end in sight is even more debatable, a wave of discouraging free-speech and/or taking a stand is sweeping U.S. culture against those who don't have the "correct" viewpoint of the war, the U.N. has pretty much denounced the U.S., and in general, international relations have gone all the way from overwhelming heartfelt global support after 9/11 to overwhelming disdain almost across the board, with most of the nations in the world now regarding the U.S. as arrogant, dangerously powerful warmongers. And this is before an aftermath.
Less than two years to go until the next election.
And I wonder what future impressions the American culture will have made on the rest of the world by the time we declare our presidential choice for next term.
And, how will that choice show to represent how we as a nation regard where we've been heading for those preceding four years.
By the end of our next election, for whichever subsequent attitudes we will have sent out as a nation to our global community, there's one thing of which I will be pretty sure:
the global community will be listening and evaluating.
