Tom Till     Setting Presidents Those among the populace whose parents neglected to inculcate the proper role of shame often find in electoral politics an irresistibly attractive "calling." They delve into this muckish world with glee, selling their minds to the masses (corporations and trial lawyers mostly) and peddling a smorgasbord of ideological nonsense. They search endlessly for the perfect campaign or "issue," much as a baseball player searches for the "sweet spot" on the bat -- that point where the self dissolves into a state of unconscious perfection, conquering all complicated facets of life with momentary effortlessness. Of course, unlike the ballplayer, who manages to actually "connect" from time to time, the politician will never find his promised land; this much he knows but, in a repeated act of timorous moral corruption, steadfastly refuses to acknowledge. The journey, much to the detriment of us all (with some more aware of this fact than others), thus continues, mercilessly, to the epicenter of politics: the American presidency. What attracts people to a certain man who claims enough superior knowledge and ability to govern the affairs of state? What compels them to invest such an appalling amount of emotion in one person? That "faith" entrusted in the presidency and its occupant by the people, or more specifically, certain sets of people at certain times, reveals much about the psyche of those who regard the office as a sort of mystical force. Presidents, originating with Theodore Roosevelt, have never shied from expounding upon the essential goodness and indispensability of the job. To a certain extent, constitutionally speaking at least, that assertion claims an element of truth. The more troublesome tenet implicitly espoused by TR, though, unpleasantly revealed itself decades later: the man qualifies as no less important than the responsibility assigned to him. TR's distant cousin Franklin referred to the president as the "moral leader of the nation," thereby elevating his subjects' expectations to dangerous and ultimately deleterious altitudes. Granted, FDR, the most important president of the 20th century, found himself charged with the task of prosecuting history's most spectacular and vital war; one can suspend a fair amount of disbelief when it comes to truly profound national crises. But why on earth should people otherwise view the president of the United States as so fundamental to our collective identity as to express shock or anger or disbelief when the imperfections of his human character inevitably bubble to the surface? The fantastically large egos of the men who aspire to run this country should act as a warning sign to those charged with the task of electing them. Anyone so deluded into thinking that they alone stand as a beacon for the amelioration of societal ills and the like, that they alone belong in the world's spotlight, should come under intense scrutiny, not the fatuous and amusing kind conducted by today's "free press," but rather something more elementary. Every four years the country affords itself a unique opportunity it seldom capitalizes upon, that of assessing its own persona through the prism of a single man. Yet, in most cases, the citizenry opts for the comfort of sustained imagination and backs away from the challenge of rigorously admonishing itself for having the gullibility to place its trust, aspirations, and "values" in a thoroughly, sometimes brazenly flawed being. Conventional wisdom declares that America lost its "innocence" with Watergate, that theretofore it could no longer rely on the words and deeds of those sent to the White House. Unfortunately, such conduct, practiced most rigorously by presidents and their closest subordinates, found its way into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue long before Richard Nixon unpacked (then repacked) his fraudulent bags. Indeed, corruption played a central role in U.S. governance, federal and otherwise, throughout the 1800s, and then gladly accepted a cordial invitation into the modern era. Political and media hatchet men zealously protected Kennedy and Johnson, both symbols of reckless squalor; Nixon, of course, requires no comment; the 1980s explored new depths with the endemic turpitudes of Reagan and Bush. All of these presidents, in one way or another, begat Clinton, a disgraceful boor who may never slake his awesome thirst for malfeasance and general ridiculousness. Some folk (hopeless ideologues primarily) continue to profess amazement when the official misdeeds of their opponents come to light, clinging all the while to the turgid logic that the man they chose to "believe in" remains a literal paragon. Yet their faith, often nakedly disingenuous and always politically astute, ignores the most basic of questions: Why should we expect anything different? Deceit in and by governments has successfully weathered the passing of time -- many centuries worth -- and persists to this day for the mere fact that men in power relish that power -- relish wielding it, using it, and flaunting it. Believing otherwise suggests an idealism of the most opportunistic sort.

back to Decweb main