I’m a slow learner. But it’s becoming clear to me – silly, silly me – that the intelligence and/or education of any given candidate for public office is not a primary consideration or concern these days. I don’t think it’s even a secondary consideration. I guess I’m trying to come to terms with the reason-power equation. I keep thinking that without a dramatic if not revolutionary transformation in our culture such that learning becomes in some sense as exciting as sports or sex, that democracy’s greatest potential doesn’t stand a chance. Possibly even its minimal potential doesn't stand a chance. That is, short of such a revolution, reason or reasoning will never have its rightful place in the power equation.
So the Democratic Party of NY needs to win 2 seats to control the senate and some are saying that Baby Joe Mesi is a good bet, maybe the best bet. Are we betting? Is this reasonable? Well, not to me. But then again I have little respect for someone who through the age of 34 has used his head for seeming little more than stopping punches. Is this “reasonable” according to the logic of the Democratic Party? Apparently, yes, and traditionally so.
I would want Joe Mesi to teach my kid to box. I wouldn’t want him to teach him mathematics. Do I want him to help lead NYS? Probably no more that I would want him to assist in brain surgery.
To quote Mesi, "I am running to bring an independent voice, strong leadership and the average person's point of view and values back to Albany,"
Exactly whose voice would that be? Independent voice? The biggest lie is “average person.” No he is not the average person. As a boxer he is way above average. As a prospective politician he is way below where average starts. And we won’t even mention leadership unless we want God to cause another hurricane in New Orleans. The sequel to Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind is way overdue.
This is funnier than Bush nominating Harriet Miers as a candidate for the Supreme Court. I’m trying my best at humor. But in truth I find this monumentally demoralizing, depressing, tragic, ludicrous. I could go on or I could laugh. However I’m afraid if I start laughing, I’ll never stop. Then the men in the white coats will come and take me away.
And I’ll spend the rest of my days writing anonymous posts to the Niagara Times blogspot, hurling vile epithets at everyone just because I can.
2 comments:
Well said (written?), professor.
I don't know Joe Mesi. Met him once at some function or other, shook his hand, said "Howdy" and moved on. Maybe there is more there, intellectually, than meets the eye. But I agree fully that his primary qualifications to run for this seat apparently are:
-- some level of local celebrity, and;
-- he can walk and chew gum at the same time.
He would, of course, not be the first locally. Tony Masiello parlayed his fame as small college basketball hero into any number of campaign wins, including state senate. Ed Rutkowski, long ago Buffalo Bill, used his semi-fame and experiences as Jack Kemp's buddy into a stint as Erie County exec. Kemp, himself, clearly used his fame as champion quarterback to gain entry into the political world (in fairness, Kemp had some intellectual chops, regardless of anyone's view of his politics).
In your lament, you raise an interesting question. What does qualify someone to run for and hold elected office? What should we look for in a candidate? Is a college degree necessary? If so, in what discipline? Business experience? Legal experience? How about a college drop-out who did the old "up by the bootstraps" life turn-around, to bring a whole different perspective? And, is sports fame an automatic disqualifier? Bill Bradley, for instance, served a long and distinguished career in Congress but is often best remembered for his exploits with the NY Knicks in the 60s and early 70s. Often forgotten was that he was a Rhodes scholar and Princeton grad.
The political machines, I believe, look first at electability, second at the ability to raise money, and third -- at best -- intellectual capabilities.
This issue has any number of side issues and related tangents that could make for posting material.
To name just a few:
-- Do any of these jobs pay enough to attract the best and brightest from the private sector? (It is all well and good to say that public service is just that, and financial reward should factor in -- but how does one feed his or her family?)
-- Which should be part-time and which need to be more than that?
-- How do we rein in campaign spending? Should we?
Good stuff.
The fact of the matter is that most politicians of the two major parties are essentially empty suits due to the inertia to individuality in both herds.
Barack Obama is the epitomy of an empty suit as is his wife. Both hold acceptable sterotypes of what they percieve "whites" to be. Acceptable by way of retributive justice.
The major parties actually believe that they own your vote, and look downward upon you with obvious disdain and so just thoroughly expect you to fall in line with their expectations.
Neither can actually hold a candle to the Libertarian Party. Neither understand economics nor do they feel they should have to...show them differently!
Post a Comment