|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
Keeping It Real It started with the Botox. If you’re a man like John Kerry, the last thing you should do is tailor your appearance to match your character. Appearance is supposed to be a decoy, at least distracting the public from what lies beneath and at best fooling them into thinking it’s the opposite of what it really is. Kerry’s “Lincolnian facial lines” (as Peggy Noonan described them) worked well to that effect, projecting a pretty believable façade of sincerity and contemplation. It had me fooled. The first time I saw Kerry, on a cable news show shortly after 9-11, I remember being very impressed and thinking: “well, this man certainly knows that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” Those facial lines are now jellied, Tom Jonesed, and gone. There are other problems with the Botox, primarily having to do with the fact that Kerry is already the type who smiles with his mouth instead of his face. Such a smile consists of the lips trespassing on unaccommodating muscles, whose refusal to adjust is only solidified by a Botox injection. It may not be a bad thing for a person with a bad smile to be stripped of the temptation altogether, but the problem for Kerry is that the American people like smiling presidents, who can also redden up when appropriate. (Al Gore’s makeup artist knew this a little too well.) Those abilities suggest passion, optimism, and—this is a deep-down hunch of mine—red meat. Americans, by and large and especially large, love red meat. Kerry can neither get red nor get giddy. He lacks both those qualities just as his campaign lacks what they symbolize—another example of the physical being too true to the personal. Some may attempt to dispute the belief that Kerry cannot possibly win this election with his horse’s face and drab voice, by bringing up Al Gore, who after all was even more monotone yet still won the majority of votes in 2000. But comparing Kerry and Gore is like comparing vegetables and vegetable soup. Not only did Gore run off of eight prosperous years, he actually had a platform (if you can call it that), namely Clintonism (if there was such a thing). While Gore might be no more like Clinton than Bush Sr. was like Reagan, both represented their predecessors in the minds of American voters. Exit polling indicated that, had Slick Willy been allowed to run for a third term, he would have lost. But that was because of scandal, and Gore was Clinton without the scandal. When looking at Al Gore, the last thing anyone thinks of is sex. *** It has been clear, ever since Kerry began wearing it on his face, that inauthenticity will be the operative issue in this election. The first reason is obvious: Kerry’s immediately exposed penchant for being cyclically inconsistent on the same issues, often in the same sentence. As Kerry currently remodels his campaign to conservative architecture, it is hard to see how he’ll be able to sell it come open house. There’s just too much clear-cut, contradictory evidence available—what with his most liberal voting record in the senate and notorious double-stances on major issues. This might be one of the reasons that, in the last 80 years, only one president has been elected from either house of Congress. It is much easier, even if you’re not a double-edged sword by nature, to be consistent as governor or veep. And there is no current track record at the national level to contradict your platform. (As for the one man who did get elected, the only thing John Kerry has in common with him is his initials.) Kerry knows this, as his now-public passes at John McCain make clear. If authenticity cannot be added to Kerry, it can be added to his campaign, and the saucy southwestern senator would have amounted to such an addition, especially as it concerns posing strong on the most important issue of the election: national security. (If it’s the economy, then why isn’t Bush a lock?) At a time when people want a commander-in-chief, as opposed to a principal, McCain’s history of bold statements illustrates exactly the type of strength Americans are looking for. But despite early flirtations, McCain resoundingly refused. So Kerry is left with his new-ahnce, which he has proudly mastered, as his media adulators proclaim. But bragging about being a master of nuance is like saying “I put the MAN in mangina.” Then there is the singularly remarkable fact that the bulk of his own supporters can’t stand him. Dated Dean, Married Kerry? A shotgun wedding if ever there was one. *** George Bush is hardly immune from this problem. Considering the WMD debacle, the doubted link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the massive increase in deficits and ever more festive Congressional luau, the question of authenticity has had more than a cameo role in his first term. True, the effect of the WMD, the gravest on that list, was stunningly a mere peek-a-boo, which to some has suggested character-invincibility on the part of the incumbent. Either way, Bush’s problem is political, not personal. While this is Bush’s election to fumble, inauthenticity will be one of the two arms that could strip it, the other being of course disaster. I am referring to the new breed for which President Bush is the poster-mutt: the Big Government Conservative. Supposedly, BGCs are those who believe that the government should be used to further conservative values. Exactly how big government can be used to further the conservative value of small government is slightly beyond me. And I’m not alone. Feeling similarly is a small but significant sect that, amidst election-time Republican appeals, regularly gets gypped: the libertarian-conservatives. Appeals to “moderates” are made to cotton-candy conservatives and appeals to the “far right” are made to religious conservatives—while fiscal hardliner, socially mild libertarians are left the Eleanor Rigbys of politics. Like all the lonely people, they just might stay home in November. This would be no small deal for Bush. His slack in the polls, according to the most recent data, is due to a lack of support from Republicans and Independents rather than any increased support for Kerry. Despite the last-minute pandering, the religious right also accounts for some of that slack. They also feel alienated by the Bush-Rove political strategy of hijacking Democratic issues to win the election. Bush has been away, stealing food as part of a plan to later feed his family. But his family hasn’t been appreciative; they want more quality time. They’re getting picked on by anti-Christian bullies at school, who won’t let them say God on the playground. So Bush has promised to make it all up to them with a big present (the Federal Marriage Amendment). Thieves, however, usually end up divorced and arrested. Neither their family nor society wants them. Bush Sr. failed by adopting his opponents’ principles. Clinton succeeded by adopting his opponents’ principles. There is a consistency, not a contradiction in that. Bush would have done better to notice it. *** If Kerry wins, it will be by default. Never is that the favorable position to be in, and yet—more and more, it seems like this election is going to be lost instead of won. Which means that, more and more, potential success of the default-candidate becomes plausible. Plausible, but still unfathomable, at least to me. Whatever the polls say, the reality of President Kerry remains like Michael Moore in a Speedo: even if it can be pictured, it still can’t quite be seen. Especially if Kerry stays true to form and shows up to the first debate wearing flip-flops.
Discuss this Article (0 messages) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
