By David Walley

Meditations on the Morning Line

It's getting down to the wire now in electionland, and the racetrack touts, the political journalists/handicappers are laying down the morning line for the betters. I know it seems so ungracious, so un-American to say that the more I hear, the less I care about the candidates. Primaries are, I suppose, a necessary evil, but slavishly following them is beginning to mean less and less. Still your political correspondent must at least put in his two cents if only because everyone else is. The best part about writing this kind of column is that I don't have to file daily or even monthly because political affairs covers much ground, it can work for popular culture or political culture. These days there's a bleeding-over of the edges so one doesn't know whether one is talking about the politics of entertainment or entertainment politics, provided one watches the late night talk shows, with Leno and Letterman. Unfortunately, it really doesn't matter who wins what primaries because one still has to wait until all the votes are counted. What? Save it for the conventions? Maybe I should, because in the end it's the conventions which puts the politicians on the national stage, though again I wonder whether there is a national stage left to work on because news of the primaries saturates the public consciousness, and by the time it gets to the nominating conventions no one is even interested in the issues anymore — we've heard it all before, all before.

I mean, let's face it, Zippergate put the frighteners on politics, what could the second act be now? Once one is habituated to tabloid news, the news from the hustings is comparatively small beer. We're supposed to get our frisson of tab from the attack ads run in the primaries? Really? All of them run together in cliched abandon, the straight-ahead ones that is on the level of "this is that guys' record on (fill in the blank), this is ours, who would you vote for?" Or "Would You want this miscreant to marry your daughter?" or "whose war record is better?" About the only thing which could visually improve the ads are a large sprinkling of MTV-type music video techniques. Which isn't so far away as the need for more voters or newer voters gets more and more acute. If there are younger and younger voters, then the issues have to be textured to the younger audience, maybe candidates will start showing up at rap concerts, sponsoring same, appearing at snowboarding competitions, having their pictures taken as active thrashers. It's possible.

Whatever's said in the primaries will be unsaid when the votes are counted for the convention and probably be further unsaid when the big race is on. The fact that people seem to believe that what politicians say in the heat of their campaign means something is also amusing. I know, I shouldn't be 'amused', but if I'm not amused I'd start to cry and carry on, and my shrink has told me I shouldn't. That the American people apparently seem to enjoy this incredible waste of resources (Bush has already pissed away 60-odd million dollars, Steve Forbes, in two unsuccessful campaigns, another sixty million) doesn't excuse the excess. Think how it would run if candidates were given free tv time, and there was no 'soft' money to be had. But then if there was no soft money to be had, politics would lose its zing because, most primarily, the playing field would be level, influence couldn't be purchased, it would have to be earned on merits alone, a frightening concept don't you think? It gives way to fatalism to know, after years of trying to believe otherwise, that politics is a rich man's game, that one vote is NOT the same as another (that's the soft money game again). But then again, perhaps Americans are still naive, still believe in miracles, even in times of Presidential elections.

Anyway, all your humble Political Correspondent can do is try to call 'em like he seems 'em in an unscientific way. Having met no candidates (because I haven't actuated my press credentials yet), merely by watching various form of tv punditry, reading faithfully the NY Times, New Yorker and NY Review of Books, taking casual straw polls among my friends and trying to look on the whole thing as a rock critic trying to review a show, this is what I've been thinking for better or worse:

McCain vs. Bush

One thing which is nice about McCain is that he has no problem biting the hands who are trying to feed him, which comes from spending a few years watching the world from the Hanoi Hilton while "W" was rip-assing around Texas in a jet trainer. McCain's recent denunciation of the Religious Right was refreshing but it will probably cost him votes among the Conservatives. But while we're talking about that, isn't it about time that the Conservative Republicans formed their own party and were done with it? At least in my experience, there are many, many more moderate Republicans out there than Conservatives. And anyway, the same bad old dance: the candidates suck up to the Religious Right once every four years and say things that they know they'd regret amongst their friends around the breakfast table, but they have to say anyway. Let the Republican Party have a conservative wing (for that matter, let the Democrats have theirs, too), have them raise their own candidates; they have the money and, they think, the support. The proof of the pudding should be in the voting, shouldn't it?

It would be really great to give "W" and the old line Republicans a run for their money. McCain is just what the party needs to energize it while "W" is just more of the same. It would be a switch to have a real horse race for an election, but you never know, the heart flutters for such an action. Perhaps elections are just too chancey to be left to people when straw polls and focus groups can be so much more exact. But then again, it's still too early to call, and if it wasn't what would be the use of writing and thinking about the eventual outcome. It's a long race down to the wire, there are stumbles, fences to cross over.

And of course let's say "W" wins, how's he going to balance the ticket, and what is he? a conservative? a liberal conservative? conservative liberal? And who is he going to pick for Vice President to balance the ticket? Better, what IS the Republican ticket? Without alienating any of their "voters', what do they stand for? It's real tough to have issues when the market's booming and Republicans and making money, and the "pump and dump" of internet stock touts are fat and sassy. The Republicans need to come up with a real issue, but is there really such thing?

McCain may or may not win on Super Tuesday, but he's still a force for change. And maybe he can force the Republican Party into a change which has long been overdue--maybe.

Bradley/Gore

Two good guys, unfortunately one has to lose. If the truth be told Al Gore, no matter what you might think about him, whatever kinds of jokes you might make about him, has truly been born to be President: congressman, senator, writer, newspaperman. His father and grandfather were stand-up legislators., He's had to hide his light under a bushel for a while with Hill and Bill. Bradley was always a smart guy, he's just not particularly "exciting", but who needs "exciting"? I'd just settle for competent, courageous. At the present time it doesn't look like Bradley's going to make it. And that's a shame because he's quite a capable man. Which is the problem with the Democratic candidates for President. We're getting back to dealing with a public which has steadily become habituated to tabloid realities, who are looking for 'sexy' issues and glamour where they should be thinking and hearing what these guys are trying to propose.

Pat Buchanan and the Independent Party

This is much ado about very little. Which is too bad because if the independents got on the ballot in fifty states, if they had a coherent party, they might be a force. Buchanan is neither the problem nor the solution, he's a symptom of what's always been wrong with typical third party candidates (more on this elsewhere).

That's where politics really are for the moment. If McCain gets the nod, it might prove to be a VERY interesting fall, but if "W" is the moneymen's choice, this reporter doesn't give him much of a chance unless something wicked this way comes, like the market totally tanks. The political wisdom is that when things are good, the turnout is light and the incumbents get the nod. When things are changing, then change is called for, more people get out to vote because there's more at stake. Let's just see how wrong I am later on.

If you, gentle readers, detect a tart tone to my prose, it's because I took a fall in my ice-slick driveway, bruised a few ribs and have been more or less out of commission for a few weeks. If I seem a little detached and not particularly enthusiastic, you can blame it on my medication. Remember, there are all sorts of "political affairs" out there to cover, not all of them deal with politicians or the coming elections. We'll get around to examining all of them, so remember in the words of the Rolling Stones, "if you're on your bike tonight, wear white."


(C) 2000 - David G. Walley