The last few news cycles have been filled with outrage over the words of Wesley Clark. An army of pundits and talking heads have denounced Clark for "dissing" John McCain. But what did he really say?
Clark's point was that executive experience, such as being a governor of a state (heck, even Dubya and Bill can claim that), running a large corporation, or being a commanding general (something Clark knows about - has anybody looked at Wes Clark's resume? The man is no lightweight) is relative to being able to effectively handle the job of President - and neither Obama nor McCain have these sorts of experience. In this sense, they are on equal footing, and neither possesses a viable advantage. Being tortured during wartime does not necessarily prepare one for the duties of the presidency, and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion of what qualifies a person to lead the country. What's wrong with that?
Wes Clark's words were impolitic - but they were true.
What everybody loves and respects about John McCain is that he suffered horribly for 5.5 years in the Hanoi Hilton and was tortured repeatedly. McCain is considered an American Hero because he survived torture. Why, then, do these same people not mind that we torture our enemies, or quite commonly, people who aren't our enemies at all but just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? This is cognitive dissonance on a cosmic scale. Why not ask Christopher Hitchens about it? He seems to have belatedly "seen the light", as they say.
What's with this romantic attachment to the heroic? Why do we need a hero? What about a good manager who selects great people to fill governmental posts and is able to successfully guide the country out of the mess that Bush and Cheney made? I don't want the president to be a hero, and I don't want to elect a president because he was a hero. I want someone to get things done and obey the law while doing it. Is that too much to ask for?
0 comments:
Post a Comment