I'm really an old-fashioned guy. I miss the time when nominations were actually decided at each party's national convention. And senate filibusters required the senator to keep speaking until expiring from exhaustion. At least the public knew what was happening - no nonsense about the measure failing on a "procedural vote." If you are older than the baby boomers, you know what I mean.
One reason I miss those thrilling days of yesteryear is that presidential campaigns were mercifully short. They didn't start until Labor Day. Better for suspense (not knowing who the nominee would be until the convention) and the dramatic unity of a relatively brief campaign. I miss "favorite son" nominations.
And one thing we didn't have in those olden days was the indignity of so-called presidential "debates." Candidates were subjected to other indignities - Calvin Coolidge in a Sioux war bonnet comes to mind - but nothing like the debates.
I don't like them because they tell us nothing about the skills a person needs to actually, you know, run the government. I have no desire to have a beer with the president and certainly wouldn't decide who to vote for because one candidate seems more amiable than the other candidate.
It all starts with school elections of the most popular students to be homecoming queen. Being president is more serious than skill at sound bites. Or celebrity - or even popularity. Charisma is good, but not essential.
Columnist Gail Collins in today's New York Times got the debate ritual right:
"It’s a little like one of those fairy tales where the citizens of the
kingdom pick their next king on the basis of a race to find the feather
of the golden swan."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment