Drunken Editorial - 9/13/2004

It must be hard to work for George Bush, Jr.

Watching the television, the interviews with cabinet members and various Secretaries, the impression is left that they are often flustered, anxious people these days. The look on their faces is virtually identical. They wave their hands and proffer harsh tones in their explanations of what, exactly, the plan for the future is. Brows are frequently furrowed and eyes narrow to virtual solitary-confinement slats, as if the only way we're allowed to see in, or them to see out, perhaps, is through this smallest of possible thoroughfares. I can practically see the frazzled dementia settling into Condoleeza Rice's frontal cortex as she explains to the nation, those few that manage to tune in to politically pertinet television shows over the allure of reality t.v. and reruns of CSI: Miami, the various policies which will certainly be enacted by the president should he manage to be elected to a second term.

And it pains me, (as surprising a sentiment as that may be coming from your truly), to see these bright people, these masters of sentient relationships and stewards of philisophical interaction, force themselves to spout off in directions that they seemingly have no real connection to outside of their desire to remain employed. Perhaps it's the fact that there are no jobs to be had that makes them cling to their current positions. Or, conversely, maybe it's the fear of the jobs that await them that provokes such a stranglehold on ideology that would otherwise be rejected in the name of constitutional (American, as I like to call it), sentiment.

I've heard that Colin Powell is a rather sharp individual, someone who, (and this is something held close to my heart as well), will take the opposition side to any, ANY argument simply to evoke discussion and clear understanding of every angle he can possibly think of in the minds of his peers. He wants people to think, to see and to understand the choices they face whenever they take a particular stance. And I wonder if he acts that way with the President. I wonder beyond wonder whether or not he's willing to stand face to face with the men he serves and render their arguments nil with opposition logic in an attempt to betray an inner knowledge that portends understand on levels that George Bush, Jr. may never fully realize in his bull-headed attempt to eradicate the American China Shop.

What's the point to a democratic society if there are no powerful minds at the top? Realistically shouldn't the Prez surround himself with dissent in order to discover what the options are? I can't possibly believe in a man who asserts his cowboy nature and fears horses. Which is really something that we've seen throughout his career, isn't it? He joins the military but won't go to war. He gets a DUI but won't face the charges. He declares war on Osama Bin Laden but stops looking for him after a while.

However, that's a digression that only ends in unreasonable accusation.

Back to the original point, what's going in Washington, DC? Why, if it makes them appear so uncomfortable, are the officials at the right and left hands of our Optimus Prime so discordant in their public appearances? Why do the questions being asked about the President's plans force them to squint and rave and stutter and curse, (Okay, I made that one up), when they purportedly support the initiatives?

In a word, power. They, those people we expect to provide the President with legitimate information and make decisions at low levels as to what should become a high level question, are swayed as easily as any other member of the public-at-large when it comes to the maintenance of the status quo, namely themselves. These are people who may have once worked as managers whose goal was the firing of employees they didn't like simply because they could. These are the assholes you've worked for once before; the kids who took hall monitor too seriously; the total bastards whose sense of ineptitude, once they were given any credibility whatsoever, gave way to puerile teasing.

That's not to say that there aren't people out there whose corruption extends to the extreme boundary where they give up ideology for a cool sash and a stack of demerits. I don't particularly get that feeling from any of the other candidates I've seen this election year. Not Kerry, (whose voting record actually implies an honest humility, what with his bending to will of the constituency and all, something Bush has yet to do even though it's his job), not Nader, not anyone.

Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed how GB, Jr. praises the nations who refuse to submit to the masses? We hate the French because they obeyed the will of the people but love the Brits because Tony Blair told his nation to sod off. Makes total sense, given that demo is basically Greek for "people" and cracy is basically Greek for "governance."

Another digression. I apologize.

It can't be determined what will happen to the current members of the cabinet if a new President is elected. Certainly, many of them will go. It's unlikely that the Democrats, reasonable people as they appear to be, would go so far as to pull the politically abrasive but partisan-supportive move of throwing out literally everything put in place by the previous administration, (including, say, the Clinton plan to disarm North Korea that was ON THE VERGE OF BEING ENACTED), but who am I to make that kind of brash statement when I have basically no active method of discerning these sorts of matters?

Well, besides history books, the internet, common sense, well-known facts and interviews with people tossed out in 2000. But those aren't really sources, are they? I mean, it's not like I got this information from a press conference that was nearly held in secret because the press secretary was too afraid to make White House information public knowledge.

Yeah, thought so.