U.S. politics reach intellectual bankruptcy

Little Black Box
    By Alex DeMille

The more I hear about the 2000 presidential race, the more I slip into contempt for our modern democ- racy. The campaign hasn't started yet, but for months the media airwaves have been clogged with insipid commentary on the respective candidates' chances, digging deeply into such important issues as Al Gore's personality and the size of George W. Bush's, DC '68, treasure trove. Now I wish the whole damn system would just die, that we'd put an end to political parties and have people run as individuals—with individual ideas.

JESSICA KUNG/YH

I was reminded of how intellectually bankrupt our whole political system is when Bush was recently chided for not knowing the names of the leaders of four political "hot spots" around the world (India, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Chechnya). The question posed to Bush was stupid in and of itself, a cheap political jab to prove he's not well versed in foreign policy as if a president's foreign policy is really dictated by his own knowledge and feelings rather than by a swarm of aides and advisers. The second stupid thing about this situation was Bush's response when asked, "Can you name the leader of Chechnya?" The Republican forerunner quickly retorted, "No, can you?" like a child defending his inadequacy to a schoolyard bully. The media jumped all over the "significance" of this interview. They opened a political discourse on the viability of Bush's bid for the White House, and pretended that no one had ever questioned the qualifications of a man hanging on the tail end of a privileged family legacy longer than the U.S. Constitution. Amid all the buzz and chatter, I realized something important: American politics was completely devoid of ideas.

George W. Bush doesn't have a clue as to what he wants to do with America once he is at the reins. But you can't really blame him. Gore, Bradley, Forbes, and all the other suits making a bid for the presidency don't have any more of an idea. They all have gotten where they are today by working within a system that doesn't reward true ideas, but rather shallow ideologies, of which there are two: Republican and Democrat. Any man or woman who operates outside of these two parties is politically scorned and destined to fail. Any man or woman within the respective ideologies with neither a lot of money nor a big name is also destined to fail.

The real tragedy of the whole thing is that these ideologies aren't actually ideologies at all. We can talk all we want about our longstanding two-party democratic tradition, but in reality, recent years have seen the lines between Republicans and Democrats all but disappear as everyone mindlessly drifts into the middle in an attempt to appease the masses. If there is anything we can learn from the 20th century, it is that narrow-minded ideology can lead to untold suffering and strife, but to replace that with a vacuum of public appeasement in which nothing is accomplished cheapens the legacy of our democratic tradition. It results in a political structure so devoid of ideas and vision that it's no wonder the hot political news topic is Bush's ineptitude at international trivia.

The Clinton administration has not passed a significant piece of legislation since NAFTA in 1993. America's recent failure in ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a prime example of the party system's inability to uphold America as the leading nation in the world. We are chained down by a system that thrives on bureaucratic bickering, vengeful politics, and wealthy special interest groups who pay to maintain the status quo.

Fifteen percent of our nation lives below the poverty level. That's twice the percentage of almost every other developed nation on earth. It's a disgrace—but you won't see it directly addressed in a political forum anytime soon. Why? By definition, the poor have no money, thus they have no influence—and they usually don't vote. How is a politician who is tied to a party with so many vested interests and no intellectual vision going to take the first step in solving such a huge and complex domestic problem involving people with no influence on his hold on power? The answer is he won't. He'd rather talk about gun control and tax cuts.

Such political stagnation can only be broken by abolishing the party system. Men and women alone, without a so-called party "ideology" to crush their collective intellect, can make real changes in this nation. I'd rather decide between 10 people with true visions than two stuffed shirts who are pumped up with so much hot air that they can't convey an original thought, let alone a viable strategy to improve our country and the world. If we don't change the system, one day we will look from donkey to elephant, from elephant to donkey, and from donkey to elephant again—but it is impossible to say which is which.

Recent Herald Columns by this Columnist:
NOTE: SITE WILL APPEAR IN A NEW BROWSER WINDOW

• KKK is not worth our hatred, 10/29/99
• Soylent Green is made out of people!, 10/15/99
• News media: just a bad action movie, 10/1/99

Back to Opinion...