The other night over martinis, someone asked me which GOP presidential candidate I like the most. Like many [sic] my fellow conservatives, I'm not very enthusiastic about any of the three putative, pre-Thompson frontrunners. A mid-martini moment of insight, however, sparked the following idea: The problem with this field is that it is too much like the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation.Lest you think this is some doofus in his early thirties (yes, we mean Jonah Pantload, & he'll be mentioned soon) take a good, long look at the pictured pantload. He must've been a doofus in his thirties when the show debuted 20 some yrs. ago. One Steven F. Hayward, F. K. Weyerhauser Fellow at AEI. Wingnut welfare at its finest; sloshing down the martoonis (hic!) thinking about Star Trek, & then typing it up the next morning, once the hangover subsides. Of course, it wouldn't surprise us at all if, rather than doing the actual typing, it was dictated to an intern w/ computer skills who then posted it. Who knows how things "work" at AEI?
The major premise of my argument is that Ronald Reagan was Captain Kirk. I know, I know, Kirk's character was said to have been loosely modeled on JFK, but don't forget that Reagan inherited the mantle of JFK's Cold Warriorism (as well as JFK's income tax cuts). The similarities, at least in these regards, make the comparison tenable.Other tenable comparisons: Both bad actors, though Kirk/Shatner at least had a recognizably bad & mockable style. Kirk/Shatner: toupee; Reagan: hair color that he denied using. Kirk/Shatner: goofball; Reagan: amiable dunce, later amiable dunce w/ senile dementia. He's right, there are tenable comparisons. Just not the ones he made.
Having grown up with Kirk (and Governor Reagan), I hated--hated--Star Trek: TNG when it came on in the 1980s. The first of many reasons for hating TNG was that they actually obeyed the stupid Prime Directive, which is the epitome of cultural relativism. Half the plot lines of the original Star Trek involved Kirk wantonly violating the Prime Directive in what constituted acts of democratic statesmanship. Recall, for example, the episode called "The Apple," in which Kirk revels in destroying the planet's oppressive false god Vaal, and then explains to the stupefied inhabitants that their lives are going to change:
"That's what we call freedom. You'll like it a lot. . . . You'll learn something about men and women--the way they're supposed to be."
(Shorter: Original Trek: juvenile, good. Next Generation: adolescent, no fun any more. Don' wanna gwooow up! Stamps foot.)
So, "cultural relativism" is leaving people alone to live their own lives, not butting in to re-do everything to your standards. Especially when their planet (Iraqanus?) has oil, or whatever the power structure is lusting after this week. We're sure, of course, that the "false god Vaal" was false, & not absolutely true like the god Jesus, that some of us consider oppressive & false. How do you think Hayward would respond to Just Another Blog™ destroying his false god? Not to mention if we showed him the way men and women are "supposed to be."
More to the point--the problem with TNG was that it split Kirk's character into three people: Piccard [sic] the authoritative but rule-abiding commander; First Officer Will Riker as the impetuous and womanizing swashbuckler, and Counselor Deanna Troi representing analytical reason and intuition. No one of them alone could effectively lead the Enterprise. The result was unwatchable. (How many times did Picard surrender the Enterprise in that first season? Kirk would never have done that.)Right. Never surrender. "Stay the course." Even if the ship is blown to smithereens. By Jove, bullheadedness is the most important quality in a leader! One might note that the Enterprise (Oh, now we get it! "Enterprise." Heh heh.) survives no matter which tack either captain takes. Because it's a tee vee show!!
This lack of sufficiency in individuals sounds very much like our GOP frontrunners. The parallels are not exact, of course, but they generally parse out in the following way: Giuliani is Picard, with his brusque, "make-it-so" personality; McCain is the impetuous and volatile Riker; and Romney is clearly an analytical Betazoid. Each, by himself, has obvious limitations and defects, and thus appears incapable of effectively leading; combine the strengths of all three and the result would be a success.Getting beyond the screamingly obvious (It's a tee vee show! A sci-fi tee vee show! In the 24th century! Somebody — a committee even — writes it! The villains are all straw men! Next Generation was a more authentic — but still creatively licensed — version of how a ship is run! Ronald Reagan was about the luckiest son-of-bitch in the U. S., & should have been impeached for Iran-Contra! Etc.) we can only laugh that the party of alleged leadership (or FührerPrinzip, if you prefer) can't come up w/ anyone who satisfies their desire to be led by the rings in their noses. And not just the bloated, balding, literally white-collared element (check the picture again) of the party is dissatisfied w/ the crop of candidates. Even the "answers the 'phone when pollsters call & answers their questions" element of the party isn't too happy, and that's very recently, w/ Huckster Huckabee now in more serious consideration. As in, the most popular Republican candidate remains "None of the Above."
We'll leave you w/ Hayward's last paragraph:
Unfortunately, there is not yet a candidate who has effectively shown himself as just such a combination of strengths. So let's forget about this Fred Thompson boomlet--I have a better idea. Let's elect Captain Kirk for President. Okay, so he's Canadian, but maybe that's the excuse we need to execute Jonah Goldberg's takeover plan (from the tyrannical reign of the tyrannical editor K-Lo).Really, we've no idea what any of the last sentence means. It may be a requirement in wingnut circles to mention Goldberg if one brings up Star Trek. Perhaps Jonah had been having a few of those martoonis w/ J. G. at a wingnut weenies & cocktails get together, & a few drinks in Jonah started whining about how he should be NRO editor 'cause his mother blew everyone on the '72 Nixon campaign. Or something. As to electing Cap't. Kirk, except he's Canadian, the actor who played him is Canadian, yes. The character was from Iowa. Though never identified on the show as "American." State's rights? Hayward knows the actor's from the Great White North, but thinks Shatner really is Kirk? They're making their own reality again at AEI? Truly, few can comprehend the minds of the mad.
As to that first sentence? Simple. The Republicans are bankrupt. They're not raising money like they used to (for the first time in recorded history, it seems, the Democrats are out-raising them) and those who would lead them are bankrupt as well. Not a complete man (nor even one woman) among them, as Hayward admits. They've been too busy fooling around in men's rooms & diapers, corrupting the government, giving no-bid contracts, selling themselves to lobbyists & earmarking the Federal budget to pay attention to their next generation of
No comments:
Post a Comment