Letters to the Editor
-
The New Aristocracy
The legacy of George Bush is more significant than we can imagine. While the office of the Presidency loses relevance, (who commands greater world wide attention, the loser of the 2004 election, Al Gore, or the man who sits in the White House?), we tend to assign a more regal purpose to the office holder; pomp and circumstance, a repository of values, and the value of old traditions.
There is of course no reason a Democrat cannot be part of the new Aristocracy, amd being part of established political family gives one instant recognition. If only Bill hadn't been a commoner, which probably caused Heritage more consternation than all his sexual dalliances, and minor financial gaffs.. Royalty has its privilege. Hence the past gaffes of George Bush seems almost circumspect.
Considering which Democratic candidate should be the new American King, (or Queen) requires a simple visualization. Does Hillary resemble the Queen Mom? Can you picture Obama depicted in the tombs of the pyramids? Is Edwards too smooth, merely a Prince? Kucinich a Jester? Richardson a merry old soul? Who best espouses value and tradition? Who has the solemn demeanor to conduct the office?
Or will some unknown draw the sword from the stone, and save the kingdom, America? When it comes down to royal posturing, the Republicans have the advantage, however Democrats could take a clue. Al Gore has a certain arrogance, a hint of superiority, and he never expresses his personal feelings, when he emotes publically. Nothing plays better in the royal drama, than a King retaining his rightful throne. After eight years of Bush, America may finally be ready for an figurehead, subject only to review in the tabloids, and appointed for life. Laugh you must, but ignoring this change in electoral attitudes will cost some one candidate dearly. Who will it be?