 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||
This Week's Column:
"Sleep-Walking Again?"
Creative Loafing Issue Date 10/28/00; Web-Posted 10/22/00
When you hear Al Gore and George W. Bush mention previous American leaders in their campaign speeches, there's one relatively recent President who's name is strangely absent. References to Reagan, Kennedy, Truman and both Roosevelts top the "A" list, cited as examples of what a leader ought to be, while Nixon and Johnson, irrespective of their accomplishments, evoke images of failed administrations, for one reason or another.
Bush refrains from mentioning his father to avoid the appearance of nepotism, or a comparison to his better-qualified, better-prepared Dad. Al Gore avoids mentioning Bill Clinton like the plague, and he's probably right to do so, despite the best economy in our history -- given Clinton's sexual baggage.
But no one mentions President Dwight D. Eisenhower - and you ought to ask yourself why. As one of America's most revered military leaders, Eisenhower was a two-termer who led this country through the '50s, a period in which this nation emerged from the wreckage of the Depression and World War II as the preeminent world power, both in terms of military might and political heft, as well as economic dominance. So why don't we hear anything about his leadership? Why don't we hear anything about him at all?
The answer's simple: Eisenhower was a weak President who presided over a country that was asleep, that, after the turmoil of the previous two decades, wanted to be left alone. He was "the jock" who twice defeated the "nerdy" Adlai Stephenson, a man who far out-distanced Ike in intellect and vision. Americans rejected Stephenson because he challenged them to do better, to do more. But America wanted to sleep. Just like it does now.
People who came "of age" during the '50s are called "the sleeping generation," much more concerned with drive-in movies and convertibles, safe bobby-sox outfits and cookie-cutter suburban housing developments than with world peace, starving third-world children, or the philosophical nature of existence. But underneath, the country was stewing. A leather-clad Marlon Brando or James Dean became metaphors for youthful restlessness and rebellion in a starched-shirt landscape; Jack Kerouac's "On The Road" and the Beat Poets' insurrectionist language bemoaned a vapid society drowning in abundance and complacency. With Eisenhower at the top, the '50s might have been a safe decade -- but the façade was an illusion.
And that's because the '50s, marked by Eisenhower's lack of vision, begot the '60s - and we all know what that meant: Revolution. Having kept "the lid on," a somnambulant Eisenhower was succeeded by an activist Kennedy, reflecting an energy bubbling up from underneath just waiting for an excuse to explode.
Which is why we don't cite Eisenhower as an exemplary leader. Leaders aren't supposed to simply sit idly by and reflect our apathy; leaders are supposed to motivate us to do better. But Eisenhower didn't have it in him to rock the boat. He took the easy way out. He was a nice guy who made us comfortable. And he did nothing about the problems lying just beneath the surface.
And that's just where we seem to be now. Fat and happy, in control and riding above the fray, America seems to want another Ike, someone who won't push us. We don't appear to want to be challenged. We want a nice guy in office who won't make us look at what's still wrong with this country, what's wrong with the world.
We want George W. Bush. He's the captain of the football team running against the head of the debate club - and in the election for class president, you know who wins, right?
After three debates, this much is clear: Bush doesn't want to rock the boat, and we're afraid Gore will. If you're comfortable with the status quo, if you've got plenty of money in the stock market -- Bush is your man.
But if you're one of those who feels something deep in your belly when you see images on television of starving children in some god-forsaken place halfway around the globe, you know Gore is telling the truth when he says we have to do more. If you're someone who laughs when Rush Limbaugh contends that there's no real global warming to be concerned about; if you get angry when you read about CEO's racking up tens of millions of dollars while they downsize thousands out of a job; if you're disgusted that the richest nation on earth can't find a way to give good medical care to the poor - then Gore's your man.
The question is: Which group has more people in it who will bother to vote in two weeks - the sleep-walking or the still-awake? Your real choice comes down to this: a few years of relative calm followed by another explosion - or choosing to grapple with the problems now, while they're still relatively manageable.
We all know the line about people who ignore history being doomed to repeat it, right? Well, here's our test. Ike/Bush or Adlai/Gore. Do we really want four or eight years of surface tranquility, of glossing over what needs surgery with band-aids because it won't hurt as much right now?
Frankly, I'm appalled at what seems to have become the standard by which we will judge who to vote for in this election. Choosing a President ought not be about "who we like better." It ought to be about who will challenge us to go farther, to make the difficult choices, to refrain from taking the easy way out. And that's not George W. Bush.
I don't care if Al Gore is wooden. I could care less if he makes me laugh. I don't want somebody in office who needs to be told by the experts what he thinks and what he ought to do - I want the expert himself.
I don't want the feel-good Captain of the football team; I don't want Ike. I want the nerd who understands how the problem developed, who knows what's required to fix it. And I don't want the rest of you to be lulled into sleep-walking while the problems stew, waiting for later to garner your attention - when it might be too late.
I don't want the '00s to be the '50s. Because if that's what we get, a reprise of the '60s is just around the corner. And only the true revolutionary, who doesn't care who gets burned in the process, wants that again.
Click Here For Last Week's Feature Story:
"A New Home For Charlotte Writers"
(CL Issue Date 10/21/00, Web-Posted 10/15/00)
Column Archives
Click Here For A Complete Archive Of Jerry Klein's Columns.
TOP I HOME I CONTACT I SUBSCRIBE I NEWS I BIO I CONCERTS I STELLA
