i.e. why "Bush, Clinton, rinse, repeat"?Given that Hillary has at least a 1-in-3 chance of being president (with only Obama & McCain standing in her way), the media has rightly pointed out how wrong it feels for a democracy to have two families, Bush & Clinton, owning the presidency for thirty years. If we were told two families in another country kept trading presidencies we'd question whether they were really democratic.
But you can be democratic and yet not meritocratic and I think that's part of it. With a democracy the cream is supposed to rise to the top since you don't have rigid class distinctions. But we don't really vote for the best person for the job. For one thing, identity politics is rampant. And lately I've had the feeling that anyone can be president, literally. In other words, it's not a job that requires exceptional abilities and talents since any son or wife could take it over and "get 'er done".
I think our disfunctional addiction to the Bush's and Clintons is obviously not due to any love for, or greatness in, the Bush or Clintons (after all, the first Bush was thrown out of office after one term and Clinton fatigue was rampant during the late '90s). People want the security of someone they "know" in office.
Bush and Clinton are name brands and in this advertising age we reject both generics and the piquant. Corporations speak ever of branding, which implies consistency and homogeneity of product experience. Bewildered by choice, we want to have a predictable experience with our food, music, television and even political candidates. McDonald's boasts that you walk into any of their restaurants and everything will be the same. Same with our hotel chains. It's very different in Europe; Italian Beppe Severgnini wrote a book in which he expressed amazement with the consistency in American hotels - everything identical. (The irony of the Bush-Clinton, rinse-repeat cycle is that GWB governed so differently from his father; so much for consistency.)
I don't know why we crave homogeneity but I suspect it's part of our cult of efficiency, to which I certainly plead guilty. It takes time to get used to differences. Severgnini said he could make his way around in the dark in American hotels because everything's always in the same place - in Europe he has to turn on the light. Everything here has to be done quickly and efficiently because we are so time-conscious. Why are we so time-conscious? It could be linked to our materialism. We want to make money so we speed everything up. But I am the least ambitious person I know job-wise and yet still am very time-conscious.
Perhaps it's because America is still perceived, by Europe at least, as naive and optimistic. We're still the "New World". And what are the young if not impatient? We are impatient to get things done, and we want to get things done because we are optimistic. It is optimism that impels us to think we can change the world through our own efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment