|
Well, I sincerely miss Keith, his wonderful postings, and even some of
the comments he would submit such as this one.
Mostly true, but not quite wholly so. Most successful politicians
in recent history have not been tall or handsome, nor did they necessarily
possess mass appeal from the perspective of "showman/woman". Hitler and
Mussolini come to mind as possessing none of these qualities, but they could
manipulate their audience to believe that they were their country's very
embodiment--so far as root ties and future hopes for well being were
concerned. The Gandhis had their people's spiritual connection alone. The
Bushes appealed to a common thread of America first, via regular Joe. In both
cases, the wealth/class distinction surfaced to their detriment, but both were
pretending to be regular guys, could not really pass as handsome (or
smart either, especially not Dubya) but aggressively dared to promise the
impossible--the placation of the nation's fears. And this was convincing to Joe
American because the methodology was tried and true: War will solve
all, and we'll all be rich heroes the world around. Putin had but one
quality from the average citizen's perspective--the alleged desire to bring
about reform. Being financially successful seems to be a connecting
thread because of the American nation's strong identification with
money.
Though it is true that Reagan and Schwartzenagger(SP?) are
blaring examples of Keith's position, surely examples both undeserving enough to
make way for any pop icon to assume leadership, I still think the key quality is
going to be identification with the public's self-image with respect to heritage
and future quality of life. Psychologically, being tall and handsome/fair
assists in manipulation, but passion for country and its future will always take
precedent. Gore unfortunately lacked the passion that moves an audience to
emotional connection. Bush had little passion for much with the exception of
wanting to become president, but his aggression sufficed as passion in the
absence of competition on the scale of influence required for party
nomination.
Hillary Clinton has passion and drive, but does not represent Joe American
from his/her patriarchal perspective/heritage. She will need an extremely
passionate male running mate to succeed, and one who could be credible to voters
as someone who will co-run affairs of state. She has been a good senator from
the p.o.v. of New Yorkers post 9/11, very active in victims' families' efforts
to glean justice. And she brought about better health care nationally because of
Bill's better judgment. She never hooked up with the Kennedys or the
Rockefellers, and hasn't got the friendliness to play with/to an audience like
husband Bill, but she has celebrity status. Her common thread with Americans
will be with women, and on this note alone things might work in her favor. They
will relate to her sufferance of a husband's infidelities for the greater good,
and her work and passion for national healthcare will draw approval points all
round. Though she was observed with the rest of congress to applaud Dubya's
rally to restrict US freedoms, she was, in my observation, usually the last to
respond to every proposal--I think chiefly because she could not afford to be
perceived as unpatriotic at such a sensitive time. She's intelligent, her past
is not as shady as most politicians, and she can be tough in matters to do with
state. She may not be the right one for the job; there are other women probably
more qualified who didn't play to the toughest patriarchal political
arena to the desired end of accomplishments, but I'd wish her well sooner
than many others.
Natalia
All mail scanned by NAV
|
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
