There are people (okay, students, but only one has made it onto my radar screen) out there in our liberal arts community who support the candidacy of George W. Bush. Shocking, no? Not only does this person, the only one so far, as near as I can tell, support Bush, but also he is actually working to get the man elected. Hard to believe this is happening in our corner of academia.
One on the hallmarks of a solid liberal arts education is an ability to think critically. Dartmouth College prides itself on offering a first-rate education in the liberal arts. Can we blame the school for failing to provide one of its students with such an important skill? I think not, for here is not the failure of education. There must be some sort of innate ability to follow the herd, some ignorance of the obvious, lurking under a putatively innocent enthusiasm for Bush's candidacy.
Let's examine the thinking that could have led this unfortunate soul to choose a man who is arguably the most unqualified candidate to appear in presidential politics for the last 40 years. What has driven this recipient of a fine education to support Dubya? Has the fact that Bush was one of maybe three folks who really didn't make any money in the Texas oil business of the go-go 80's not made an impression on anybody? Or, did the fact that Bush borrowed six-hundred thousand dollars in 1989 on the strength of his family name, parlaying a 2 percent interest into 11 percent of the Texas Rangers and cashing in for a 15 million dollar windfall in 1998, drive this voter onto the Bush bus? Or, was it that Bush helped force Arlington, Texas taxpayers to pay for a 191 million-dollar stadium which will cost the Rangers a total of 60 million dollars in 2002 after their low-rent lease expires? And all George had to do was shake a few hands and throw his name and a baseball around.
Ah, that's it. His name. Bush. Arbusto in Spanish. Wait, that doesn't mean bush, it means shrub. Well, close enough for George, Junior.
An apparent nostalgia for his mother seems to be another deciding factor for many voters. Perhaps the need to have a warm and fuzzy figure hovering near the White House has clouded the critical thinking skills so many professors strive to instill.
What about all the painfully obvious inadequacies of the de-facto Republican candidate? So, he snorted coke at school. So what. But, he hasn't fessed up to those un-presidential activities, has he? So, he got into the National Guard during the Vietnam war. So what. But, what about the thousands of people in line for those Guard positions? Was he so much more qualified than the other pilot applicants were? So, he doesn't like to read and can't really understand the speeches he gives. So what. But, shouldn't you at least know where Bosnia is, and why it is important to the US? Well, he'll have advisors to do that for him, you might say. Does that raise the specter of Alexander Haig? It certainly does, along with Ollie North and others.
It is not that I don't want a Republican in the White House. I believe in John McCain, but there is a need for a balance of power. If the Democrats have the Congress then let's have a Republican in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and play the B-side of that record if the Republicans hold the Congress.
What I don't want is for this country to re-elect George Bush, Senior through his less-than-adequate son, George, Junior. Big George is gone to Kennebunkport. That time is over. We can't get it back.
Everybody is tired of Clinton. So am I. But, Dubya? Yikes!
