2008 Woodie Awards
History repeated
Jon Gold - The Daily Iowan
Issue date: 2/21/07 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 2 next >
WARNING: Extreme historical dorkiness on display. Please use protective eyewear and all appropriate safety equipment.
Picture England in the early 17th century. A devoutly religious king faces increasing resistance from Parliament over his conduct of an increasingly unsuccessful and expensive war. His handpicked general, the Duke of Buckingham, is so unpopular that his assassination is greeted with restrained jubilation. The war has practically bankrupted the treasury and needlessly killed many Englishmen. But the king's belief in the rightness of his cause is unshaken. His attempt to govern without the guidance of Parliament having failed, his relationship to that body becomes more and more hostile.
Not like current events. Not at all.
There's a lot to be said for strong leadership. A willingness to stand on principle is often the difference between good leaders and great leaders. President Clinton, for example, was brilliant, compassionate, a naturally gifted politician. It was his willingness to compromise with the most hateful and cynical of his opponents that tarnished his legacy, not that trumped-up farce of an impeachment. Clinton was the last Democrat who worried the Republican leadership, so they made an example of him. Since then, no Democratic leader has dared deviate from the vague and unexciting mantra of centrism.
This is where the historical parallel loses some steam: King Charles' opposition was powerful, angry, and willing to go to the mat in order to get its way. Nancy Pelosi is no Oliver Cromwell. But let's return to the present day.
President Bush is, in no uncertain manner, Clinton's polar opposite. He is, by his own admission, no clever policy wonk. Bush's major concerns in office seem to have been fantasy-based foreign policy, cutting money out of silly liberal pork-barrel projects such as health care and schools, and scaring the voters into re-electing him so he could continue to pursue the first two. He's also, in sharper contrast to Bill, a horrible public communicator, coming off as smug, holier-than-thou, inarticulate, and callous - in various combinations.
Picture England in the early 17th century. A devoutly religious king faces increasing resistance from Parliament over his conduct of an increasingly unsuccessful and expensive war. His handpicked general, the Duke of Buckingham, is so unpopular that his assassination is greeted with restrained jubilation. The war has practically bankrupted the treasury and needlessly killed many Englishmen. But the king's belief in the rightness of his cause is unshaken. His attempt to govern without the guidance of Parliament having failed, his relationship to that body becomes more and more hostile.
Not like current events. Not at all.
There's a lot to be said for strong leadership. A willingness to stand on principle is often the difference between good leaders and great leaders. President Clinton, for example, was brilliant, compassionate, a naturally gifted politician. It was his willingness to compromise with the most hateful and cynical of his opponents that tarnished his legacy, not that trumped-up farce of an impeachment. Clinton was the last Democrat who worried the Republican leadership, so they made an example of him. Since then, no Democratic leader has dared deviate from the vague and unexciting mantra of centrism.
This is where the historical parallel loses some steam: King Charles' opposition was powerful, angry, and willing to go to the mat in order to get its way. Nancy Pelosi is no Oliver Cromwell. But let's return to the present day.
President Bush is, in no uncertain manner, Clinton's polar opposite. He is, by his own admission, no clever policy wonk. Bush's major concerns in office seem to have been fantasy-based foreign policy, cutting money out of silly liberal pork-barrel projects such as health care and schools, and scaring the voters into re-electing him so he could continue to pursue the first two. He's also, in sharper contrast to Bill, a horrible public communicator, coming off as smug, holier-than-thou, inarticulate, and callous - in various combinations.
Be the first to comment on this story