PRESIDENTS ARE BORING : WHATEVER HAPPENED TO INTERESTING RULERS LIKE FREDERICK THE GREAT?

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

In centuries past, political leaders led much more interesting lives than they do today. They were not just politicians and party bosses. They were more than petty thugs and criminals. They did more with their time than merely sign legislation, negotiate treaties and give speeches. They had more freedom to be themselves, not the calculated personas we see in rulers today. In the past, rulers have not just been commercial administrators. They have been painters, singers, writers, sculptors, generals, conquerors, heroes, scientists, philosophers and theater lovers. But today, most political rulers have no outside interests: They are usually just devious lawyers and cutthroat business tycoons who crave reelection.

By American standards, Barack Obama may be "interesting." But he is still pretty staid compared to history's more well-rounded rulers. In brief, he's just another wealthy lawyer who wears a lapel pin and panders to business interests. Come to think of it, no American President has ever been very well-rounded. The office simply does not lend itself to flamboyance or rebelliousness. Perhaps that has something to do with Democracy: People in a Democracy want relatively boring "stewards" to manage their affairs. In the American Democracy, for instance, people want stability, not calamity. After all, you can't make money without stability. That explains why virtually every American President has been either a lawyer or business baron. Lawyers and business barons are "stable people." Boring as hell, generally, but stable. They don't invite calamity, at least intentionally.

By contrast, interesting people aren't usually very stable. And they court calamity. That's why American Presidents aren't very interesting. American Presidents just want to keep the economy going and get reelected. That might yield a comfortable existence, but it isn't very memorable.

But rulers like Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712-1786) are memorable. Frederick was no mere commercial orchestrator. He was a general, a conqueror and an arts patron. He invited French philosophers to stay with him in his palace and engaged in homoerotic banter with his all-male courtiers. He played the harpsichord and the flute. He carried on correspondence (in French) with Voltaire and wrote music in his spare time. He even penned marches for his army. About his wife, he said: "There can be neither love nor friendship between us." He never had children; his wife lived in her own castle and he visited her once a year for tea. And he even tried to flee his own country with his ostensibly gay lover when he was 18. His father caught them before they left. Then he forced his son to watch as he had his lover beheaded.

Now that is interesting. A man like that could never be President: Too interesting.

Yet Prussia became a major European power under Frederick's rule. Frederick might have been a composer, artist, general, philosopher and arts patron. But he also ran the country extremely well. He was interesting and well-rounded. He inspired faith in his people. His example shows that well-rounded rulers can be exceptional, despite the impulsion to be boring commercial orchestrators.

I find it significant that no one remembers Frederick for his commercial tact. In fact, no one ever thinks about commerce when they think about Frederick. They think about his military prowess, cultivation and Enlightenment. They think about the things that made him a well-rounded person, not his skill as a financier.

In a way, Frederick's example shows that great rulers transcend commerce. After all, people don't remember quiet bourgeois comfort. They remember unique personalities who vault beyond the banal concerns of prospering at business. They remember interesting people.

That is why most American Presidents are quite forgettable. They just aren't interesting. The only ones worth remembering did things beyond commercial management. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. He saved the country from dissolution, led it through war and abolished slavery. He might not have been an artist or composer, but he spent his time attending to matters larger than commercial management. In America, that is memorable. After all, almost all the other Presidents did little but manage the economy. Like Frederick the Great, Lincoln transcended commerce. That is why he is the most memorable American President.

But even Lincoln was not as interesting as Frederick. Lincoln was just another lawyer in a long line of lawyers who became Presidents. An exceptional lawyer, to be sure, but nonetheless just another bourgeois. He was a creative statesman and even an amateur inventor, but still nothing like Frederick. America simply does not tolerate such colorfulness in its political rulers. They would never get elected in the first place. Can you imagine what the media would say if a Presidential candidate admitted he tried to flee the country with his gay lover? Or that he preferred to speak French? That would not go over too well in South Carolina. America just doesn’t like flamboyant originals in high office. Especially flamboyant originals who might be gay.

Instead, America likes mediocre career politicians in high office. America likes one-dimensional Washington insiders who know how to work the system just well enough to keep unemployment down and income up. It does not want men like Frederick the Great, or even Abraham Lincoln. Put simply, American democracy does not want leaders who rock the boat too much, even if rocking the boat improves things in the end. Well-rounded men might be brilliant, but they are risky. And commerce abhors risk.

It is no accident that someone killed Lincoln. That's what happens to American rulers when they get just a little too interesting for comfort. And that's a shame, because interesting people can lead Nations to incredible new heights.

DANGEROUS RHETORIC ON HEALTH CARE : OBAMA IS NOT HITLER

AN ESSAY

Public rhetoric about health care reform is getting quite belligerent these days. It seems I can’t read the newspaper without noticing a story about some outraged maniac who disrupts a town hall meeting about health care. Interestingly, these outbursts do not break down along party lines. Both Republicans and Democrats publicly freak out as soon as anyone mentions health care. No one really seems to know all the facts. Misinformation is rampant. Everyone is worried. People think they either will lose their health care or pay away their entire salary in taxes. Seniors think the Federal government will take away their prescription drugs and repeal Medicare. Insurance companies have launched campaigns intended to make Americans reflexively recoil from the words “socialist medicine” and “single-payer system.”

But amid all this confusion, no one knows what will happen. This leaves a lot of room for propaganda, deception, manipulation and even violent rhetoric. So the Nation just blusters along: Shouting, screaming and accusing imaginary enemies of imaginary conspiracies. It is a dangerous climate. When large numbers become desperate and irrational like this, really bad things can happen.

Before Obama won the election last year, I wrote a piece about hatred in the United States. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/10/prediction.html. I openly worried that Obama could well face assassination in a country with such a profound legacy of intolerance, hatred and political violence, especially involving racial questions. During Obama’s first few months in office, he seemed to transcend those worries. The Nation was entranced; it could not really believe it just elected a black President. For a few fleeting weeks, Obama’s hopeful rhetoric seemed to have triumphed. In such a confident atmosphere, no one could think to assassinate this man.

But times are changing. Health care is Obama’s first major confrontation with deeply entrenched power structures in American society. To reform health care, hopeful rhetoric is not enough. Rather, reforming health care takes gritty, exhausting political pragmatism. It takes courage and clear vision. At the same time, it takes a fighting spirit. After all, there are too many vested interests with too many profits at stake in the current system. Insurance companies and drug barons will not just roll over and allow reform. Shouting “Yes we can” will not transform a free market bastion into a socialist utopia. In a word, genuine health care reform requires immense social changes. And vested interests resist immense social changes by any means necessary, including subversion, misinformation, propaganda, intimidation and murder.

This is not paranoia. This is history. When reforming Presidents and social leaders genuinely “threaten immense change” in American life, they put themselves in mortal danger. Abraham Lincoln dared to abolish slavery, a vital component in American life up to his time. That effort upset vested interests; he was murdered. John F. Kennedy dared to deconstruct America’s military industrial complex; he was murdered. Robert Kennedy promised to bring “social justice” to American life through civil rights legislation and “big government” spending; he was murdered. Martin Luther King, Jr. dared to propose racial harmony and to condemn inequality in the United States; he was murdered, too. President Obama—a black man, no less—now dares to dismantle private control over health care in the United States. Health care is a multi-trillion dollar business. Powerful people really like the way it is now, unjust or not. His effort has already ruffled vested interests. He is inviting danger.

You can sense the danger simply by following the rhetoric. Just last week, for instance, I saw pictures from a Republican rally somewhere in the Midwest. According to the news source, they were complaining about Democratic efforts to “socialize” medicine and prevent them from seeing doctors they wanted to see. But their complaints were less troubling than their banners. In one picture, a young man carried a placard with Obama’s face on it. The caption: “Hitler gave great speeches, too.”

If this were just another election battle, I might have dismissed this comment as mere imbecility. Whenever anyone doesn’t like a political opponent in the United States, the natural—and stupid—tendency is to label him “Hitler.” Anti-Bush protesters routinely compared Bush to Hitler. But this time the tables are strangely turned. Bush never pledged to reform health care in the United States. Opponents facetiously compared him to Hitler because he expanded government power against the individual, dismantled civil liberties and embarked on foreign war adventures. Bush defended vested interests; he did not threaten them. Those were vaguely “Hitler-like” interventions. Still, Bush was no Hitler—not even close. I think even the most fanatical anti-Bush protesters realized that. Bush may have disrespected the Constitution and trampled a few liberties here and there. But he never systematically exterminated people he considered racially inferior.

Obama, by contrast, represents the “little man” against massive private interests. And he is even less “Hitler-like” than Bush. Obama swore to defend constitutional liberty and to curtail American military adventures abroad. He has also pledged to resolve domestic “injustices,” including the health care conundrum. Moreover, Obama is a black man; he is a member of a race that Hitler wanted to exterminate. In that light, it is nonsensical to compare Obama to Hitler. It is almost like calling a Jew a Nazi. If anything, Obama represents everything Hitler was not: Tolerant, liberal, compassionate, hopeful, educated. True, both Hitler and Obama could deliver rousing speeches. But oratory alone does not render an American politician “Hitler.” Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were great orators, too, but no one compared them to Hitler for their speechmaking skill. On the other hand, if great oratory makes you Hitler, I suppose that saves Bush from Hitler comparisons.

Still, the Hitler comments vex me. It really does not matter whether the Hitler analogy is historically accurate. Instead, when Americans call an opponent “Hitler,” it simply means they really detest the person. For Americans, “Hitler” means “evil incarnate.” It is impossible to imagine a “worse man” than Hitler. That is the sense in which Americans use the name “Hitler.” When they call Obama “Hitler,” they are not making a historical analogy. They are simply saying: “We absolutely hate this man because he is evil and must be stopped.” And in such a confused, emotionally charged atmosphere as the health care debate, calling an opponent “Hitler” is no small matter. It indicates a self-righteous willingness to do anything to stop the allegedly “evil man” from realizing his plans. In America, “anything” really means “anything.”

This rhetoric should bother everyone. As I wrote in my earlier essay, America does not have a strong track record on radical reform, especially when it intertwines with vested interests and race. All too often, when reform clashes with vested interests and race, people die. In Obama’s case, all these factors come into play. Health care reform touches deeply on vested interests and it emanates from the Nation’s first black President. In 1993, we saw vehement resistance to health care reform under President Clinton. There was no racial element in those days, yet the public hysteria was so intense that it derailed reform efforts even before they got underway. Against this discouraging background, President Obama has vowed to reform health care “no matter what.” He knows that people get irrational when they talk about health care. In short, he must confront the same public hysteria that broke out in 1993, but now he must contend with smoldering racial resentment, too. He knows that vested interests pulled out all the stops to win in 1993. He knows they lied, deceived, circulated misinformation, bribed and intimidated anyone who got in their way. He probably knows that he is risking his life in this crusade. The fact that intolerant white conservative Republicans sincerely label a tolerant black liberal Democrat Hitler defies rational explanation. He likely already knows there are people ready to pull the trigger on him.

Yet this is the danger all true reformers confront in America. We must wait to see whether Obama will truly follow through on health care. Will he insist on genuine reform? Will he abandon the effort altogether, as Clinton did? Or will he settle, compromise, negotiate, dilute and concede? No matter what happens, we should all ask ourselves whether it is healthy to hate our opponents so much as to label them “Hitler,” even when the label is completely nonsensical. When public rhetoric heats up this much, it threatens to cast the entire Nation into bitter lawlessness. It is just a matter of time before bullets start flying.

Reform tests democracy. Democracy cannot survive when minority opponents cannot abide majority decisions. America has lasted since 1787 precisely because Democrats do not revolt when Republicans win policy fights, and Republicans do not revolt when Democrats win policy fights. In most cases, the losing faction respects constitutional processes and allows the winning faction to pursue its policies, even if they disagree with them. Yet there have been cases in American history in which the losers can’t bear to lose, so they kill the winners. Health care just might be the next example.

Let’s hope it isn’t. But given America’s sad history on reform and race, I am deeply worried. When hopeful-sounding politicians courageously step forward against entrenched injustices, vested interests always neutralize the “problem.” Obama is quintessentially a “hopeful politician” who ran on reform. Those factors alone paint a target on him. The fact that he is black exposes him to even more danger. If he persists in his call for genuine reform against opponents who can call him “Hitler” with a straight face, he is putting his life on the line. Anyone with the twisted intellectual capacity to call Obama Hitler probably also has the misguided capacity to “save America” by killing him. After all, Hitler must be stopped, right?

These are dangerous times. We must merely follow the rhetoric to see where they will lead us. The rhetoric is militant. There is much at stake. Powerful institutions stand to lose. People are calling a liberal Democrat a Nazi. Something is definitely wrong here; and it is not rational. In this muddled, volatile atmosphere, anything can happen.

On the other hand, maybe Obama will just give in, abandon the effort and just leave the insurance companies alone. That would save his skin. In this country, there’s no better way to save your own life than to give insurance companies what they want.

A PREDICTION

Normally I do not try to prophesize. When it comes to the future, we are all ignorant. All we can do is guess. There are serious limits to human sense; among those limits is the temporal limit. Thomas Hobbes explained this limit well more than 350 years ago: "The Present onely has a being in Nature; things Past have a being the Memory onely, but things to come have no being at all; the Future being but a fiction of the mind." Leviathan, Chap. III. Later, Hobbes says: "The best Prophet naturally is the best guesser; and the best guesser, he that is most versed and studied in the matters he guesses at: for he hath the most Signes to guess at." Id.

I am only 31 years old, but I have assembled some experience in life. I have studied history since childhood and I think I have gained some skill in judging the "Signes" Hobbes discusses in Leviathan. Experience is memory. I remember how a situation played out in the past, and when a similar situation arises in the present, I can "guess" at the result based on what I experienced in the past. Obviously this is always an imperfect venture, for it is impossible to sense an event that has not yet occurred. But there are certain future events that we can reasonably say "will happen" based on past events. For example, experience instructs that if we observe 4 teenagers getting extremely drunk, then pile into a car, we can "guess" an accident may occur after they drive away from the house. Even though we do not "perceive" the accident at the time, we can "prophesize" that it will happen later based upon what we "perceive" in the present.

Some could say that "predictions" or "prophecies" amount to little more than "common sense." If we collect experience, then that experience tells us how future events will play out under similar circumstances. But "common sense" implies a mean, everyday art. Still, no matter what we call it, we can make predictions about future events, even events that transcend our own limited experiences. If we remember circumstances, we can predict that similar results will flow from those circumstances when they appear before us again. For example, in 2000, I remember thinking that terrorists attacked American embassies in Tanzania in 1998, then attacked the USS Cole in 2000. I remember thinking that, in both those attacks, there were similar perpetrators, and they both publicly declared they attacked American targets because of overweening American foreign policy in the Middle East. On that basis, I predicted that a much more significant attack would take place on American soil, and that indeed came to pass on 9/11. Was this foresight? No. I merely analyzed historical circumstances and applied my analysis to likely future events. I knew that America did not change its foreign policy between 1998 and 2001, so there was nothing to stop the same perpetrators from wishing to commit the same violence in the future. They had the same motive in similar circumstances; the result should not have been unexpected.

This year, a black man is running for President in America. I don't think people appreciate how truly revolutionary this is: A black man is running for President in America. From its earliest history in the 17th Century, America existed to exploit black men. They provided an unskilled forced labor force that drove American commercial success. They did not choose to immigrate to America; they were captured in Africa and shipped here against their will. They were not even considered human beings at law until 1865. After 1865, more than 100,000 black men and women were murdered in "extra-judicial" proceedings in the South and Midwest. Today, black men and women make significantly less money than whites, they live shorter lives and they occupy death row cells and prisons in dramatically larger proportions than any other racial group. And all this is fact, despite immense legislative and constitutional efforts to level the playing field between the races. What does this mean? Simple: America has never stood for black men. In a strictly historical view, on balance, I would venture to say that America has expended tremendous energy subjugating, marginalizing and oppressing black men. Yet today, a black man is a candidate for President of the United States. This is remarkable. And it bucks history.

It is also dangerous for Barack Obama, precisely because it bucks history. Past events inform our appraisal of future events, and America's track record on race is no exception. Nor is America's track record on political violence. To our credit, as a formal matter, the American Constitution provides a relatively stable mechanism for political succession, unlike historical examples (such as Rome) in which the State devolved into chaos whenever a ruler died. Admittedly, American elections are anything but civil, but at least we have an agreed-upon, legal process by which we select rulers. Nonetheless, 4 American Presidents out of 43 have been assassinated. That is slightly under 10%. One out of ten Presidents has been killed because someone sufficiently disagreed with them on one political matter or another. Although we praise tolerance for opposing political views in principle, history has shown that when Americans disagree enough, they will kill. John Wilkes Booth disapproved of Lincoln's "crusade against the South" and "racial reordering," so he shot him. A disgruntled immigrant's son killed President McKinley. And while no one knows for sure who killed JFK, it is safe to assume that the killers did not like his avowed liberalism on racial, international and military matters. All these Presidents met violent ends because their policies inspired sufficient disagreement in a portion of the population. They were all white, although their compassion for blacks--at least in Lincoln's and JFK's cases--played a role in their deaths.

Americans kill Presidents who sufficiently arouse "critical resentment" in a portion of the population. Political violence has a long and vibrant history in America. So does racial hatred. In fact, the two are at least arguably linked, because the most contentious political issues in America commonly center around race. Race puts America's rhetoric to the test. And rhetoric usually fails.

Given these historical experiences, I predict that Barack Obama--if elected--could very well be assassinated, most likely in a State in which he inspires "critical resentment." It is my earnest wish that this does not happen. But history provides a strong basis for my prediction. True, we live in 2008, not 1865 or even 1963. We try hard to believe that America is different now, that it is less intolerant and less impulsive. Still, America's history of racial hatred and political violence has existed far longer than any discrete historical event. Hatred, intolerance and violence were the cornerstones of American colonization over Native Americans and the colonial economy that followed it. These are deeply-ingrained American characteristics. They do not vanish in a few generations. The fact that blacks continue to occupy a patently inferior position in American civilization only confirms that old wounds have not healed. I know for a fact that many, many Americans do not share these values of intolerance and hatred. But there are enough Americans who do, and they believe in them deeply enough to act upon them.

Obama's race and name (ie, "Hussein" and "Obama...only one letter removed from Osama") alone are sufficient to inspire "critical resentment" in a portion of the American population. His policies merely provide more fodder for hate. Obama is a true-blue liberal, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1960s. He is not a Clinton centrist or a Carter country-fried southern Democrat. JFK was a true-blue liberal and he was assassinated. His brother RFK was a true-blue liberal and he was assassinated before he could even be nominated for President in 1968. Liberal policies--like race--inspire "critical resentment." Thus, Obama has "two strikes against him" from a historical perspective: (1) He is black; and (2) He supports bona fide liberal positions. Either is sufficient to inspire "critical resentment." But together, they increase the chances for violence.

At this point, it looks like Obama will win the 2008 Election. A sufficiently large number of Americans are sufficiently dissatisfied with government to elect a black true-blue liberal. This is testament to changing times in America, but we cannot avert our eyes from history. There has been--and always will be--a strongly-motivated cadre of hateful people in this country, and they act violently when they disagree politically with a ruler. Their political views coincide with their racial views, and, taken together, that spells danger for Obama.

Obama's slogan reveals his intentions: "Change. Yes We Can." If America elects a black President, it will certifiably have made a "change" of the highest historical magnitude. But it is precisely the historical precipitousness of this change that could lead to violence. If history is our guide, precipitous change in America typically foreshadows reactionary violence, then massive, fundamental struggles that last for years afterward. I can only hold my breath to see whether my guess is correct.