Join 3,552 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


November 7, 2000
6:56 AM   Subscribe

Michael Moore, Certified Public Crankyman, explains why Gore is so deeply undeserving of the vote I'll probably cast for him anyway...(via memepool)
posted by m.polo (6 comments total)

 
OK, I admit it. I've watched from the sidelines during this election the way I imagine you'd watch an airliner crash: in absolute disbelief that what you are seeing before you is actually happening, and feeling utterly powerless to in any way stop the inevitable outcome. Not one candidate seems worth my precious vote (and I do mean "precious" in the sense of "has a deep intrinsic value to me above and beyond any blah-blah-blah about patriotism and high school civics"). So what do I do? Gore's a hypocrite, Nader's too far Left for me, Bush is... well. Enough of that.

What the hell happened to Presidents who were Great Men? Did Nixon really bring all of that to an end for ever and ever?
posted by m.polo at 6:58 AM on November 7, 2000


"Did Nixon really bring all of that to an end for ever and ever?"

Absolutely not. Ever heard of a man named Carter? Or Gerry Ford? Speaking of whom, I've thought that if Bush gets 'our' vote of 'confidence', Chevy Chase ought to get his old job back. Note also the correlation between the rise of TV and the end of Noble President etc. -- or could this be wishful polemics? And there were plenty of doofus presidents in the past.
posted by EngineBeak at 8:39 AM on November 7, 2000


I was about to wonder what we're all going to talk about once the election's over. I guess if Bush wins we're all going to be talking about how miserable we all are. Except for those of you out there in MeFi land who are millionaires. Millionaires raise your hand!
posted by owen at 9:02 AM on November 7, 2000


At the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (or is it Printing and Engraving? I forget...) in Washington, D.C., they have a gift shop where you can buy the official presidential engraved portraits, among other things.

When I was there, they had a series of them in order on the wall, the big 8 x 10 ones, and as I looked I noticed something interesting.

Before Nixon, the president didn't smile in his official portrait. He didn't need to.

After Nixon, they all smile, each one more than the last. Bush grins, Clinton looks like he's about to burst out laughing.

The progression was striking.

So I started thinking, why does a leader smile? To try to appear likeable, and trustworthy. Why does he have to try to get you to trust him via his appearance?

Because after Nixon, the implicit trust and respect people gave the president was gone. The office of the Presidency had formerly been sacred - the president didn't have to be pretty, he had to rule well and do right by the people, or at least not be clearly provable to be a total cretinous bastard (or a liar and felon, at any rate).

But after Nixon, the taboo had been broken in a way too powerful to be repaired. After that, the focus shifted to improving the appearance, the gloss of likeability. Style over substance.

Just my thoughts. I think we're circling the drain in this country. We need something profoundly new, and I don't think the powers that be (that be RICH, that is) will be able to come up with it.
posted by beth at 9:31 AM on November 7, 2000


The Powers That Be *want* the status quo. They are the ones trying to keep something new from rising to the top.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:58 AM on November 7, 2000


Well said, beth.
posted by Optamystic at 11:25 AM on November 7, 2000


« Older Webcasting:Doing it Legally....  |  Looks like all the lobbyists ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments