< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1999 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >


The difficult task of contriving a threat to run against

Published 1 June 1999 in The Denver Post
Copyright ©1999 by Ed Quillen. All rights reserved.

After we saw a sign one day in the local Safeway that promoted a sale on Potatoe Chips, we figured that James Danforth Quayle, like many others of us who are unemployable in civilized regions where they perform extensive background checks and rigorous applicant testing, was hiding out up here in the mountains.

But the former vice-president was instead sequestered in Paradise Valley, Ariz., where he apparently worked with a think tank to contrive a threat that he could run against.

As I have often observed, the way to wealth and power in America is to invent a disease and sell the cure. In commerce, the classic example is Listerine -- the Warner-Lambert company fabricated a disease called halitosis, used ample ad money to scare people into thinking they might suffer from this dread affliction, then sold the mouthwash as the cure.

In politics, the first thing is to come up with a threat to the American Way of Life -- welfare mothers, flag-burners, public transportation, environmentalists, feminists, wolves, nattering nabobs of negativism, etc. The candidate then raises the alarm about the alleged threat, and after a sufficient interval, proposes himself and his policies as the solution.

Quayle's advisors had to labor mightily to find a threat that no other candidate had exploited yet, but to their credit, they found one: lawyers.

In the Quayle analysis, America suffers from poor values, and lawyers are the reason for that.

We can agree for the record that America is healthy economically, he told the Commonwealth Club of California on May 19, but something is fundamentally missing in our culture.

We suffer from school shootings; a culture of death from abortion to euthanasia; one third of our children born out of wedlock; a 50 percent increase in teenage drug use over the last five years; teen suicide occurring at a rate far higher than a generation ago.

Obviously, those are not good developments, and in hearts we know that the answer to tragedies like Littleton is in changing the culture. Today I want to focus on a sector of our society that has been largely exempt from the discussion, but must be part of our effort to reverse the cultural decline: the legal system, and, specifically, the legal aristocracy.

In my experience, the legal aristocracy generally functions to make sure that people with money get to keep it, no matter how they got it. The side with the better lawyers almost always prevails, and since the better lawyers cost more, the side with more money wins -- truth and justice are not factors worth considering in most American jurisprudence.

But that's not the legal aristocracy that worries Quayle. He wants us to fear the legal aristocracy that has, big by bit, undermined parental authority over children, weakened discipline in the schools and obstructed the moral education of the young.

But is this all lawyers? When my kids were little, there was a huge American marketing machine trying to sell my kids stuff I didn't think they should have, thereby undermining my authority -- but Quayle didn't mention the junk-food industry.

Discipline in the schools? Didn't a fifth-grade girl have to hire a lawyer because the school refused to take any disciplinary action against repeated physical sexual harassment? Where was she supposed to turn?

And has any lawyer ever tried to keep parents from performing the moral education of the young? Just where parents might time for this, when both are working two jobs to stay afloat so they can buy more stuff from Quayle's campaign contributors, is a question that Quayle didn't bother to ask.

The oddest thing about this attack on the legal aristocracy is that Quayle is a lawyer who once practiced in Huntington, Ind. While in law school, he met another future attorney, Marilyn Tucker, and they practiced together.

He's not taking cases these days, but her official campaign biography says that she is currently a partner in the Indianapolis-based law firm of Krieg, DeVault, Alexander & Capehart, where she practices corporate law, emphasizing mergers and acquisitions, international law and health care law.

Corporate law? Mergers and acquisitions? International law? A partner in the firm? That sounds like legal aristocracy to me.

And Dan Quayle is running against it. Bob Dole, a lawyer, just went to family woodshed because he said he might contribute to the John McCain campaign -- even though wife, Elizabeth, another lawyer, is running for president.

If they're all so worried about morality in government, they might consider something else that Bob Dole once said: When these political action committees give money, they expect something in return other than good government.


< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1999 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >