< PREVIOUS ] [ 1999 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
My colleagues in the chattering class must have trouble operating their keyboards of late because they're so busy wringing their hands in horror and despair.
What's the problem?
It seems that the leading presidential candidates in the two major parties -- Al Gore, George W. Bush, Bill Bradley, John McCain, Elizabeth Dole -- are all experienced and capable people who have held public office. They have good resumes.
And we the people, instead of delighting in this abundance of talent, seem more interested in the antics of mere celebrities who appear to desire the presidency or other high office: Donald Trump, Warren Beatty, Jerry Springer, Cybill Shepherd, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Charles Barkley, Patrick Buchanan, etc.
This seems to appall most pundits, but I can't see any real cause for alarm.
For one thing, the American economy already works this
way, and it's the envy of the world and all that. By
works this way,
I mean building on brand
recognition.
First you establish a brand in one market, and then you
expand it to others. For instance, last summer I was in
the local big-box retail maze, and saw a display of canvas
outdoor furniture, all in that distinctive shade of red and
emblazoned with Coca-Cola.
Coca-Cola is one of the most successful brands in the world. But when you try to be rational about this, why would expertise in selling fizzy sugared water flavored with cocaine by-products translate into any particular proficiency in making outdoor furniture?
No reason comes to mind, but this must be effective, or companies wouldn't do it.
So if Donald Trump establishes a brand name in one area, like ghost-written books about making deals, then by modern marketing theory, he can transfer the brand to another endeavor, like the American presidency.
Since we abide other brand expansions -- Harley-Davidson clothing, Paul Newman salad dressing, US West legislature -- why not the presidency?
But the main reason not to be alarmed is that this has happened before -- a mere celebrity with no political record whatsoever getting nominated and elected -- and the Republic survived.
In 1848, America had two major parties, the Democrats and Whigs. The Whigs had not won a presidential election since 1840, but they did have two giants in Congress, Daniel Webster and Henry Clay.
So when it was time to nominate a candidate in 1852, did they honor one of the party stalwarts? No. The party leaders wanted to win, so they ran a celebrity, Gen. Zachary Taylor, who had defeated the Mexican army at Palo Alto and Buena Vista.
Taylor had never voted in his life. He had never been
known to express a political opinion, and no one even knew
whether he was a Whig or a Democrat. In a fine book,
They Also Ran,
Irving Stone wrote that Until the
advent of the movie star nothing was as powerfully
publicized as a military victory. The widely acclaiming
press received by Taylor could not be duplicated by
millions of dollars or months of campaign work.
Historian Page Smith observed that The Whigs could
hardly have made a more cynical choice. Taylor appeared to
be in no way qualified for the office of president. He had
disclaimed the principal planks in the Whig platform
...
Further, the Whigs had opposed the Mexican War -- and then they capitalized on it by nominating a hero of that war. One enthusiastic supporter, an Illinois congressman named Abraham Lincoln, admitted that Taylor's only virtue was that he could win the election and thereby provide patronage jobs to Lincoln's Whig buddies.
The Democratic nomination in 1848 went to Lewis Cass, who had an impressive record of public service: general in the War of 1812, Ohio state legislator, Michigan territorial governor, secretary of war, ambassador to France, U.S. senator from Michigan.
So there was a celebrity with no discernible political record running against an experienced and capable public servant. The celebrity won.
Did the Republic collapse? Taylor's tenure was short (he died of typhus in 1850), but he did hold a disintegrating union together without warfare, something Lincoln didn't manage.
Smith writes of Taylor's first address to Congress that
It ranks near the top of presidential papers,
comprehensive and humane,
and of his term in general,
Lacking as he had been in experience, he made a
surprisingly good president ... he had a judiciousness and
integrity that gave a much needed weight to the actions of
the government.
Not that Taylor was perfect, but he did the job about as well as it could have been done then. In a democratic society, public fame can become political power -- and it doesn't necessarily lead to ruin.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1999 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >