Vol. 2 No. 57 Feb. 16, 2007

The Bogus Economist
Presidents




With Presidents' Day coming up, I suddenly remembered what I thought of doing last Presidents' Day. While looking through last February's papers, although the number of column inches about bedding sales outnumbered articles about Washington and Lincoln by a factor of about five hundred, I found, tucked between the sheets so to speak, a couple of pieces about both men. It occurred to me at the time it would be a great idea to see how our present President (after all, it IS Presidents' Day) stacked up against "Honest Abe" Lincoln and George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington. I figured this could be interesting. The fact I didn't write it tells you something about my work habits. Let's try again.
There is a lot in common between our first president and our 43rd. For example, they both have the same first name. Both men led the country through war, although Washington had a little edge in actual combat experience. Both presidents were great champions of democracy - Washington for the colonies; Bush for Iraq. Both were good at chopping down trees – a hatchet for Washington; a chainsaw for Bush. Beyond this, we find some differences. For one, Washington's vice-president didn't request five deferments from the Revolution nor did Washington himself ever forget exactly where he served his enlistment requirements.
Both Georges were wealthy, but Washington spent most of his own money supporting troops under his command. When Washington spoke of sacrifice, he meant putting his life and property on the line. Mr. Bush also had experience with sacrifices while owning the Texas Rangers. He also learned a lot about bunts, fly balls and losing seasons.
Then there's what I call the Modesty Index. For instance, it's hard to imagine Washington saying "I am the decider," probably because it was so obvious. There is also no record after the Battle of Trenton of his galloping into camp in a twelve-horse carriage to announce the mission was accomplished. This could have been an oversight by Washington's advisors. Look what Washington advisors did to Mr. Bush.
More differences: Washington brought into being a country admired by the whole world for its commitment to justice and fair treatment, despite the cancer of slavery that still had to be overcome. Washington's loyalty, above all, was to the principles later embodied in our Constitution. He would have had trouble with John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales. Of course, he wouldn't have picked either of them in the first place any more than he would have chosen Donald Rumsfeld. Neither Scott McClennan nor Tony Snow would have qualified as Press Secretary on grounds of a seeming inability to compose a truthful sentence. Condoleeza Rice, being female, would not have been considered in those days even if she hadn't been able to look serious while constantly repeating a discredited line of reasoning.
Abe Lincoln, although he abolished slavery, wouldn't have had a chance to defeat George W. Bush in an election because Lincoln had big ears – a fatal blow to getting a nomination. If you doubt this, consider Dennis Kucinich, the congressman from Ohio who, in my judgment, has more brains and better ideas than most of the others running for president combined, but will probably never make the cut for two vital reasons - he has big ears and he's short. Americans don't vote for short. So, even though Lincoln was tall enough, his ears and a high, squeaky voice would have been enough to assure his defeat. Should you be tempted to feel this indicates a certain shallowness on the part of the electorate, check with Karl Rove.
In 2008, we're going to get another opportunity to select a leader. We're not going to have George W. Bush to vote on, but there will be several choices on both the Republican and Democratic sides. We may have a woman on the ballot; we may have an African-American. We may have a former POW, a former mayor of New York City, or somebody we haven't heard of yet. Although the chances of another Washington or Lincoln coming out of the pack are slim, we can increase the odds by ignoring how candidates look or how they sound and concentrate on how they think. Our record in this department isn't particularly good.
Please notice what I'm saying has nothing whatever to do with political parties or whether a person is on the right or the left There are smart, honest people of all political stripes. The trick is to listen carefully and try to find them. It seems to me the best way to honor Lincoln and Washington is to work like mad to locate, help finance and elect a person worthy of the office they so brilliantly held. If we want to be proud of our country, it seems like a good idea to start with pride in its leadership. Let's celebrate Presidents' Day, then, not as a salute to the past, but as a plan for the future. We need all of these we can get.
However, this doesn't mean there isn't time for us to go out and buy a few blankets and pillow cases. After all, they're on sale.
-30-

The Bogus Economist (c) 2007