The "Oh, Good Lord" Post

Last night, all three of the remaining major presidential candidates made taped appearances on WWE Monday Night Raw.

*Silence*

*Uncomfortable pause*

*Crickets chirping*

I'm not sure that the above news item NEEDS commentary, but here it is anyway. The election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson was the first contentious, if not the first contested, presidential election. I was going to refer to this election as a "race", but that's not correct, and precisely my point. The presidency used to be something that people did not chase after, or at least did not openly chase after.

In America we refer to the process of seeking election to public posts as "running for office". This is a phrase the rest of the world would be unfamiliar with. In Great Britain, one "stands" for Parliament, and that sounds much more dignified than the ambulance chasing connotation "running" for office has.

For all of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, presidential candidates did not campaign in the traditional sense, because it was considered undignified. Abraham Lincoln did not even attend the Chicago convention that made him the Republican nominee for president. Forty six years later, although opposed for the presidency by a young, charismatic and articulate opponent named William Jennings Bryan, the Republican nominee William McKinley campaigned for president by literally sitting on his front porch.

The lure of the presidency gradually became too great for candidates to sit idly by as their campaigns were conducted without them. By the time John Kennedy and Richard Nixon opposed each other in 1960, campaigns had become tests of endurance, with the neverending travel and countless speeches and ads we are accustomed to today.

When James Madison's entire presidential campaign was a series of thoughtful letters to colleagues that were published in newspapers, one could reasonably expect that the electorate would make their choice based on issues. The absence of a circus-like atmosphere contributed to the sober nature of the election. And candidates who came into office without campaigning and bargaining for the office could presumably consider themselves free to serve the American people rather than their contributors.

I think considering the personality and temperament of a presidential candidate is a perfectly valid part of choosing whom to vote for. And there are no doubt venues in which voters could be allowed to see their candidates in a more personal way. But to have Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain on a WRESTLING PROGRAM? We have seen the President of the United States asked on national television whether he wears boxers or briefs. That same president, as the nominee of his party, played the saxophone on a late night television show.

Maybe this trend is not reversible. If that's the case, and presidential candidates are going to appear on entertainment shows, perhaps we could at least have them appear on the shows on which they belong. Allow me to make the first suggestion: Hillary on Desperate Housewives.

The Adams Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns for a discussion of John Adams, the man, and John Adams, the HBO mini-series.

Since the series began airing last month, I have come across several news articles praising the quality of the production and calling for a re-examination of Adams. I've heard a few people mention the subject, people I wouldn't necessarily think would be interested. Okay, so Adams hasn't become a cultural phenomenon
in the last few weeks, but I have been encouraged by the generally sensible and thoughtful things I have heard and read.

I've also been surprised by my own reaction. I thought I understood this subject pretty well. I read David McCullough's book, on which this series is based. I've been to the Adams home in Quincy. I've touched his gravestone and that of his son with my bare hand. But the more time I spend watching John Adams, the more I realize I've been as guilty as historians and Adams' contemporaries in failing to grasp how important he was to American history.

Adams has not lingered in popular memory for obvious and easily understood reasons. In the order of office, he served after the heroic Washington and before the intellectual giant Jefferson. Both the first and third presidents captured the popular imagination, and to some degree hold it to this day. Adams was short, round, arrogant, and dismissive of his critics. He was every bit the equal of his contemporaries in intellect, force of personality, and historical importance. However, although he fit well with Washington and Jefferson, he also had traces of Richard Nixon in him.

That statement may come as a slap in the face to Adams fans, if there are any to be found. I only mean that Adams, like Nixon, had the respect that comes with skill and accomplishment. But what Adams really wanted was to be loved by the American people, as Washington was. In this, he was much like Nixon gazing with envy at JFK's portrait in the White House. However, unlike Nixon, John Adams largely resisted the dark urges of his character. The better angels of his nature, as Lincoln would say, won out.

Historians are almost universally critical of Adams for signing the Alien and Sedition Acts during his term of office, and rightfully so. This legislation was the 18th century equivalent of the Patriot Act, which took away the freedom of citizens in the name of protecting them. But Adams made this mistake in the midst of a larger crisis, the spectre of a disastrous war with France. On that score, Adams did right, even if he was denied due credit. The members of his party, and indeed the country at large, clamored for war with France. The patriotic nature of the crisis swelled Adams' popularity. He had only to go along with this overwhelming public desire for war, and he would have swept to re-election. In this crucible moment, Adams held firm. He placed principle before politics. He chose peace when war was the smart political move.

George W. Bush should watch this series. Ah, never mind, it's on after his bedtime.

In a sense, Adams doesn't get his "props" because there's no simple answer as to why he was great. Lincoln saved the Union. FDR pulled the country out of the Depression and steered a course to victory against tyranny. Why was Adams great? He was, as Jefferson called him, the "colossus of independence", who played a crucial role in the Continental Congress. It was Adams who proposed Washington for command of the Continental Army. It was Adams who put the quill in Jefferson's hands to write the Declaration of Independence. He made these moves because he recognized the skill of these men, but also because he cleverly sought to nationalize what was then a regional conflict by involving two prominent Southerners in the struggle. He authored Thoughts on Government, which was the foundation for modern state government. He served a diplomatic role in France, in the Netherlands, and helped restore good will and commerce as America's first ambassador to Britain. Even in the then-inconsequential office of Vice President, he mattered, serving as a moderating influence between the extreme positions of Jefferson and Hamilton. When President Washington could not count on either because of their struggle, he could turn to Adams for reasonable counsel. As president, Adams not only prevented a needless war with a continental power, by so doing he preserved conditions which a few years later led to the Louisiana Purchase.

A fair and just list of his service to this country would exceed my ability to recount the events as well as the patience of the reader. Suffice it to say that perhaps the most significant oversight in the memory and gratitude of this country is the absence of a national monument of any kind to John Adams.

So that's my read of John Adams. What about John Adams? I am forced to recommend it, despite certain inaccuracies. Paul Giamatti's portrayal of Adams is masterful, and Laura Linney is superb as Abigail Adams. In the end, the series passes the test of making you care how the story ends (even if you already know) and illuminating the importance of its subject.

Maybe I was wrong, maybe there is a simple explanation for Adams's greatness. How about this: Yes, Lincoln saved the Union.
But if not for John Adams, there might have been no Union to save.

The Dick Post: An Open Letter to the Vice President of the United States

Dear Mr. Cheney,

This morning I read in the New York Times (you know, that paper that employs Adam Clymer, who you once referred to as a "major league asshole") that you appeared on Fox News yesterday and commented on the remarks made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Senator Barack Obama.

I am an American citizen and a taxpayer. In a sense, that makes me your boss, although you seem to not understand the idea that you serve the people of this country. After all, during an interview on the fifth anniversary of this war that you created, a reporter informed you that two-thirds of Americans now opposed the war. Your response was "So?" Therefore, it is with some measure of skepticism that I approach the idea that you would heed the wishes of any citizen on any issue, but I will make my request nonetheless: Please be quiet.

In the past eight years, you have taken actions that are ethically dubious, morally vacant, and possibly criminal. In the 2000 election, your presence on the Republican ticket gave undue credibility to a man wholly unqualified to be President of the United States. As Vice President, you have consistently urged through voice and action abuse of the power granted to the Executive Branch by the Constitution. You have undermined civil liberties in this country. You have transparently put the interests of big business before those of the American people. And you also shot a guy in the face.

We'll call that last action an accident, but all the others seem to have been quite deliberate. Given your long and sullied record, sir, you should consider yourself fortunate that you have not been impeached and removed from office. Happily, the 22nd Amendment will remove you and Mr. Bush in 2009. On the happy occasion of your departure from public office, it would be appropriate to quote Oliver Cromwell's remarks to the Rump Parliment in 1653: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Until that time, on behalf of anyone who reads this blog, and for the millions of Americans who don't know this blog exists but would agree with the sentiment: hold your tongue. Do not interfere with the effort to choose good and decent people to lead this country, because you have no knowledge of the subject.