Cancer on the Potomac by ROBERT ZIMMER, JR. Monday, August 16, 1999 LOS ANGELES, CA. A couple of summers ago, I was invited to a small gathering of political activists in L.A. At the time, we still thought our political system had some substance to it, despite all the corruption and doublespeak. President Clinton had not yet re-educated us as to the meaning of the word “lie,” and Richard Gephardt, who at the time was considering a run for president in 2000, was in town to meet potential supporters. The Democratic Congressman joined us at the home of a prominent film and television writer-director, and boy was I unimpressed. He made a short speech which seemed vaguely tailored for the situation, but had the telltale ring of the generic to it. The true test, of course, would be how he interacted one-on-one after he’d had a couple of drinks. I had the requisite number of 7 & 7’s, and maneuvered my way into a conversation between the host and Mr. Gephardt. My host graciously introduced me with some flattering words. I shook the Congressman’s hand, vigorously, and things went downhill from there. I can’t quite fault him for having a wooden, creepy handshake -- Lord knows how much flesh he’d had to press in his career. But his eyes -- that was the disturbing part. They were clear, pale, liquid blue. And there was simply nothing behind them.

RELATED LINKS... Yahoo! Full Coverage Common Cause Project Vote Smart Road to the White House Dick Gephardt's site   Jump to the FRONT PAGE of...   .

I said something to the effect of, “Wow, so you’re thinking of running in 2000. As a young, politically minded person, I’m wondering what message you might have for my generation, since we’ll be inheriting our fine country next.” And he just smiled, blankly, and stared at me with those empty eyes. There was a long pause before his reply. I can’t even remember what it was, frankly, so empty were the words. T.S. Eliot’s Hollow Man was the Democratic leader of the House. My worst fears about our government were confirmed, and I just remember driving home, thinking, “Holy shit. Guys like this are running our country.” Things have gone downhill since then. I need hardly mention the words “Monica Lewinsky,” or how President Clinton betrayed the trust of the nation with his creative evasions and just plain-ugly outright lies. (Ironically, I was dazzled with candidate Clinton’s candor, charisma, and grasp of the issues when I met him in 1992. What the hell happened?) The subsequent impeachment circus was even more absurd and revolting. The business of running the country was forgotten while Congress fell all over itself trying to figure out a way to embarrass the president even further. Democrats saw the President destroying their careers by association, and the Republicans -- tired of Clinton kicking their ass for the past three years on issue after issue -- thought they finally had something around which to rally their party’s faithful. Too few of our elected representatives took note that their constituents had stopped giving a damn about this sorry mess months before, and that they wanted Congress to get something, ANYTHING, done besides fratricide. Campaign finance reform? Simplifying the tax code? Term limits? Education reform? Health care reform? Some work that might improve the average American’s life? Nah. Now that impeachment a go-go is long behind us, Congress has made stellar progress. The Republican-controlled body recently wasted weeks of legislative time passing a tax cut bill that everybody knows has no chance of becoming law. They excluded Democrats from negotiating sessions, the final step in proving the entire exercise was an ill-concealed ploy to come up with an issue around which the increasingly irrelevant GOP could rally. Miraculously, Alan Greenspan and President Clinton (despite his appalling personal life) managed to engineer a turnaround in the economy, with Congress screaming and posturing the whole way. As thanks, Republicans draft a bill to piss away the budget surplus with a tired exercise in supply-side economics. Was the 1.3 trillion dollar national debt increase of the 1980s not a hint that this doesn’t work? So the president vetoes the bill, the name-calling begins from both donkey and elephant, and the broken record plays again. Nothing accomplished. In fact, if the economy weren't roaring along so nicely, making most of us better off, the country would likely rise up in revolution and execute Clinton and the 535 idiots on Capitol Hill. Very few meaningful bills have come out of the legislature and been signed into law in the past two years. At last check of our fine Constitution, the idea was that our citizens would elect well-meaning representatives to Congress, who would enact meaningful legislation. This would aid in governing, and, presumably, bettering our country’s welfare. Now it’s evolved into a self-serving, masturbatory institution. Its sole purposes seem to be perpetuation of its own members’ careers, and to enable one of two political parties to keep a stranglehold on the gridlocked uselessness that is our modern government. The Founding Fathers never intended public service, particularly Congressional service, to be a career. The concept was that distinguished community leaders would volunteer to donate their services as representative of their city, state, etc. Then, after two, six, or maybe eight years, they’d return home, and give someone with a fresh perspective the chance to contribute to the greater good. The average American doesn’t earn over $200,000, or have a staff of dozens to service his or her needs, think for him/her self, and raise money to ensure that lifestyle never, ever changes. And conveniently, of course, any legislation to the contrary never makes it out of either the House or the Senate. Reasonably limit a political career to keep our representatives honest and focused on US? Make elections less about issues, not money? Unthinkable. And on to those elections. We have a presidential one coming up in a scant 15 months, and the field of choices looks like the usual suspects. Why is it that a nation so culturally and intellectually diverse can only come up with a) two self-absorbed political parties, and b) two monsterfunded, woefully uninspiring candidates with a chance to win? I’m a writer. I believe in the power of words to electrify, to inspire, and to incite change. Political leaders of the not-so-distant past motivated us to action with their ideas: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” or “I believe our country should put a man on the moon by the end of the decade [1960’s]” -- JFK; “Some people see things as they are and ask, ‘Why?’ I see how things could be, and ask, ‘Why not?’”--RFK; “I have a dream...” -- MLK, Jr. When was the last time any recent candidate, leader, or elected politician’s words burned into your mind and stayed with you? I can think of only one occasion, really. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman...” It’s an American shame that our political system has become a self-parody. Why can’t we produce a candidate with the following traits: 1) a tolerable number of vices and skeletons in the closet; 2) who understands and embraces what most Americans have for a long time: that what we want as a nation is social tolerance and fiscal conservatism, a pragmatism which avoids any ideological extreme; 3) has an exciting and specific set of ideas, grounded in economic and social realities, of what our country should be shooting for in the next ten years; 4) has a record of past achievement which suggests s/he can effect change; 5) knows how to communicate in inspiring and direct language; 6) understands instinctively the difference between a lie and the truth. Run George W. Bush and Al Gore down this checklist. The Vice President is a career public servant whose most distinguished moments include: a) Nearly breaking down at the 1996 Democratic convention, telling how smoking killed his sister, yet continuing to accept tobacco company dollars; b) allowing his hopelessly backwards wife to run a Gestapo-like ‘80s censorship campaign against the record business; c) claiming credit for creating the Internet; d) serving as chief political enabler to President Clinton’s administration-destroying sexual habits. (Hello, you see the man every day. Never had a clue?) Despite his stated goal of wanting to come out from the shadow of the Clinton slime, Mr. Gore’s blundering campaign has offered no forward-looking vision for America’s future. (His tree-hugging, spacey book from the early ‘90s was a step in the right direction, but he’s since forgotten it. Curious.) These days, even if voters can endure his mind-numbingly wooden speech, there isn’t much resuscitating substance. In fact, his campaign’s most substantive offering, rah-rah focus-on-the-family rhetoric, is backward-looking and unspecific, which is 50 percent of the way to the Republican Right’s blatherings on the issue. If this is his version of President Clinton’s strategy of co-opting Republican issues, God help us. Governor Bush is a more aggressively vile politician, masquerading as a soft-hearted cowboy. Naturally, he is the front runner. His primary accomplishments: a) escaping actual combat risk in Vietnam by riding daddy’s phone call into the Texas Air National Guard; b) losing a ton of other people’s money in failed oil investments, always being bailed out by his father’s rich friends; c) finally getting rich by soaking the city of Arlington, Tx, for the cost of a new stadium complex for the Texas Rangers; d) taking credit for accomplishments in Texas which are better ceded to the Legislature and Lieutenant Governor, since they actually govern the state; e) preaching the virtues of the nebulous “compassionate conservatism” in public, while consulting several times a day by telephone with Ralph Reed, noted right-wing fundamentalist Christian/Republican hatchet man. f) raising almost 40 million dollars for the 2000 campaign already. “Hell, if I can’t win the election with a real platform, I’ll just buy it.” (For a mind-blowing exposé into just how amazingly unqualified for president George W. Bush is, check out the August 9, 1999 issue of ROLLING STONE magazine. This “New Democrat” was leaning Bush-way until this article.) A viable third choice, if any, depends on the Reform Party’s (which ran Ross Perot to 19% of the vote in 1992) ability to conjure up a credible candidate. (Jesse Ventura appears to be too busy refereeing wrestling matches and doing guest spots on TV series to run, much less govern Minnesota.) The most noteworthy idea offered thus far is for Pat Buchanan to leave the GOP and run as a Reformer, instantly dooming not only the party’s chances in the 2000 presidential election, but any future credibility with non-skinhead voters outside of trailer parks in the 21st century. I suspect that come Election Day 2000, more Americans than ever will get off work, have a fleeting bit of guilt about not caring enough to vote, and opt to return to the relative safety of home, a beer, and some sitcom. Whatever it takes to make us feel a bit better about how powerless we really are. Marx said that religion was the opiate of the people. Today, it’s economic prosperity for most, combined with cynicism and jadedness. There’s no reason to care about what happens in Washington, really, because for those of us with food on the table and rent paid, it’s easier to ignore the cancerous tumor on the Potomac. As for the rest of us, we know Washington doesn’t care about us anyway -- and the saddest thing is that either way, there’s not a damn thing we can do. ROBERT ZIMMER, Jr., IS A FILM AND TELEVISION WRITER LIVING IN LOS ANGELES.

Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times contributor Robert Zimmer, Jr.