In Politics, Boring Is A Crime
By: Rachel Marsden
NEW YORK — When Rudy Giuliani began his 2008 presidential campaign this week,
creating front-page news across the country, it reaffirmed one of the biggest
unspoken truths in politics.
Many conservatives are scratching their heads, wondering how a guy who is
pro-gun control, pro-choice, has appeared publicly in drag for kicks and
giggles, and lived with gay roommates after his very public divorce, could ever
possibly have any chance to beat a good ol’ conservative straight-arrow like
former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for the 2008 Republican presidential
nomination.
Easy. In politics, if being boring is the biggest crime you can commit, then
Romney should be on Death Row.
The most interesting and colourful candidate usually wins. “Ideas” are
secondary. If you don’t believe me, consider the following matchups:
George H. W. Bush vs. Bill Clinton: Clinton didn’t win because of the “issues.”
He won because women found him “hot.” He’s Ronald McDonald with a southern
drawl, and the nation was mesmerized by his Big Mac.
Pierre Trudeau vs. Robert Stanfield: Poor Bob didn’t stand a chance. Trudeau did
ballet behind the Queen of England’s back! He swore! He flips people off! His
wife partied with the Rolling Stones! Policies? Whatever. Apparently, military
might is unnecessary when your country is run by a “badass.”
George W. Bush vs. Al Gore: Bush didn’t get really interesting until after 9/11,
but he was infinitely more fascinating than Al Gore. Gore is a man obsessed with
trees, and he did a great impression of one during the debates. He hoovered his
wife’s face on stage at the Democratic National Convention. It looked as though
a Douglas fir had fallen onto her mouth.
George W. Bush vs. John Kerry: If it was really true that “smart” guys win
elections, then Kerry would be president. A mediocre student and a slightly
better actor, Kerry used bigger words than Bush and made less sense (the left
calls that “nuance”) — just like all our college professors did. And we all
remember how exciting they were, right?
Before I go on, here’s an example illustrating an exception to the general rule:
Stephen Harper vs. Paul Martin: It doesn’t matter how boring anyone thought
Harper was, because Paul Martin looked like the kind of guy who couldn’t make up
his mind between two selections in the Parliamentary cafeteria. Plus, “boring”
beats filthy. And even if you’re not one yourself, it’s like hanging out with
smokers: Although you don’t smoke, your clothes are still going to reek. Which
is why voters ultimately sent Paul for some “Martinizing.”
Given the established pattern, let’s have a look at some other upcoming races:
Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama vs. John Edwards for the Democratic nomination:
Regardless of what one thinks about Clinton’s politics, if you have as many
books written about you as she does, you can’t possibly qualify as boring. John
Edwards, who was once a medical malpractice lawyer, reportedly channelled a dead
person in court. While this may be fascinating, it’s also nutty. And there’s a
fine line.
As for Obama, fellow Democrat Joe Biden described him as “clean.” and Bush gave
him kudos for being “articulate.” Both terms are end-runs around “dullard.”
Advantage: Hillary.
Stephen Harper vs. Stephane Dion in the next Canadian federal election: Dion is
the white Obama: Boring. He’s also as single minded about trees as Al Gore,
which adds an extra dash of tedium. Harper doesn’t even have to try — just
maintain a pulse.
PUBLISHED: TORONTO SUN (February 11/07)
COPYRIGHT 2007 RACHEL MARSDEN