Bush, Kerry and Electability

Aug 10
21:00

2004

ARTHUR ZULU

ARTHUR ZULU

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Share this article on Twitter
  • Share this article on Linkedin

I pity English students these days. I pity them very much. Or, I should not have pity for them. Who sent them to study ... like syntax in the first place. Or ... By Jupiter, space scient

mediaimage




I pity English students these days. I pity them very much. Or,Bush, Kerry and Electability Articles I should not have pity for them. Who sent them to study something like syntax in the first place. Or semantics. By Jupiter, space scientists like Stephen Hawkings, the briefest astronomer in the universe, would damn it. But I pity lexicographers the more. They, like the grammar students are doomed to the same fate. Like Achilles who was destined to die in battle. May the grammarians not perish by their heels.

Because they are helping us to understand the meanings of words and how to use them. Like "mental mistake" (which mistake is not mental anyway?) And "peel-and-eat-shrimp" (so that we do not peel the shrimps and throw them on the floor). They should be in our mouths. The world of unlettered men are eternally grateful to the grammarians. For we would have starved to death. T.R. Malthus forgot to mention how they would influence the world's demography in his theory of population by remembering us to eat. Poor visioner. And thumbs up for the grammarians!

Because they are now going to help us understand the U.S election. They will tell us that George Bush Jr. is the Republican candidate for the November election. They will tell us that John Kerry, no, Bob Kerry sounds better. They will tell us that Bob Kerry is the flag bearer for the Democrats. But since he will not be carrying a physical flag, let's call him the Democratic presidential hopeful. I like the last word. Especially when pronounced with a stress in the last syllable and accompanied by a look toward the golden gates of heaven. Like a saint homeward bound. I like the word because it takes the oration of Demosthenes, the wisdom of Solomon, the insight of Hecate, and the hand of Maradonna, sorry, the ‘hand of God,' to remove an incumbent.

But what is electability? That is not an easy question. It is like asking: What is ‘weapon of mass destruction?' Or what is ‘undisclosed secret location?' The lexicographers haven't added those to the dictionary yet. But just in case you can't wait, I will give you references. For ‘weapon of mass destruction,' ask George Bush. For ‘undisclosed secret location,' find out from the vee pee, Dick Cheney. (Or has he been fired?) We will also hear political statements like these: "I stand on the ground and say that I will not raise taxes" (as if he was suspended 1,000 feet in the air or 1,000 fathoms beneath the Atlantic Ocean). "The greatest challenge facing the world in this century is terrorism" (that means it is not a problem, only a challenge). "If elected, I will wipe out reverse discrimination in America" (which discrimination is inverse?)

Now, what is this new comer, electability? They say that electability means those sterling leadership qualities which endears the candidate to the electorate making it possible for him to win an election. So, Bush is a candidate. And Kerry is one too. But electability (hence E) is not a contestant. E is leadership quality; so E is the beautiful bride that Bush and Kerry badly need.

But beautiful brides are so elusive and it can also be dangerous to marry one. It used to be the practice many years ago in one continent for the strongest men to marry the beautiful brides. No brains were needed then, just physical power. Suitors therefore wrestled with one another, climbed baobab trees and swarm across crocodile and hippopotamus-infested rivers because they wanted to marry wives. Only one suitor—the strongest man—won the bride in the end.

In one of such contests, a dozen suitors were asked to break the strongest iroko wood with an ax in front of the beautiful bride, her parents and an immense crowd. The suitors sweated and bleed for seven days. Six of the men gave up. But one—the most muscular and much enduring of them all—finally broke the log. And just in that instant a male and female boa came out of the wood, chased everybody away and returned to the split wood which gently closed the snakes inside and sealed itself again. The mysterious story was told to many unborn generations. That ended the physical fitness requirement for marriage. Because men are men and women are women. The E word does not matter. The strong man, however, married the beautiful bride. And boa the snake became the god of the people.

But back to the U.S election. Who is a better candidate? Bush or Kerry? Who stands a better chance of being elected?

Election is an uncertain business. Like breaking a wooden trunk inhabited by snakes. Forget the polls. Things may go wrong. Back in the days, when men knew nothing about the sphericity of the earth, U.S. cartographers dreaded sailing the oceans. So they would point their fingers across the seas and say to one another: "There be monsters!" The sailors meant that anything goes in the high seas. They may even have thought that literal monsters and their fellow dragons were performing what Gogol delights doing on land: rampaging the oceans. And the heart-in-the-mouth sailors couldn't play Odysseus, who successfully sailed the devil-may-care whirlpool of Scylla and Charybdis by clinging tenaciously on a floating piece of wood. All hail the aged Greek hero! (Who says it didn't happen?) So it is in an election: A risky adventure.

But what makes a candidate win an election? The first thing is issues. And what are the matters at the hearts of American voters? Security and terrorism, education, jobs and economy, healthcare and medicare prescription drugs. Others are Social Security and veteran benefits, taxes, abortion, discrimination, gay rights, pollution and the future of the children. We are to imagine that the candidate that will better articulate his view on these issues will carry the day. But not so. Therein lies the difficulty in explaining the meaning of the mighty E word.

This is because other seemingly insignificant things matter in an election. For example, the candidate will learn how to smile from ear to ear like a beauty queen. Not like the mirthless Bob Dole. But like Bill Clinton. Also the candidate will know how to pump the air and shake hands, especially the hands of women. (One former president shook so many hands that his right hand ended up in a bandage and he continued shaking with his left.) See what I mean?

The candidate should also be photogenic and sociable. Like appearing in music concerts—with a neck hankie and strumming a guitar. Or playing the sexaphone. (Sorry, I mean the musical instrument invented by Adolphe Sax.) Right! The saxophone. And then the gals will vote for ya. And jig 'God Bless America' with ya at the Inauguaral Ball. So you see that the meaning of electability is not the meaning. (Therefore E is not E.) For if you can fix all the political, economic, social, health and environmental problems of America, but cannot manage a Mona Lisa smile, shake hands, or play a musical instrument, you are a long shot from the White House.

And that's not all. For even if you are riding high in the polls, things can still go awry. Consider a possible terrorist strike. It changed a government in Spain. Americans have been warned of a coming one. Or of several attacks. There is even talk of changing the November election date because of the threat.

On top of this, the other candidate may start a rumor about your personal or service record? Or that you are desperately trying to pay hush money to your several girlfriends. Or, that your wife is threatening to divorce you on grounds of adultery. Or, worse, that you have been down on your hands and knees beseeching her not to do so. And they actually publish a doctored picture of yours in a kneeling position with upraised hands on the front page of ‘N.Y. Times' or ‘U.S.A Today.' If the rumor starts in late October, it would have been too late for you to set up your damage control mechanism before the ‘D day' in early November. End of a dream.

But even on the election date, the E word can work in your favor. Let's say that your brother happens to be the governor of a decisive state that begins with the F word. He can, with sleight of hand, make an E from the tail end of the F to give you victory. That is why this new word is very difficult to define. Because the first letter is actually as amorphous as the one-celled Amoeba. Whichever way you shape it, is the right one.

And as November draws near, the election will reach fever pitch. There will be name calling, double speak and even dodging of issues. Some Americans would pray for the continuation of the status quo, while others would wish for ‘change.' If only the change would rid the world of terrorism. But I don't see that coming. There is a French word which when rendered in English means "the more things change, the more they remain the same." History has proved that to be true.

In the end, one candidate will win and the other will go home. Like the game of musical chairs, the chairs are more than the players running around the chairs. Those who don't find chairs to sit when the music stops, lose out. And wait for the next round of music.

Talking of music, there are few languages in the world that are as musical as French. The French have a saying: "Que le meilleur candidat gagne." (Pronounced "ke le meyer candida gagn.") See the music in the sound? Translation: May the 'better' candidate win!"

Arthur Zulu is an editor, book reviewer, and author of the writing handbook, HOW TO WRITE A BESTSELLER and CHASING SHADOWS!, a book that reveals the terrorists' master plan to finally set the world on fire!
Goto:
http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/21013
For his works and FREE articles, use the search engines and search 'ARTHUR ZULU.'
For contacts, mailto: mostcontroversialwriter@yahoo.com