Wesley Clark Being There
In Jerzy Kosinski's novel, Being There, vacuous statements made by a retarded gardener called Chauncey Gardiner get taken as profound insights by the rich and powerful around him. Is Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark the Chauncey Gardiner of 2004?
Consider this Chauncey Gardiner-like vacuity uttered by Clark at last week's debate among Democratic Presidential candidates: "I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I am pro-environment, pro-health. I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort."
Ambiguous blather! As if anyone is pro-disease or anti-environment. What about the hard voter losing questions? What about parental notification of parents of minors seeking abortions? What about minority quotas in college admissions or company hiring? Does he favor oil exploration in Alaska? Does he want to socialize medical care in America? What does engaging with allies mean? Who's against engaging with allies anyway and who wants to use force as a first resort?
Clark utters meaningless bromides and gets a boost in his poll numbers. Why? Like Chauncey Gardiner, Clark is an empty vessel and as such Democrats can project any of their fantasies and hopes onto him. I am not saying that Clark is retarded; he is a very accomplished man. However, Clark evidently believes like almost all other professional politicians and their spinmeisters that the only way to get elected in 21st century America is to act like Chauncey Gardiner and make a lot of pretty noises, but say nothing. I fear that they could be right.