|
Edited on Thu Dec-08-05 03:49 PM by KansDem
The post is not to debate guilt or innocence, or to advocate one punishment over another, but to keep in perspective the reality that Mr. Williams’s fate will be determined by a former body-builder turn movie actor.
Now, that is not to say that former body-builders turned movie actors could not review this case and render a thoughtful, well-informed decision. However, I have to wonder about the qualifications in this particular case. Is Arnold Schwarzenegger qualified to make such a decision? What is his education? What is his background? In other words, what has this former body-builder turned movie actor done in the past several decades to prepare him to make this life and death decision?
But before we address that question, let’s ponder some major developments in the past few decades that have given a new meaning to the preparation of public service. A few times in the past we have heard that “so-and-so would make a good public servant because…” and heard reasons that had very little to do with public service. For example, in the early 1980s I attended a San Diego Padres baseball game with a friend. During the course of our conversations, my friend mentioned that Padres player Steve Garvey might have run for congress if marital difficulties hadn’t forced him out of the running (he had been accused of marital infidelity and rumored to have fathered illegitimate children). “Steve Garvey,” I mused, “Why Steve Garvey?” My friend looked at me puzzled (I’m not a baseball fan and certainly not up on San Diego politics), and answered, “Well, people like him…” That’s it. “People like him.” What, if anything, did this have to do with whether or not he would make a good public servant? But it appears “likeability” has become the new standard by which we measure the effectiveness of public service.
It used to be that public servants first really wanted to do just that: serve the public, and had prepared for this career through education and work. For example, I believe the most frequent career choice of members of congress is "lawyer." Say what you will about lawyers, but one can not disagree that lawyers are educated (bachelors degree followed by law degree) and have worked to some degree with the public (unless they go immediately to work as corporate gunslingers). I used to believe the best members of congress were those who had degrees in political science, social sciences, philosophy and the like. They were people who were well-versed in the humanities and history. Essentially, good public servants were those who believed in mankind--believed in its history, endeavors, and aspirations.
That all seemed to change with Ronald Reagan. Movie actor Reagan was simply performing the role of President of the United States. Someone or something else was behind him, giving him his lines and cues. One might argue, however, that at least Reagan had "experience" with labor issues as the head of the Screen Actors Guild--a union--(although I’m sure members of the federal air traffic controllers of 1981 would disagree), and he did start out as a Roosevelt “New Deal” Democrat. But since Reagan we've had actors Sonny Bono ("I got you, babe") and his wife the aerobics instructor, Fred Grandy ("Loveboat") , and Fred Thompson (another movie actor), and others. We've also had athletes Jim Ryun (first high-schooler to run sub-four minute mile), Jack Kemp (football), Bill Bradley (basketball), Jesse Ventura (wrestling) and others. This is not to discount the public-servant worth of those whose primary endeavor was "entertainment," but simply to ask, "We're they elected because of what they knew or rather what they did?" Were they, as my friend put it, "likable?" And was "likeability" the only reason they were elected? Arnold fits into this category, considering the number of California voters who like the Republican because…well, he was simply “Arnold.”
About the time of Reagan came another “desired trait” of public servants: corporatism. How many times have we heard the mantra, usually from a Republican candidate for office, that, “if elected, I’ll run government like a business.” The belief was that intellectuals, who never had to meet a payroll, were ruining government and the American dream. Those who were actually involved in business, whether as a small business owner or CEO, could do a better job of managing the nation’s treasury. Current corporatists include Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush, and we can see how successful their public service has been. Arnold can be included in this group since his rise in California politics seems to be tied in with the Texas-based “Screw Grandma Millie” energy companies who gouged California rate payers with lies about why California’s energy rates had skyrocketed. It appears the energy company’s “settlement” with Arnold’s California of $1.5 billion was much more palatable to the backers of Arnold than the prospect of a $9 billion lawsuit instigated by the previous California administration.
This brings us to Arnold Schwarzenegger, the “public servant.” The muscle-man turned entertainer was elected precisely for that reason--because he was a muscle-man turned actor. Backed by corporations because of his celebrity status and “likeability,” Arnold now holds in his hands the life and death fate of Tookie Williams. What will influence his decision? What is Arnold’s background beyond body building and acting? Has he a proven track record of public service before his stint as California governor? Will his decision be tempered with life experiences? Has he read/studied philosophy and theology (not the neo-Con fascist “Vote for GOP or you go to Hell” kind), and can he assimilate what he has learned? How versed is he regarding the thoughts and writings that shapes and guides the American people and their enlightened form of government?
In short, what will Arnold rely on to make his decision? Will he grab a cigar and go to his special smoking tent constructed just for him as he mulls over this decision, reaching deep inside himself to contemplate his world-view based on decades of education and life’s experiences? Or will he simply pull a Bush and give Mr. Williams the obligatory 15 minutes before heading out the door for the golf course.
edited to add a word.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
