The assassination of Benazir Bhutto will have repercussions throughout the world, extending to the American presidential race. Those candidates of both parties considered to have foreign policy expertise should certainly benefit the most. In some cases, the beneficial effects are not based on reality. Such is the case with Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose major foreign policy expertise seems to revolve around the fact that she voted in favor of the Iraq War when it seemed the popular thing to do and has since straddled the fence regarding the affair.
For the Republicans, both Giuliani and, especially, John McCain, should stand to benefit the most. The Democratic candidates who should, but probably will not benefit, are Elliot Richardson, Joe Biden, and to a lesser extent Chris Dodd. Nevertheless, they will not, mainly because Hillary Clinton sucks all the oxygen out of the atmosphere. Her major opponents are not candidates of foreign policy expertise, or any other kind, but simply representatives of the hopes for “change”-something the three qualified candidates cannot project, nor hope to.
Yet, Hilary’s chief claim to gravitas remains based on the presumption that she is the wife of Bill Clinton, hence she is his “rightful heir”. That is a very scary thought on a variety of levels.
Benazir Bhutto, while she lived, was herself the beneficiary of a political dynasty, and within a relatively short amount of time, a cult of personality revolved around her. To her supporters, she was the promised hope for change and advancement. To her enemies and detractors, she was the epitome of corruption and scandal. Support for her and opposition to her was fierce, and outwardly projected around the figurehead that was the person, perhaps as much if not more so than the principles she represented.
She was, and is, both revered and reviled.
That is of course the end of any movement. The promise of change and progress soon mires down in entitlement*. That brings us back to Hillary, and to US presidential politics in general. All of our major political figures, not just Hillary, are those with the greatest name recognition. Hillary, supposedly the most admired woman in America, will naturally outshine, both for good and for bad, those second tier politicians who do not have her name recognition, regardless of their qualifications.
Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and Rudy Giuliani, all are beneficiaries of their own cult of personality. The same is true to a lesser extent of John McCain and Fred Thompson. Now added to the list is the meteoric rise of Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. John Edwards is a different story. He benefits from experience in Iowa. He has in place the same political organization as he did in 2004. If not for that, and for his status as the last Democratic Vice-Presidential running mate, he would not even be a contender. He would just be a notch or two in the polls above Dennis Kucinich, whose cult seems based on the prospect of establishing world peace, beginning at the local level, and extending from there to the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and the Klingon Empire. The scary thing about the Democratic Party is, if he was as good looking as Edwards, he would probably be a major contender.
It is interesting to note that the cults of personality vested in most of the Republican candidates-Huckabee being the sole exception-are based on experience. True, there is a cult of personality around Ron Paul, but that seems to be a minor movement. Of course, the same is true for the Thompson forces, at this point. The cult is there and always has been. It just is not, at this point at least, drawing the converts it initially hoped. Interestingly enough, there is no true cult of personality around Mitt Romney, though he is trying desperately to buy one. Unfortunately, for him, his personality cult has followed the same basic formula of his religious one-it is a regional cult that cannot seem to spread very far past its foundation point. Not true of Huckabee, who gains many converts based on dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the others, and the fact that he is, after all, a Southern Baptist minister who is openly Pro-Life. Of all the Republican candidates, in fact, he is the only major contender whose cult of personality is image based.
As for the cults of personality vested in the two major Democratic candidates, they all in fact seem based not on expertise and experience, but on image and perception. The images involved, however, may be all that is necessary to win, in their cases.
That is the bad thing about cults of personality. Sometimes they work out well, while other times they result in tragic consequences. It is really a crapshoot. In the case of Obama, the likely result will be the promise of a change that will never come about to any appreciable degree. In the case of Clinton, however, the result will be much more profound, and likely reveal the futile promise of an expertise based on qualifications that do not exist, wrapped around the vague illusion that she is, if appearances are an indication, some kind of female human.
As for the man of the house, he can only put so much of a smiley face on things. Legally, his role will perhaps be limited to watching in helpless frustration as his much-vaunted legacy comes crashing down in ruins around him, as he fulfills the role of his final destiny-White House Husband. (Of course, it could be worse. If Mitt Romney wins and his wife goes on years later to win the presidency, anti-Mormon wags might well designate Mitt the White House Husband-In-Chief)
The presidency of Hillary Clinton, if it does come about, might well be a perfect example of a cult of personality that is devoid of a personality-at least a pleasant one. As for what her accomplishments might be, only one thing is certain. She will not reverse the earlier rule she established as first lady against tobacco in the White House. Of course, we all know from that experience the wisdom of that old saying “rules are meant to be broken.”
Whoever wins, nevertheless, the fact remains that the victory will be thanks not to a thoughtful consideration of the issues and the qualifications of the candidates, but on that phenomenon that makes one choose a president based on who we would most like to have a beer with, or who we would like to have for a weekend fishing buddy. Issues are important, of course, but almost of secondary importance to all but the most politically adept, or the most devoted partisans. These are the people responsible for building up the myths inherent in the cults of personalities, and who expect the rest of us to follow blindly along. It's caused us a good deal of the problems we now have, and will continue to do so, until we as a people start taking a more active interest in the in-and-outs and goings-on of the behind-the-scenes machinations of the various political machines and their chief beneficiaries. Until such time, democracy will never be any more than a beauty contest at best, a shell game at the worse.
*After I wrote this, it seems now as though Bhutto’s son and brother are slated to become the new heads of the PPP. The dynasty, and cult of personality, lives on for now.
