Finally!  A New Euphemism!

We’ve had a lively potpourri of sex scandals recently, but none can match the transformative power of the Mark Sanford affair.  Finally, we have a new euphemism for extramarital relations and an artful one at that: “hiking the Appalachian trail.”  For those of you doubting the coolness of this new entry into the American erotic-political vernacular, I offer the following sample conversation between two political insiders.

POLITICAL INSIDER #1: “Have you heard anything from Senator Smith?”

POLITICAL INSIDER #2: “The senator? Not much. But rumor has it, he’s been hiking that old Appalachian trial lately.”

POLITICAL INSIDER #1:  “Well, I’ll be damned!”

POLITICAL INSIDER #2: (snicker)

POLITICAL INSIDER #1: (snicker)

See!  Try it for yourself, and you’ll see how much fun it is.

And then there were two.  And in one week! Who will be the next politician to get hit with ye olde sex scandal?  Personally, I’ve got my fingers crossed for Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and not just because it’d be cool to see a reverse gender scandal.  Also because she’s crazy.

Ah, schadenfreude!

By the way, if you haven’t seen Sanford’s press conference, it’s a doozy.  He actually comes across as vaguely likeable and sincere.  But then he’s a politician.  That’s what he’s supposed to do.

As Edwards, McGreevey, and Clinton go, so goes dear old John Ensign (R-NV).  The Senator who once worked himself up into a froth of self righteousness over President Clinton’s misconduct recently admitted to a 10-month-old affair with a married former campaign staffer, 46-year-old Cynthia Hampton.  Ah, irony!  As my novel (see Amazon link to the right) revolves around the (fake) extramarital affair of a prominent politician, I am all too happy to tackle this delicious topic once again.  Our question of the day: why is it always with a staffer?

Reason #1: Politicians usually don’t hire ugly people
Politicians are image conscious creatures.  So are the people who work for them.  They have to be.  And that is why they will usually hire an attractive person over an equally-qualified unattractive person if given that choice.  I have no proof to back this theory up, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Reason #2: Geography
The first key to having sex is getting a sympathetic person in the same room as you.  For a politician, staffers fulfill this geographic qualification quite nicely — often more effectively than their spouse.

Reason #3: Mixed Signals
Remember the first time you realized that someone had a crush on you?  Your initial reaction may have been something like this: “No wonder they’ve been acting so nice to me!”  Well, guess what?  When you’re the boss, everyone acts nice to you. It’s easy to see how this “niceness” can be misinterpreted as romantic interest.  Incidentally, this can work both ways.  Put yourself inside the brain of a political staffer.  When your entire life revolves around your boss, when your boss’s happiness is your primary concern, when a phone call from your boss is the most important part of your day, more important than the call from your actual spouse, it is easy to imagine how your romantic/platonic wires might get crossed.

Salvation Boulevard

For some time now, I have been an evangelist for Larry Beinhart.  I’ve walked into bookstores to introduce myself, and wound up pitching his books.  The conversation usually starts on the subject of political satire and who actually writes them anymore.  Christopher Buckley’s name is usually mentioned, and then I say something like, “but, who I really like is Larry Beinhart,” which is grammatically incorrect but conveys my message.  If the bookseller is young or inexperienced, the response is usually: “Who is he?”

If you’ve heard about Larry Beinhart, it’s probably because he wrote the novel American Hero, which served as inspiration for the film Wag the Dog (one of the few modern political satires with which most people seem to be familiar).  Beinhart started his career writing mystery novels, and his 1996 guide to the genre entitled How to Write a Mystery, is a useful and highly readable book.

His more recent novels, American Hero, The Librarian, and now Salvation Boulevard mix politics and elements of mystery, borrowing heavily from mystery’s close cousin: the film noir.  These books feature detective-type characters going up against powerful, sinister, and shadowy organizations.  There are conspiracies to uncover and femme fatales to complicate the journey.  Beinhart sets these dark dangerous tales in worlds of political and moral upheaval, using plots ripped from the newspaper stories that never made the front page, the articles you probably didn’t bother to read but should have.

Beinhart is a champion of these lost newspaper stories, and has also written a wonderful non-fiction book on what he calls “fog facts”: facts that are out in the public record but invisible to most of us, like water droplets on a foggy day (Example: Al Gore actually did win more votes than Bush in Florida).   Beinhart has an uncanny ability to get to the crux of a complicated political issue and explain it in a way that strips away all pretense and spin.  In Fog Facts and his editorializing on the Huffington Post, Beinhart is an illuminator and provocateur.

But now to his latest work of fiction: Salvation Boulevard.  I liked it.  It is a straight ahead thriller, more serious in tone than the freewheeling farcical Librarian (my favorite Beinhart novel), and I will confess, I sort of missed the funny stuff.  Salvation Boulevard is the story of Carl Van Wagener, a born-again Christian detective investigating the murder of an atheist college professor.  A Muslim student has confessed to the killing, and Carl’s mega-church is pressuring him to drop the case.  But Carl soon discovers there is more to this murder than meets the eye.

This is a fast read, but it did take a little while to win me over.  The book begins by setting up the imprisonment of a Muslim student named Ahmad and introducing us to his liberal Jewish defense attorney and Carl, the born-again P.I.  We read that Ahmad has been tortured and we immediately draw parallels to Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, etc.  Here’s where I had a little trouble.  Despite Beinhart’s sharp prose, these first few chapters felt black and white to me, setting up a moral conflict that seemed predictable and a protagonist who seemed to lack nuance. As I read those first few chapters, I thought of all those anti-war movies that came out in the fall of 2007; you know, the ones with those ”serious” messages that were easy to understand just from watching the previews.

Fortunately, things soon become more interesting.  The focus shifts from Ahmad, the accused, to Nathaniel MacLeod, the dead philosophy professor, and his theological rival Rev. Paul Plowright, head of the Church of the Third Millenium.  I don’t want to say too much about how this plot unfolds because I don’t want to give anything away, but I will say this: the book becomes very hard put down.  The morality becomes more ambiguous, the pace quickens, and the plot goes in a direction I was not originally expecting.  I breezed through the last half of the book in a couple days.

Salvation Boulevard is a story about faith, religion, and hypocrisy, and like most of Beinhart’s recent work, it is inspired by real life events. His author’s note will send a chill up your spine when you realize just how true to life it is.  Salvation Boulevard is not my favorite Beinhart novel and these characters are not his deepest, but it is still a highly enjoyable read: smart, fast-paced and thought provoking.

Do I recommend it?  Yes.  But whether or not you think Salvation Boulevard is your kind of book, I do hope you take away one thing from this post: if you’ve never read Larry Beinhart before, you are missing out.  The man is a brilliant witer and a personal hero of mine.  So go online, read an article or two, and check out one of his books. You will not be disappointed.

(fyi … if you are a huge Wag the Dog fan and want to check out the book version, be forewarned, it is totally different from the film it inspired.  Both versions are worth checking out, both maintain a similar spirit–but the tone, characters, and pretty much the whole plot are completely different.)

Political satire is a small genre in the book world: so small, in fact, that when most readers are asked to identify a modern practitioner of this dark art, they are hard pressed to come up with a single name, save that of today’s subject: Christopher Buckley.  Mr. Buckley is the author of such works as No Way To Treat A First Lady, Florence Of Arabia, and Thank You For Smoking, and he made headlines this fall for his endorsement of Barack Obama for president (a move that led to his resignation from his columnist post at the National Review).

His latest novel, Supreme Courtship, is an enjoyable read. It will not rock your world, lead you to new heights of ecstasy, or force you to reexamine your view of modern American democracy. To be fair, I don’t think its intentions are so lofty. It will, however, take you on a pleasant journey through a wacky-yet-familiar version of our country, one in which a folksy TV judge becomes the newest Supreme Court Justice and a renegade Congress changes the Constitution to prevent the re-election of an unpopular President.

Without a doubt, the most rewarding element of Supreme Courtship is the character of Pepper Cartwright, the straight-talkin’ wise-crackin’ TV judge who is nominated to a post well beyond her expertise. Released on the heels of Sarah “You Betcha” Palin’s VP nomination, the character of Pepper seems fresh and prescient.

In interviews and in person, Mr. Buckley comes across as a witty jovial chap, and, indeed, this is a witty jovial book. While I confess I only laughed out loud a few times, I did enjoy myself for the entire ride.  The book does not thrill, but it is good fun, something we all need at this time of year.  Is it hard to put down?  Not exactly.  But Supreme Courtship is very pleasant to pick up, and it is a political novel that can be enjoyed by readers on both sides of the aisle.

Here’s the kicker: this actually happened.

An old high school friend forwarded me this article in Backpacker magazine about Congressional candidate Gary Dodds.  I can’t believe this is the first I’ve heard about this ridiculous episode.  Click here to read the unbelievable story.

The one sad note on an otherwise happy day comes from the ballot measure bigotry that has found success in several states across the country.  The passage of Prop 8 in California is a disgrace.  But this battle will continue.  I rest easier knowing that we will soon have a president who can stock the Supreme Court with enlightened justices — the sort who may one day cast the decisive vote in favor of allowing equal access to institutionalized love.  Until then . . .

As usual, I’m cautiously optimistic.  This year, I’m a bit less cautious.

“First off, if you’d read my article yesterday, you’d know that you should always be wary of forwarded e-mail messages.  Now as to as the content of this particular fear-mongering e-mail, here is my response:

I am thrilled that Hamas and Iran and Gaddafi want Barack Obama to be president.  I am thrilled that dangerous Middle Eastern groups see Obama as a potential friend.  This gives us much better leverage in dealing with these groups.  Why?  Several reasons.

1. Problematic Islamic groups are more likely to make concessions or make peace with Obama as a negotiator.  They think he’ll give them the best deal, so they’ll work with him.  It is in their interest to act nice while he’s in office rather than risk dealing with a Republican president whom they distrust.  This gives Obama leverage that McCain will lack.  Now, do you honestly think Obama is going to sell out Israel’s security or our own?  No.  He’s not stupid.  He’s going to work hard for peace and stability according to American terms.  The evil thing about articles like the one you forwarded is that they imply he would do otherwise.  These articles stop short of actually making this accusation because there is NO support for it, but they do everything to imply it, usually with guilt-by-association and flawed enemy-of-my-enemy logic.  Here’s the thing: once you remove this false implication, the “Obama is bad for Israel” naysayers have nothing to stand on.  If he’s not about to sell out Israel or America, then what exactly is this article trying to say?  That he’d be open to the idea of a divided Jerusalem when negotiating peace?  Shouldn’t any U.S. president be open to that option?

2. Obama will weaken terrorist organizations by denying them a recruiting tool.  George W. Bush was Al Qaeda’s dream president. Their goal with 9-11?  It was to provoke an American over-reaction that they could use to grow in strength.  Bin Laden has said as much. Did it work?  You betcha.  GWB played right into Al Qaeda’s hands. Rather than a strategic response that brought the world together united against extremism, he over-reached by invading Iraq, demagoguing about Axes of Evil, and generally being an arrogant bastard.  Islamic extremists (much like Fox news — but that’s another argument) thrive on fear and hate.  They need it to survive.  GWB was so hated by them that he became their dream recruitment tool. Now … if we hand these guys the president they think they want (Obama), what will happen?  Suddenly, recruitment goes down.  How can you stoke the fires of hatred when the U.S. President (a.k.a. “bad guy numero uno”) is suddenly someone you don’t hate as much?
Don’t fool yourself into thinking extremism can be eradicated by dropping the right bomb.  Kill one terrorist and his two brothers join the fight the next day.  It’s about hate*.  Obama can take a little wind out of that sail  McCain, by contrast, has as much or more bluster than GWB, and will fill his role as recruiter-in-chief quite nicely.
(* it’s not just about hate; it’s also about unemployment/poverty/hunger/and lack of economic opportunity, all of which lead citizens to, yes, hate)

3.  Aren’t you appalled by the idea of letting the preferences of our enemies determine who we elect to lead our country?  I am.

4.  Guess who else wants Barack Obama to win this election?  It’s not just dangerous Middle Eastern countries.  It is MOST countries!  Most of the world has figured out what we are too dense to figure out in our own country: that it’s time for a steady, Democratic president who is more prone to diplomacy than bluster.  The rest of the world has watched appalled as GWB has fueled the fires of radicalism and driven our economy into the toilet .  The rest of the world realizes the importance of the U.S. restoring their image internationally.  When Bill Clinton was president, he was one of the most popular leaders in the Middle East and the world.  That was a good thing.  Bush is reviled. That’s a bad thing.  The world loves Obama.  That’s a reason to vote for him.  Not against him.

I hope my ranting did a little to reassure you that a Barack Obama presidency is something to be welcomed and not feared.  I believe strongly that if we let fear drive our decisions, we will only have more things to fear.  That is the history of war and violence.  Fear (both founded and unfounded) is always to blame when man strikes out against his brother.  You may think “hope” is a wishy washy concept, but a candidate who operates from a place of hope is more apt to produce peaceful results than one who operates from a place of fear.

If you find any of what I’ve written to be the least bit persuasive, I hope you’ll forward these words with the same energy you forwarded the ones below.

Happy voting.

Bill

Here it is:

MAYBE YOU SHOULDN’T VOTE

Voting is a skill. It’s like basketball. Not everyone is good at it. Sure, everyone likes to think he or she is a good voter, just like everyone likes to think he or she is attractive and has a sense of humor. Sadly, the numbers do not support these claims. If everyone was a brilliant voter, we would never elect bad leaders, and the last eight years might have turned out quite differently. So this election year, before you step into a voting booth and possibly screw things up for the rest of us, I ask that you take a moment to answer the following questions and determine whether you have the skill and the know-how to vote responsibly for our next president.

1. Do you feel you made a mistake in 2004 when you voted for George W. Bush?
If your answer is yes, then maybe you’re just not good at voting. Every single thing you probably hate about Bush’s second term was either already in evidence during his first term or was a direct result of actions taken during those first four years. The arrogant foreign policy, the massive deficits, the deregulation, the cronyism, the wasteful spending, the endless war, the bad environmental policies–all this was on the table in 2004. In fact, Bush probably made more mistakes in his first term than in his second. But why didn’t that sway your vote when it mattered? Perhaps you were uninformed or perhaps you were misinformed. Perhaps you were fully aware of Bush’s faults but chose to cast your vote on the basis of personality rather than policy. We’ll deal with all of these points in a moment. For now, you should ask yourself this: if I got it totally wrong in 2004, how do I know I won’t get it wrong again in 2008?

2. Do you believe Barack Obama is a Muslim? Do you believe he “pals around with terrorists”? Do you believe John McCain wants us to be at war in Iraq for one hundred years?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, you need to ask yourself where you are getting your information. If you actually believe any of these voluminously debunked claims, your grasp on reality might be looser than you realize, and this could very well make you a bad voter (see next question).

3. Do you believe any of the following to be unbiased and even-handed sources for political news: The Drudge Report, The Huffington Post, Air America, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, or the Fox News Network?
Seriously? There’s nothing wrong with getting your partisan fix, but you need to know the difference between news that attempts to be objective and “news” with an agenda. If you are relying on any of the above as your exclusive source of news, then you are watching the world through a skewed lens, you are hearing only one side of the story, and this doesn’t make you a good voter. Spend a few months varying your media diet, and then maybe you’ll be ready to step into a voting booth.

4. Are your political opinions easily swayed by forwarded e-mails, messages on your answering machine, or frightening campaign commercials?
If yes, you might be a bad voter.

5. Do you vote based on who you feel is the more “patriotic” candidate? Do you worry about having a president who is a member of the “elite?”
These are made up issues, meant to distract you from real things like the economy and foreign policy. If you fall for this stuff, it might be an indicator of poor voting skills. Every president in U.S. history–the good ones and the bad ones–have been both elite and intensely patriotic. McCain and Obama are no exceptions. To ask who loves their country more is akin to asking which candidate is a bigger fan of oxygen. Nobody would ever put him or herself through the public rectal exam that is a modern political campaign without a passionate love of country. As for being a member of the “elite,” just remember that Franklin Roosevelt, who couldn’t be more elite if he bathed in money, was also the president who probably did more for the working man than any in our history. The lesson: these labels don’t matter. If they matter to you, you may not be a good voter.

6. Are you planning to vote a certain way because of Barack Obama’s skin color or Sarah Palin’s gender?
If yes, what century are you living in? Please do not vote.

7. Are you afraid of accidentally electing a socialist president to the White House?
Please reread the responses to questions 2 through 6.

8. Do you want your president to be just like you?
Are you the most brilliant person you know? Are you smart enough and experienced enough to be the sort of president whose face is put on currency? If you are not, then I, for one, do NOT want a president who is just like you. You shouldn’t either. Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Roosevelt were not ordinary men. Good voters vote for extraordinary. Or at least they try.

9. Are you upset because you don’t know where the candidates stand on the major issues? Do you feel there is no real difference between the two candidates?
If you answer yes to either question, you clearly have not been paying attention. Barack Obama and John McCain represent two very different philosophies of government, and if you don’t understand that, please don’t vote. These men have spent the last two years explaining where they plan to take the country. If you still don’t know where they stand, then go online and do some research. If you’re too lazy to figure out the differences between the two candidates, or if you plan on waiting until you are in the voting booth to listen to what your gut tells you, then please do not vote. This election is too important to be left to the mood swings and ignorant guesswork of bad voters like you.

You’ve reached the end of the quiz. Thank you for taking this time for self-examination. Now let’s be honest: How did you do? Are you a good voter or a bad one? If you’ve just discovered that you are a bad voter, do not despair. Remember, not everyone can be good at everything. I, for example, am terrible at bowling. That’s okay. There’s no reason to feel ashamed. And there is an upside too. This year, you don’t need to vote! You are officially absolved of your responsibility. Across the nation, millions of more skilled voters will happily pick up the slack, and we will shatter participation records even without you. So, on November 4th, I ask you to take it easy this time. Please, for the love of your country, stay at home.

[Do you have opinions about what makes a good voter? If you have questions you would add to this quiz, please let me know by leaving a comment. I'll post the best questions soon.]