PROVIDENCE, R.I., (U-WIRE) — This past summer, I came across a particularly interesting “Larry King Live” on CNN. The guest was Hulk Hogan, and because Hogan had been an idol of mine throughout much of my youth, I felt compelled to watch the program.
King noted that after the surprise victory of Jesse “The Body” — sorry, “The Mind” — Ventura, there had been rumblings that Hogan was contemplating running for president. Was the Hulkster serious? Hogan responded, “I think we could put together a platform of positions that have proved to be popular — the flat tax, for example. That, combined with my popularity from wrestling, could put us over the top.”
In truth, I don’t take Hogan’s comments too seriously. This is, after all, a man who’s crowning achievement was defeating King Kong Bundy in a steel-cage match at Wrestlemania II. And that midsummer interview was the last I’ve heard of Hogan, at least in a political context. But there is something about his statement that strikes me as fundamentally unacceptable and dangerous. Even more disconcerting, it is a view that seems to have grown tremendously in acceptance in my lifetime and seems especially worrisome as the primaries for the 2000 presidential election begin in earnest.
What scares me about Hogan’s comments is that they are missing the “why” or, as George Bush Sr. would have called it, “the vision thing.” Hogan never came close to addressing his reasons for wanting the office. I am forced to conclude, therefore, that the real reason Hogan wants to be president is merely that he could be. As citizens, we should want a leader who has some kind of values, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with him or her. The one thing I do not want is a president who sought the post simply because it seemed cool.
Perhaps I am taking Hulk Hogan too seriously. But it is not only former WWF champions who demonstrate this fundamental lack of purpose. Most of the mainstream candidates for major political offices are completely willing to exchange not just principle but any belief at all for a short-term gain of a few percentage points.
George W. Bush was curiously mute on the question of Pat Buchanan’s jingoistisolationism and anti-Semitism while Herr Buchanan was still a member of the Republican Party. George Jr. tried to be conciliatory, knowing that he needed the lunatic vote that Buchanan controlled within the G.O.P. But once Buchanan bolted to the Reform Party, Bush was suddenly the most ardent Nazi-hunter this side of Simon Weisenthal.
Bush’s counterpart on the Democratic ticket — the other scion of a wealthy, political family who is running for president because it’s his turn — isn’t much better. Al Gore moved his campaign headquarters to Tennessee in the hopes it would bring him back to his roots and get him more in touch with every day people, which must be difficult for a man so extraordinary as to invent the Internet.
The thing I like best about Gore is that you can tell where his next campaign stop is by the outfit he wears — when he has a fund-raiser or another event where he meets with other people who have lots of money, he wears a suit and tie. But when he addresses Common Folk Just Like Him, he wears a button-down work shirt. In preparation for New Hampshire, the man has gone through more flannel than all of Seattle did during the height of Nirvana’s popularity.
But can you blame Gore? He learned from the master, Bill Clinton. My favorite Clinton political moment came during 1996, when he signed a welfare bill that was Draconian and regressive. Among other provisions, it kicked 6 million kids off of food stamps and dramatically reduced aid to legal immigrants (give me your tired, your poor … um, never mind).
Afterward, political pundits hailed it as a Democratic victory, announcing that the Democrats had “taken the issue” away from the Republicans. Basically, the Democrats instituted the Republican policy before the Republicans had a chance to do it. This is sort of like anti-fur activists slaughtering all the animals in a forest so that Lord & Taylor can’t make coats out of them, only it makes even less sense.
And this is what Hulk Hogan’s comments remind me of. Politicians — and we, because we elect them — have become so concerned with minuscule battles that they forget about the overall war. Their entire focus goes toward jockeying for position in the horse race of public opinion, and toward gaining the most political points for one’s party. Any question of why those parties exist in the first place is not only forgotten — it’s seen as nonsensical.
As an active public, we should reject this perverse arrangement. We should vote for those who share our convictions, not for those affiliated with a party that once, long ago, might have shared them. If someone calling herself a Republican ran for president advocating strong increases in funding to education, a woman’s right to choose, the complete and total application of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill to homosexuals, serious gun control and the public flogging of Jesse Helms, I’d cross party lines in a heartbeat.
The complicity of the voting public is the biggest tragedy of all. After all, nobody actually falls for this superficial political showmanship. Nobody really believes that Bush had a sudden change of heart or that Gore is really a down-home country boy. The transparent maneuvering ought to be taken as an insult to our collective intelligence.
But we play the game. When Clinton signed the welfare bill in 1996 he basically dared the left to bolt. Instead, it tripped over itself trying to justify and explain his ever-rightward movements. Pundits point to the fact that the left did not fragment, and the Democrats gained in 1996. The Republicans, on the other hand, were Balkanized by challenges from Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, which split the right. So yes, Democrats “succeeded” in 1996. But they did so by implementing a conservative agenda. The Democrats have the office, but the Republicans won the election.
Perhaps I’m being something of a Pollyanna. After all, there are good public servants out there who will stand up for their principles. While I disagree with almost everything John McCain says, I at least respect him for telling Buchanan and his racist rhetoric to get the hell out of the party. I admire Bill Bradley for his relatively strong support of gay rights and his commitment to universal health care. I even like Jesse “The Mind,” even if I don’t often share his opinions. He’s stated what he believes in, and he’s made it clear that he isn’t going to shift around to win a vote or two. Oddly enough, it took an interview in Playboy to make me respect the man.
Maybe I’m nostalgic for an era that never existed. Throughout history, there has been partisan carping over everything from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act. For every John Chafee there was not only a Barry Goldwater, but a George Wallace as well. Principled stands are few and far between in American history, and so there seems little point in pinning hopes on a false past.
Our generation has a chance to radically redefine the way that politics is conducted. We can present alternatives, we can communicate with each other, and we can reject the same old superficial, transparent, recycled bullshit that the Democrats and the Republicans keep trying to force down our throats. If in the year 2000 we elect a president who is simply going to play to the polls, then we might as well completely revamp the government and rule by plebiscite.
We need a leader who will lead, who will grab the bully pulpit and shout above the chaos, who will be, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “not a taker of consensus, but a molder of consensus.” We need someone who will coax, cajole and kick this country into his or her particular vision until that vision no longer fits, and then we’ll find a new leader. We need someone who will stand up and say, “This is who I am, this is what I believe, take me or leave me.” And until we demand that, we will hold ourselves hostage to the utterly unimportant questions about what type of shirt Al Gore wore today.

Art Samuels’ column originally appeared in Friday’s Brown University paper, the Brown Daily Herald.