DIARY
MICHAEL KINSLEY ianna Stassinopoulos needs no intro- duction to Spectator readers, who undoubt- edly know by now that in her latest reincar- nation she is the wife of — and, it is said, the brains behind — Michael Huffington, a cerebrally challenged oil heir who is run- ning for the Senate from California (having moved there three years ago from Texas and immediately bought himself a House seat). The American media have had a high old time introducing Arianna to their read- ers and retailing her past lives — her presi- dency of the Cambridge Union, her dubi- ous biographies of Picasso and Callas, her involvement with spiritual gurus. But even the most critical pieces have taken her far too seriously — treating her as an evil genius, rather than the figure of fun she surely is. None so far has fully explored her legendary humiliation of Bernard Levin. Nor have they rediscovered her preposter- ous book of the early 1980s in which she posed as various Greek goddesses. Never- theless, the politicos sense that the Arianna factor is starting to hurt Huffington in his close race against incumbent Diane Fein- stein, and Republicans have been hitting back. Since when, they ask, is a strong, intel- ligent wife a defect in a political candidate? Et tu, Hillary? The point, however, is not that Arianna is clever but that her hubby is stupid — something not even Bill Clinton's worst enemies accuse him of being.
But stupidity does Huffington no apparent harm. It may even help: deadens the sense of irony. One issue in the cam- paign — and this will give you an idea of the state of American politics — has been Huffington's claim to have secured several million dollars of federal subsidy for a bus line in his home district of Santa Barbara. This from a man who, like every Republi- can and most Democrats, is campaigning against 'Washington', and who actually said that the government, in his view, should 'do nothing'. But, in any event, it turns out that Huffington did not get the cash for the Santa Barbara bus line — Feinstein did. Y. es, Huffington voted to insert the grant into an appropriations bill. But then he voted against the bill itself. No contradic- tion, he says. He voted for the grant because he favours the bus line, but voted against the appropriation bill because he's against government spending. See what I mean that it helps to be stupid? It helps, but it's not essential. George Pataki, the Republican who is challenging Governor Mario Cuomo of New York, is another candidate whose greatest strength is that nobody ever heard of him until a few months ago and therefore he can't be branded a 'politician'. Unlike Huffington, he's not an idiot. Like Huffington, though, he pushed (as a state senator) to have vari- ous items of 'pork' for his district included in the state budget, then voted against the budget itself (knowing it would pass) to prove that he's against 'taxing and spend- ing'. It works: Pataki is favoured to win.
In Texas, George Bush's son, 'George W.', is running against that wise old trout, the Democratic incumbent, Ann Richards. Richards is, pathetically, trying to make the case that experience in public service is an advantage rather than otherwise in running a state government. But Bush will have none of it. 'I proudly proclaim I have never held office,' he proclaimed in a debate the other day. 'I have been in the business world all my adult life.' Later in the debate, Richards raised the issue of how successful a businessman Bush really was. But Bush would have none of that, either. 'This busi- ness of trying to diminish my personality based upon my business career is, franldy, astounding to me,' he declared. 'We ought to be discussing .. . ways to make Texas a better place for our children.' Neither his business experience nor his lack of govern- ment experience is fair game, apparently. Bush accused Richards of being 'con- strained by the current ways of doing things in Austin' (the capital of Texas), a local variant on the national theme that Wash- ington is the root of all evil. The reductio ad absurdum of this line of argument may have come in another debate, between the two candidates for senator from Montana, which I stumbled across on the public- affairs television network while channel- surfing the other night. The Democratic challenger (one of the few who actually `An excellent choice, monsieur. There's a 300 per cent mark-up.' might win this year) was being harangued about whether he was capable of represent- ing 'our diverse state', seeing as how he was a 'lawyer from Missoula' (pop. 33,000). The lawyer from Missoula answered defensively that he had spent a lot of time among the clean-living folks in the less corrupt and cosmopolitan areas of the great state of Montana.
Candidates, even long-term incum- bents, are buying television commercials declaring that they possess 'Wisconsin com- mon sense' or 'Maine common sense' or `the highest Hoosier [Indiana] standards'. Republicans treasure footage of their Democratic opponents jogging with Presi- dent Clinton (or actually — using comput- erised photo manipulation — `morphing' into Clinton), who is now, after 22 months of residency here, the very symbol of Wash- ington's out-of-touchness with the solid American values of the rest of the country. Serves Clinton right, in a way, since he used the same demagogic device on George Bush two years ago. Almost all these anti- Washington television commercials are produced, of course, by professional politi- cal consultants right here in Washington, whose reign will outlast Bush and Clinton and all the politicians who have hired them to slam the permanent Washington politi- cal establishment.
The real American value on display in this election is hypocrisy — and I mean that of the voters, not the politicians (well, the voters and the politicians). The voters want lower taxes and smaller government — pro- vided that doesn't include any government benefit they happen to be receiving. They want guaranteed health care — but they don't want to pay any more for it, or be inconvenienced in any way. They want the United States to strut as the world's only remaining superpower and to preen as the great champion of democracy and capital- ism — as long as this can be done with no risk of American blood or treasure. They want 'change' — they're fed up, they're against the 'status quo', they're not going to take it any more, etc. etc. as long as their tranquillity isn't disturbed. No doubt this kind of hypocrisy is an element of democracy throughout the world, but it really does seem worse in America these days. I blame Ronald Reagan, who first addicted Americans to the free lunch in fiscal matters (tax cuts that pay for themselves). Now it's spread to all issues and both parties. Lady Thatcher, for all her faults, relished delivering bad news and never promised alchemy. That was honest conservatism. Why didn't you send us her instead of Arianna?
Previous page
