Part II

Part I
-----------------------------------------------------------

THE COLLEGE YEARS (part 1: 1985-1987):

For many people, college is a place where you go to "discover" yourself in many different ways. One topic that is often examined is "What Do I Believe?" During these learning years, itÂ’s not uncommon for people to form a core of values that you use later in life to develop a political philosophy. Too often, however, you can easily fall into the trap of going along with what the next guy or gal is doing and assimilate this into oneself. ItÂ’s the "pack" mentality. I think this stems from a need to belong. You form friendships away from home, meeting people from different backgrounds and all of a sudden you find yourself identifying with them.

When I first arrived at college, I didn’t pay much attention to anything political or socio-cultural. At the time, the movement toward political correctness was well under way but I was at a time in my life when I was too disengaged to really notice. I do have a couple of observations as I look back in hindsight. The first was my view of the College Republicans. Unfortunately for me, the ones that I knew personally fit every stereotype I had ever held - clean-cut, neatly dressed, conservative and likely affluent. Although, it was a state school so affluence here is pretty relative. Also, they were jerks. I cannot say for certain to what extent they were inherently jerky or how much of my perception of their jerkiness I put upon them. But at the very least they came off as a little arrogant. I’m sure there were quite a few of them who were articulate, intelligent and all-in-all decent guys but I wasn’t about to investigate. As far as I was concerned they weren’t one of me and I wasn’t one of them – case closed.

There was also a newly formed political action group called ConnPIRG (Connecticut Political Interest Research Group, or something like that). At the time I considered them just a bunch of activists trying to beef up their post-graduation resumes. Go to their website and you will find information on their agenda – all left-wing. You need only to examine their legislative scorecard on CT’s U.S. Senators and Congressman to determine their politics. Endangered Species, energy policy, ANWR drilling, Global Warming, you name it. This is why Republicans in general (and Conservatives in particular) have, in the past, been defined by their opposition rather than defining themselves. The real irony, is that today the liberals are the reactionaries, always opposing reform and offering nothing as an alternative beyond the "status quo".

As I stated, I really didnÂ’t give much thought to politics after the 1984 election until the time approached for the next Presidential cycle. I was less concerned with what I believed than I was with the idea of finding a Jack Kennedy to root for. It was simple: I was a Democrat, there was a Republican in the White House and 1988 was the next big chance to elect "one of us". I identified less with policies and platforms and more with a candidate. And at that moment, the horse that most Democrats were putting their money on was a man from the West, Colorado Senator Gary Hart.

When Hart ran in Â’84, he was clearly just a runner-up trying to build some national name recognition. IÂ’m sure he probably knew whoever ran against Reagan would get stomped. But he also knew that that person would get a tremendous amount of television coverage. Even losing out on the Democratic nomination wasnÂ’t all that big a deal because when Mondale lost, he was the next most recognized national figure in the Party. And ever since the 1950's and Adlai Stevenson, Democrats have a long tradition of kicking the most recent losing candidate to the curb. Hart wasnÂ’t exactly Kennedy, but he was young and he represented a kind of break from the old Humphry-McGovern-Mondale wing of the Party.

I remember reading an issue of The Atlantic that "pre-viewed the possible Presidential candidates that the Democrats would likely field in the 1988 election. I donÂ’t remember a lot of the content but I do remember that there were eight of them that had openly stated that they were interested in the nomination. The article kind of described them as Gary Hart and the seven dwarves (because of their lack of political stature and lack of national exposure).

Yep, Gary Hart was the man and it seemed there was not stopping him all the way to the convention. Then, of course, in the late spring of 1987 he got caught in a tryst with young model Donna Rice. What a disaster. It represented the new environment of reporting that we now lived in. Network news was being threatened by cable and the business had never been so competitive. Thus had begun the era of "gotcha" journalism.

Presidents and Presidential candidates have had adultery in their closets since the founding of the Republic. I’m by no means condoning the action but those were the unwritten rules of conduct. Reporters kept information like that off the front page. But now the rules had changed. And Hart was the first guy to find this out – that all bets were off. He made it even worse for himself by literally daring reporters to try and find any dirt on him. His arrogance and stupidity became is undoing. But to me, at the time, this was unfair. This was a witch-hunt. They were out to get him. Whatever. It’s funny how this knee-jerk reaction would play itself out again in the future.

I distinctly remember how the story played out. I think the newspaper ran the story (with incriminating picture) on a Wednesday. By Thursday evening it was caught in the weekend news cycle and was the hot topic around every form of media. Hart was dead in the water and everyone knew it. A young Bill Clinton was watching very carefully. That Friday afternoon I was in the student union shooting pool with my girlfriend. And over the loudspeaker, the d.j. on the college radio took relish in dedicating the Don Henley song, "Dirty Laundry" to Senator Hart. I hung my head. This could not be happening.

But it did. Two things resulted. I convinced myself that somehow the Republicans were to blame. They must have been behind it. I overlooked Hart’s personal conduct and saw it as an attack on "my guy". In addition, I was hardened in my support of the next Democrat – no matter who he was. This was not because there were so many issues that tied me to the Party – I hadn’t yet developed a deep enough understanding of these issues. No, this had become a case of US versus THEM and, by God, WE were going to win in ’88. It is stunning to see how this has not only become the prevailing attitude among many on the angry left, but how high the intensity has ratched itself up. (to be continued...)

Part IV

Posted by: Gary at 12:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1209 words, total size 7 kb.