Notes on Scandals

Well, we are two-thirds of the way through this decade and I finally came upon an appelation that works for this depressing era. It is "Oughties," which I saw in a brief capsule review of a movie in the Los Angeles Times. The term "Oughties" succeeds for several reasons. It scans well, reflects the zeroes of our years, and underscores the absence of anything valuable happening since the turn of the century (save digitial photography and Sudokus).

Here at the beginning of the seventh year of the Oughties we are still mired in the obnoxious conditions established by the two disasters that befell us in 2001--the inauguration of Bush and the terrorist attack. Politically and culturally we are in a clear decline. I have been loathe to continue my ranting because the exercise is depressing, but I have a free hour this afternoon so I thought I'd pinpoint several scandalous developments--or continued situations--that are wrecking the American landscape.

1. Bush's War. I'm surprised that after he announced a new escalation no democratic wag evoked the line from the lately beatified Ronald Reagan--"There you go again!" Okay, everyone except Sean Hannity and a surprisingly quiet Ann Coulter think Bush's "surge" is foolhardy, and after making his upteenth plea for patience and support against all evidence he is learning that his political capital is about where Enron's financial capital is. He is further handicapped by the fact that the war is now a political liability that none of his Democratic opponents or Republican lapdogs can tolerate it with a Presidential race looming. Okay, McCain has backtracked, seeing this as the way to retain the 30% conservative support of the Administration. The problem, as I see it, is not the surge per se, which can possibly work in the short run, but that the end game continues to be ignored. Even if the extra troops manage to squelch some of the insurgency for a while, they would need permanent occupancy to keep it under control. We are reviled in this country and everyone including Maliki probably wants us out. It is generally hoped that we will eventually withdraw our troops, but internecine chaos will ensue whenever that happens. Bush simply wants that to be after he's out of office, so the shame of surrender falls upon the shoulders of McCain or Hillary or Barack. He does not want to save Iraq; he wants to save face.

2. Donald Trump. One ponders what would have happened had Trump been president instead of Bush (We may get a taste of that if Michael Bloomberg, another billionaire on a power trip, throws his hat into the ring). Trump would never have left Iraq either, as we have learned by the scorn he showed to a recent "Apprentice" candidate who voluntarily dropped out because she did not like living in a tent and being hated by her entourage (which sounds like our embedded troops in Iraq). Trump has his hands full trying to sustain a feud with heavyweight female broadcasting icons like Rosie O'Donnell and Barbara Walters. It hasn't worked because none of these figures engenders much national sympathy. Trump is doing what he can in his publicity "surge" to save "The Apprentice," but its shift to Los Angeles and the bizarre conditions he is imposing on his contestants--I suppose with Mark Burnett's input--are not making his program any more appealing. Nor does his gaudy display of beautiful wife and baby, as well as reliance on his older kids to replace the sagacious George and Carolyn, helping his cause. If there is ever an illustration in Wikipedia for a "vanity production," this show is it.

3. "American Idol" Okay, this could be another Wikipedia sample of a Vanity Production. This bombastic show manages to be a gigantic success and a self-parody at the same time. It is quintessentially Americian, I must confess, in it propagation of the false dream of superstardom that so distorts the ambitions of young aimless Americans. When I was young it was a cliche that every young person could grow up to be president. This laughable idea went to tatters after the murder of JFK and the diminution of the stature of the Presidency in the 70s. But wild ambition found its way into the national consciousness in other forms and other areas. In the ghettoes it became the notion that athletic success would drag one out of poverty. But that idea is a virtual verity compared to the likelihood of becoming rich and happy via the route of rock stardom. Still, 100,000 mostly hapless talentless wannabes flood every American Idol tryout site. To me, the most awesome feat of this program is how they manage to winnow down the contestants in each city to a few dozen occupying the waiting room. How many prejudges are needed to process the mulitude? The mind boggles.

I must confess to be among the millions of viewers who enjoy the train-wreck aspect of the early auditions, however cringeworthy the worst contestants seem to be. The judges are more impatient than ever, and appear rather bored with their tasks. Paula Abdul is currently being lambasted for apparent drunkenness during the auditions and the interviews. Frankly I don't blame her. How does one confront the self-deluded idiocy of tone-deaf uglies without a little pharmaceutical help? The tone of the tryouts has become meaner and more derisive, and so have some of the lamest contestants, who are as mindlessly contemptuous of the judges as they are of the reality of their hopelessness. One contestant yesterday looked aghast as Simon tried to explain to her that the contest was for finding the best singers. She retorted, "But why? Why shouldn't the American Idol be someone who couldn't sing?" An interesting question, if insane.

But then again, why shouldn't we have a President who can't command or legislate or show a tincture of good judgment? Well, we do! Welcome to the Oughties.