By Robert O. Milieu

Volume 1, Issue 1, Page 5 (November 1988)

Salutations! Do you know where I got the word “salutations” from? I got it from the children’s book, Charlotte’s Web. The reason that I bring this up in a political viewpoints article is that my favorite facet of Charlotte’s Web is that it doesn’t offend anyone. Even though there is conflict and tension, and even though it is a great piece of literature, it does not offend anyone. In “The Middle of the Road” I hope every reader will find substantive, stimulating political commentary that does not offend a single one of their sensibilities.

Every four years, the public finds itself faced with the reality of having to elect a new man (or woman; I apologize for any implied discrimination) to the presidency. With every election, there come basic questions about each party’s nominees. Are they well-versed in foreign policy? Where do they stand on tax laws? Have they ever smoked marijuana? With these questions, necessarily, come answers; answers that are sometimes insulting to the public’s sensibilities. The American electorate had nothing but praise for Gary Hart until he was caught with his pants down. While a president’s sexual habits are hardly key to his platform, or indeed to how he performs as a president, the public canceled Hart from their personal ballots before he did. The point is that while Hart in no way weakened his political virility, he weakened his chance to display it because he offended the public’s sensibilities. Apparently, the public thinks that sex is more important than politics. I mean, I don’t intend to impose my views on an entire nation of individuals, people who are quite able to think for themselves. After all, it is our ability to think that gives us the power to join in this great democratic process that we call election! Actually, our participation in this glorious process is somewhat limited by our ability to be eighteen years of age, which should by no means be taken to mean that minors are inferior mentally to legal adults. In fact, I personally know two men who have reached the age of majority that could not out think my refrigerator. Not that I intend to demean either these acquaintances or my refrigerator, you understand.

It has been said that Michael Dukakis is not remotely qualified to hold the office of President of the United States of America. On the other hand, it has also been said that George Bush is not remotely qualified to hold the office of President of the United States of America. So, in the final analysis, who is better suited to run our nation? Mr. Dukakis has a disadvantage in that he is inexperienced in foreign policy. However, this is negated by the fact that his running mate, Senator Lloyd Bentsen, is very experienced in foreign policy. Mr. Bush has been lauded by the media for his many years of experience in the White House, but in the end he holds nothing over Mr. Dukakis because his running mate, J. Danforth Quayle, is a mental fur ball. (Please do not infer that I intend to insult either Mr. Quayle or fur balls; I used them together in the same sentence purely for purposes of comparison.)  My submission is that in the final analysis, Mr. Bush and Mr. Dukakis are both equally qualified or disqualified for the position of President, depending upon whether you are a pessimist or an optimist, which brings me to my final point: freedom of choice is a principle upon which this nation is founded.