Last January, I had a sort of dream wish.  It sounds naïve now, but I was actually looking forward to the (then) upcoming primaries and thinking that we might actually have a presidential election that would focus on substance instead of style in the discourse.  I saw the ten Democratic candidates vying for the nomination as a good sign.  Even though they were all from the same party, they represented a fairly wide variety of views.

From the anti-war Dean to the hawkish Lieberman, we had the opportunity to have a great debate on how to proceed with the War on Terror.  From the moderate Edwards to the more liberal Kucinich, we had a chance to have solid discussions about how to best serve the domestic needs of the nation.  With the inclusion of such a diverse group of candidates, the Democratic Party was poised to have a season of honest disagreements that would last well into late spring.  The best and brightest ideas would rise to the top, and each candidate would sharpen the next, producing impressive and challenging ideas in an election year.

Don’t laugh yet, because the next part is really funny.

I further dreamed that whoever emerged from this process would have taken all of that wisdom and fashioned it into a solid, pragmatic Democratic platform, something that would bring formidable opposition to the Bush administration.  Before the reader (especially my dad) labels me as a lefty, let me hasten to add that in my dream this would be good for the Republicans as well.  With such a strong opponent, Bush and his advisors would have to come up with their own solid and pragmatic GOP platform—something that would provide real competition in the general election for the hearts and minds of the American people.  In the fall, as the debates unfolded, the standards and expectations would be so high that both candidates would push each other to greater ideological heights, and the people would finally have a real choice between the greater of two equals and not the lesser of two evils.

My beautiful dream was abruptly ended with the piercing “Yeaaaaghh!” of Howard Dean’s Iowa Caucus Eve speech.  That was when Kerry surprised most of us by steamrolling his way to the Democratic Party nomination, eliminating his competition, jackass by jackass, by March.  Early March. 

Don’t get me wrong.  The fact that Kerry got the nomination isn’t what troubles me.  He’s as capable as any of them.  The problem is that his early lead dashed any hopes I had for real substance in the discourse in this election.  Dean’s bold antiwar rhetoric?  Denied.  Gephardt’s gravitas and experience?  Gone.  Lieberman’s intriguing mixture of pro-war conservatism and social liberalism?  Left the building.  Even Edwards’ enormously effective “Two Americas” stump speech was only to be dragged out for the convention and then put back in its case.  Most of the ideas from the other nine candidates were quickly swept aside, and Kerry’s main positions went largely unchallenged as the summer approached.

And the discourse?  At its heart, it’s the same predictable and empty rhetoric we’ve heard for years.  The conventions came and went; neither party embarrassed themselves, though the GOP did a much better job of dropping balloons on cue.  The Democrats managed to avoid being specific about… well, anything for a week, other than that Kerry would do a better job than Bush.  Thanks for clearing that up.  And from Bush we heard the same campaign promises we heard in 2000.  After the conventions, we were treated to weeks of a debate over which man served more honorably during the Vietnam War.  Not the present troubled economy, not the domestic issues that will affect each of our lives, not even the actual war that’s currently (as in right now) going on in Afghanistan and Iraq.  No.  The issues that dominated the airwaves in those weeks were how many bullets Kerry had to dodge to save Jim Rassman or whether Bush’s service in the National Guard was adequate.  Thirty years ago.

As of this writing, the first of the three debates between Kerry and Bush has taken place, with two more to come.  Debate might be too strong a word.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to call the evening a pair of side-by-side stump speeches with a modest light show.  Again, neither candidate made any colossal errors, although the conventional wisdom (with which I agree) is that Kerry won on points.  But in the post-debate analysis, the discussion was more about style than substance.  To quote a favorite song, “straight teeth in your mouth are more important than the words that come out of it.”¹  I’ll watch the Vice Presidential debate, and I’ll watch the other two Presidential debates, but I’m done with my dream wish.  I know I was being unrealistic to expect anything more, but it’s so enticing to think that there could be a concrete discussion by informed and capable candidates with practical solutions to current problems—there I go again. 

The fact is that the two-party system has these flaws in its DNA, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t do anything about it.  And I’m not just talking about voting, though those of us who can do that most certainly should.  I’m talking about really being involved.  I have a new dream.  That’s why it is my great pleasure today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America in 2008.

Stop laughing, I’m serious.  It just so happens that I teach US Government for a living, and I’ve done the research.  It turns out, I’m totally qualified to be President.  Well, I’m not right now, but I will be by 2008.  The US Constitution is very clear about the qualifications.  They are:

1.     You must be 35 years of age to be President.  I’m 31, but if you do the math, you’ll see that in 2008, I’ll be 35.  Just barely.  Which is what leads me to also announce my first campaign slogan:

“Barely Legal.”  I figure I’ll get the dirty old man lobby with that one (and that’s a lot of votes).

2.     You must be born a citizen of the United States.  Check.  I’ve been qualified my whole life.

3.     You must have been a resident of the US for at least 14 years.  I’ve lived here more that twice the required number of years.  See?  I’m overqualified.

That’s the whole list.  I double-checked (teacher’s edition).  You don’t have to have a degree (I have a couple).  You don’t have to have experience in government (I teach it. Beat that, Bush and Kerry).   You don’t have to be particularly intelligent or articulate (Insert your own punchline here).

Of course, that means that Bush and Kerry are also over-qualified, but they don’t have the catchy slogans that I have.  Here’s a few more:

“United We Sit.”  I want unity, but can’t we also be comfortable?  I believe we can do both.

“Paint The White House Black.”  Wouldn’t that look cool?  Hey, do you think they’d still call it the White House, or would it become the Black House?  To avoid copyright infringement, I would probably have to offer the VP slot to former N.W.A. member Ice Cube, but I think that would probably be a good thing, don’t you?  Imagine the top story in the news during a Bartholomee-Cube administration:  “Vice President Cube today praised Congressional leaders for their bipartisan support of the President’s new tax plan, adding “Today I didn't even have to use my A.K.  I got to say it was a good day.”²

I also plan to overhaul the bureaucracy.  The current Cabinet positions are good, but more needs to be done.  If elected, I will appoint the first Secretary of Interior Beverages.  And I think we need a White House Smokesperson.  I would lift the embargo on Cuba in my first hundred days, so the Smokesperson’s job might be very tasty.

I understand that I’m going to need more than clever Cabinet Secretary names and catchy slogans.  You’re probably wondering about my stand on the major issues.  I intend to tell you all of them in great detail, right after the election.  Until then I will be pleasantly vague, especially on controversial issues.  For now, let’s just say that there are things I like about both of the two major parties and things I despise.  As such, I wouldn’t feel right running as a Republican or a Democrat.  Even though third parties have a bad track record, I think that’s what I’m going to have to do.  I still need a name for my party, and I’m open to suggestions.  Since this is going to be a very difficult thing to pull off, I’ve been toying with “The Impossible Dream/Quixotic Party.”  Our mascot would be the Haughty Donkey.  I’d love to hear from you if you have a better idea.   

Also, if Ice Cube doesn’t want the job, I’m going to need a running mate.  I don’t care if you’re Caucasian, African-American, Asian, Hispanic, male or female.  But I’d prefer another person named Russell.  I think the country is ready for an all-Russell ticket. 

I know it’s going to be an uphill battle, but to restore substance to the political discourse is too noble a cause for me to turn away from.  In all seriousness, I want to run, if only to prove how hard it is to do so to my students.  I think we all grew up thinking that anyone could run for President, but of course that isn't true. You have to have lots of money, and I hope my candidacy will at least be good for a laugh, since I’m flat broke.  You can check the pages of Being There for updates on my candidacy, including where to send donations.  I’ll be here.  Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.

1. “Television, The Drug of a Nation” by the Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy.

2. “It Was A Good Day” by Ice Cube.

Comments? Click here to let us know what you think.