If you take a look at the individuals most presidential candidates have
chosen to “advise” them, you can begin to understand why little
is likely to change politically in this country, regardless of who wins the
election next year.

Vice President Al Gore has chosen the very flaky radical feminist Naomi
Wolf. Writing in Salon yesterday, columnist Camille Paglia said one of her readers sums up Wolf’s
“qualifications” nicely: “Naomi is perfect for Al Gore. She plays directly
to the core of what the Democratic Party has become: a haven for the loose
left-hand thread nuts in the great American Machine.” Says Paglia, “I’m
pleased with the way the Wolf brand of me-first, upper-middle-class, Rolodex
feminism has been exposed for its preening sense of privilege and
entitlement. Wolf’s career has in fact always benefited from backstage
connections, covered up by feminist sympathizers in the media who seem
finally to have turned on her.”

Sen. Bill Bradley isn’t doing much better. He has chosen a black activist
named Cornel West. According to columnist Jacob Wiesberg writing in
yesterday’s Slate
98 Magazine, “It doesn’t trouble me at all that West is advising Bradley. In
fact, it makes me respect Bradley, for openly engaging a self-described
socialist who may prove a big political liability to his campaign, mainly
because he finds him insightful and stimulating.”

Then there is the new “advisor” to the Buchanan-Reform campaign, another
longtime ally and advocate of socialist and feminist ideology, Lenora
Fulani. As someone who disguises her lust for Marxist-Leninist ideology by
calling herself a ”
” she could not be more wrong for
Buchanan’s candidacy and could not reflect more poorly on the values he has
routinely maintained in 40 years of political life.

So what are these presidential hopefuls doing? Every one of them seems
committed to “including” in their campaigns and — one would surmise in their
prospective presidential administrations as well — the worst elements of a
free constitutional republic. Why would these people, who speak swimmingly
of “freedom” and “democracy,” “liberty” and “rights,” be willing to submit
their candidacies to committed socialists?

Furthermore, in each of these “advisors,” where is the so-called “link”
to mainstream America? Each of them purport to have their finger on the
“pulse” of the nation, yet a peek into their backgrounds defies that logic.

For example, each of them comes from Ivy League educational backgrounds
noted for unrealistically socialist/leftist ideologies. The names of
Harvard and Yale come up, as well as the term, “Rhodes Scholar” (although
none of them actually completed this Oxford training). In all cases their
personal politics are so far to the left as to scare even committed
Democrats and liberals. In all cases their political and social agendas
consistently score in the low teens in poll after poll across America.

So what are they doing in these campaigns? Even Clinton, a committed
socialist, has not been successful politically until he either moved to the
center or right-of-center.

The political process in this country has been so bastardized over the
last 100 years that indeed it has become an entity in and of itself. Those
who engage in the political process do so largely for their own
gratification or self-promotion; rarely do Americans encounter a politician
who “genuinely cares about his country and his constituency.”

Deals are cut, money is raised and spent, and all the while the biggest
loser is the ordinary American citizen. Lawyers, lobbyists, and so-called
“special interest groups” (their title ought to be a tip-off itself) make
the real deals while voters are constantly left out of the equation. Maybe
that’s why more and more voters are removing themselves completely from the
electoral process; they have seen the light and have realized the futility
of voting.

But one of the biggest reasons why all of this is occurring is because
those who would be king surround themselves with some of the wackiest,
politically far-flung losers ever to walk the face of this planet. You cannot
“connect” to the average voter (or non-voter). Always
connect with the tiny minority of people who see the same
utopian fantasies these “advisors” see but that’s about it.

So why “bring these people on board?” Exactly.

There is no good reason for it. Political expediency — the
perception that doing certain things or acting certain ways just to garner
more votes — is flawed to begin with. It is artificial and disingenuous.

Why hole up in some dark campaign office and “strategize” with “advisors”
who haven’t mingled with “real” people in decades? If a presidential
candidate really wants to find out where the rubber meets the road,
he or she could do with a lot fewer “advisors” and hit the road themselves.

Forget “staging” town hall meetings, with pre-selected audiences and
pre-ordained questions. Forget “baby-kissing” photo ops or showing up in an
urban public school first grade class. Everybody knows those shows are

If you want to be the leader of the free world, then perhaps you should
sit your butt down in local city council meetings or PTA meetings or show up
for church seminars and services. Maybe you ought to be attending Little
League baseball games or going to VFW Halls or community picnics instead.

Maybe you should do some of these things without extending your hand for
a political donation. People in this country understand your need to raise
money for your campaign, but leaving donation brochures behind or just plain
showing up somewhere for free sometimes would be better than charging people
just to eat in the same room with you. You can do that too, but do you have
to do that every single time you go out in public?

Think about that for a moment — how many “average Americans” can afford
to plop down a thousand bucks a plate for warmed-over beef or chicken? If
those are the only “crowds” you ever speak to, how in hell can you claim you
or your “advisors” have your finger on the “pulse of America?”

At the same time, candidates, ask yourself how many voters are
really as ideologically similar as your campaign “advisors?” Is
sacrificing the fabric of every principle you ever believed worth (at most)
a few thousand voters?

Wanting to “reach out” to all Americans is one thing, but have you
ever thought that the reason America is so politically bankrupt these days
is because of your apparent disconnect with those who would be governed?

Americans should not allow the 2000 presidential election to be handled
in the same slick, fast food and cookie-cutter manner past elections have
been handled. That’s how this huge voter-candidate disconnect was created
in the first place.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.