Presidential Showdown: "Southern Efficiency" vs. "Northern Charm"?

Tara Taghizadeh

In the 2004 US Presidential Elections, voters are faced with two northerners, but one is posing as an adopted southerner that everyone seems to have forgotten was adopted. Yet the façade of the 'northerner' vs. the 'southerner' and all the implicated strengths and weaknesses of those identities prevails, and history gives 'em each a 50/50 chance of winning.

"This is a town where there are three pastimes: politics, sports, revenge."
-- Lawrence C. Moulter, describing Boston
"If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent Texas and live in Hell."
-- General Philip Sheridan
"Washington is a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm."
-- John F. Kennedy

There are few places that intrigue and intimidate as much as Texas. "Don't mess with Texas", is an oft quoted, partially funny/partially serious saying that warns of the influential powers of this vast stretch of land and the fierce loyalties of its devoted natives. Ya'll are welcome to the family barbeque, but just because you get to wear a cowboy hat for a day and say "Howdy" doesn't mean you're worthy of Lone Star-state status.

So it's odd that President George W. Bush, actually born in Connecticut (though later raised in Texas) to a historically well-known, Eastern-establishment dynasty, successfully managed to fashion himself as the tried-and-true Son of Texas. "Texas envy" is a phrase often attributed to Bush, but somewhere along the line, the envy vanished as Bush realized that despite his Northern roots, Texans had sensed his love for their state, and welcomed him and his good ol' boy brand of politics with open arms to such an extent that he was soon elevated to governor. Not too shabby for a Yank. And the rest, as they say, is history.

In an interview with (March 2003), Michael Lind, author of Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics (Basic Books, December 2002) explained: "Despite its Western trappings, Texas has always been part of the South . . . " Lind then describes Bush as ". . . a genuine Texan in his accent, his mannerisms . . . he is a run-of-mill example of the dominant social type in Texas, the Southern conservative." For God, country, and Texas, eh? (Or should the order be reversed?)

Now, four years after the Texas governor claimed his spot in the Oval Office, he is poised in battle with a real Northerner, the Catholic (though in name only) Democrat from Massachusetts, Sen. John Forbes Kerry, a man frequently dubbed an aloof, wealthy, privileged Boston Brahmin. The real showdown for the presidency is not only between North vs. South, but also, an understated battle between highbrow and lowbrow; Yalie vs. Yalie; and Skull and Bonesman vs. Skull and Bonesman. And there lies the rub.

There has been much ballyhooing in the press as of late about the remarkable similarities between the two candidates. Both come from privileged backgrounds, attended private schools, and headed onto Yale, where both Kerry and Bush were tapped by the exclusive secret society, Skull and Bones, to join its ranks. A 60 Minutes profile (October 2003) about Skull and Bones reported that this ultra-powerful society, "apart from presidents, has included cabinet officers, spies, Supreme Court justices, statesmen . . . It's a social and political network like no other." But what happens when Bonesmen turn on each other?

Yale and Bones aside, Kerry and Bush are as different as night and day. Bush was the happy-go-lucky jock who merely coasted on mediocre grades and his family connections (which, surprisingly, later landed him in the MBA program at Harvard), while Kerry was the awe-inspirer and mesmerizing debater whose serious political ambitions were emerging in his student years. As fate would have it, Kerry was also inevitably haunted by his own initials (which eerily mirror those of a former Northern president). Writing in the New York Times (21 March 2004), John Tierney quotes former Yale student and Kerry acquaintance John Townsend as stating that: "It was obviously very much on his mind that his initials were J.F.K."

Even physical images of Bush and Kerry depict two very different men. Bush's box-like face and surprising bursts of laughter easily portray the down-home, former party boy with few intellectual ambitions who may have put his wild days behind him, but who still likes a good laugh and off-color crack now and then, and isn't quite sure how he managed to end up where he is. The long-faced, serious, articulate Kerry, however, comes across as a statelier, more poised and serious Northern patrician who bears the weight of the world on his shoulders. Bush projects a back-slapping "come on over for a barbeque" demeanor' while Kerry seems to offer a reluctant, albeit formal, invitation for cocktails — only after he's finished solving America's problems, though.

Post-Yale, Kerry took the expected road, suited to his polished upbringing. He fought in Vietnam (garnering medals for bravery), then returned a jaded man who became a serious anti-war opponent, and from there sought a profession in law before paving his road to the Senate. On the flip side, Bush meandered for a long while, and in a bizarre fashion attempted to mirror his father's footsteps. During the war, he was only a member of the Texas National Guard (later receiving an honorable discharge), then tried to make his way in the Texas oil business before turning his attention to politics — giving up drinking and "finding God" along the way.

With only a few months left until the 2004 Presidential Election, the back-and-forth bashing between the two is already in full swing. Bush's team has already painted Kerry as an indecisive "waffler" who has frequently changed his opinion on critical issues, such as the war in Iraq. Another Bush team attack appears to be the frequent use of the "Massachusetts liberal" label, which harks the ghost of Dukakis past. As USA Today reported (17 February 2004), "President Bush's campaign strategists believe 'Massachusetts liberal' is a potent political epithet." In addition, to the "liberal" and "indecisive" tags, they have also punched Kerry where it hurts the most: regarding his Vietnam service, and his 180-degree turnaround after his return from Vietnam.

Kerry has yet to hit back in typical down-and-dirty fashion, but his blatant choices for retort are the current economic woes — mainly the dismal employment situation— and the unavoidable stink rising from the aftermath of the Iraq invasion (other issues will inevitably surface as the election countdown escalates). He also has his admirable war record to go on, which could add a notch for any potential Commander-in-Chief. In another interesting aside, BBC News' Clive Myrie also reported (8 March 2004) that Kerry has expressed that various world leaders have confided in him that they are eager to see Bush step aside. Surprise, surprise. But world approval for Kerry may not necessarily spell victory amongst his own people.

On that note, Kerry's "international" wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, could be either a dealmaker or breaker for the presidential hopeful. Born in Africa to Portuguese parents, she met and married millionaire Republican Senator John Heinz III (of the Heinz ketchup fame), and later inherited his millions when he died. Having married the divorced Kerry in 1995, Teresa has been dubbed as a "wild card" in the press, an often too blunt and say-as-I-please potential first lady who, in a not-too-obvious fashion, mirrors Hillary Rodham Clinton. Also in her forthrightness and strong force in her husband's campaign, and in her international flair, she bears similarity to Jackie Kennedy. [A recent Newsweek story (3 May 2004) questioned: "Is John Kerry's Heiress Wife a Loose Cannon — Or Crazy Like a Fox?"]

In addition, the Kerrys are a family of divorce (and despite the Reagans, whose past histories didn't faze voters), many Americans are still puritanical about this topic and weigh in on a strong family foundation when casting their votes. Kerry's children and stepchildren have all proved supportive so far, but when push comes to shove, the larger-than-life presence of the united Bush clan may prove a tad daunting.

After eight years of Hillary, Americans have grown accustomed to the more sedate Laura Bush, the quiet, behind-the-scenes Texas teacher/librarian with old-fashioned values whose cause célèbre is literacy, and who has largely gained respect for turning around her hard-drinking, aimless husband and putting him on the path where he stands today. Teresa Kerry's Continental panache, isn't as — how shall we say? — "American" as Laura Bush's; a factor which will be met by approval from the international community, but has started to plague the worldly, fluent French-speaking John Kerry (who was educated at Swiss schools) in what was dubbed by The New Yorker (19-26 April issue) as "Kerry's French problem."

However, don't forget what the French connection did for JFK and his wife, Jackie. Given the US' current standing in the world, an international-savvy president could do wonders in restoring American glory, and Kerry should bank on this. But JFK also had a great deal of charm, which Kerry needs to copy from Bush, whose Southern-rooted charm and capability for invoking emotion (e.g., during the 9/11 tragedy) is his strong suit. And Bush needs to recall his commendable moment of 9/11 greatness, and re-evaluate his current "efficiency" — or lack thereof, particularly in the areas of the economy and the Iraq mess — and unfortunate downplaying of intellectual awareness (especially in the diplomatic arena), and borrow some of Kerry's know-how in this regard.

The record for the number of Southern vs. Northern presidents currently stands at around 50-50, so the odds are even. November 4th is only a blink of an eye away, and the inevitable messy political fight is yet to escalate. Gentlemen: Start your engines.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.