Madam and Gentlemen:

I don’t really like (or dislike, for that matter) any of you. Not because none of you are likeable, mind you. For all I know, you may be totally sociable, outgoing, and amicable, folks one wouldn’t mind having a few drinks and laughs with.

I’ve never really seen or heard any of you, is all. You keep hiding behind your image makers. Your answers to reporters’ questions are composed of fragments of your speech writers’ scribbling. It isn’t your fault. Not at all. All of it is, naturally, part of the political game you all are engaged in. I understand.

Nevertheless, the game should change a little from time to time lest your voters should start getting bored with it. I’m going to let you in on a secret here. Listen. Today, most voters ARE bored with it. Totally. It has become tedious.

Let me share another secret (shh! Don’t let it get around). Any candidate imaginative enough to bend the rules of the game even just a little bit would probably win the election.

A dose of truth can be good now and then. Seriously. Plain English wouldn’t hurt, either.

You get to be on TV now and then, which is good. You got that part right. Folks should remember who you are in order to vote for you come election time. The rest of it, however, is a disaster. Really. Let me give you a couple of examples.

Not too long ago, Sen. Barack Obama was interviewed by a couple of folks, and here’s one of the “questions” they posed to him:

Bill Maher: Sen. Obama, we've heard a lot of talk about Democrats courting the Christian evangelical vote. You yourself are running as a candidate of faith, and you've said many times that progressives must take the views of religious right seriously. If the Ten Commandments constitute our greatest source of morality, why is it there are no commandments saying do not rape, do not torture, or do not commit incest, yet there are commandments against swearing, working on Sunday, and making statues to other gods?

In plain English, Bill Maher’s question would have been, “How come there aren’t any commandments against rape, torture, and incest?”

Here’s what Senator Obama actually said (I’m not kidding):

Well, you know, I love Bill Maher, and he—I think rightly he points out some of the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of people who mix religion and politics sometimes. I have said it's important for Democrats to reach out to the faith community, and the reason is because 90 percent of Americans believe in God. It's a source of values. It's a source of their moral compass. And I know it's a source of strength for me and my family. And the way to do it, though, is to understand that, No. 1, people who are religious don't have a monopoly on morality, so they've got to be careful about being sanctimonious. No. 2 is that whatever values may be religiously motivated, if you're in the public square, if you're involved in politics, I think you have to translate those moral precepts into something universal that people of different faiths or no faith at all can debate and argue and hopefully at some point come to a consensus. I think the mistake that's been made with respect to the religious right is a literalism that is so rigid that it does not allow for the possibility of somebody of a different faith or nonbeliever to engage in a dialogue. And on the other hand, I think it's important for us not to presume that faith has no part in the public square. Look, Martin Luther King, the abolitionists, the suffragettes. We have a long history of reform movements being grounded in that sense often religiously expressed that we have to extend beyond ourselves and our individual immediate self-interests to think about something larger.

Excuse me? … What did he say? Did you get any of it?

Hmm … What was the question again? … Wait a minute! Whoa, whoa!

Let’s back up a little. The question was, why aren’t there any Commandments addressing rape, torture, and incest. Correct? In his answer, the Senator made the following points:

1. He loves Bill Maher (the fellow who asked the question).
2. Folks who mix religion and politics are hypocrites prone to inconsistencies (James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, and the like, I suppose).
3. It is important for the Democratic Party to get believers on its side, since 90 percent of Americans are believers (hmm … no other reason, Mr. Obama? I thought you said you were a Christian?)
4. The fact that 90 percent of Americans believe in God is a source of values (whatever that means).
5. The fact that 90 percent of Americans believe in God is a SOURCE of THEIR moral compass. (The ambiguity of the statement aside, compasses … have sources? All those Ivy League years … Sheesh …)
6. People who are religious don’t have a monopoly on morality.
7. People who are religious must be careful.

And so forth. Should I remind you again? I think I will! The question was, why aren’t there any Commandments against rape, torture, and incest.

Goodness gracious.

I mean, it would be silly to even suspect that Senator Obama is a total moron. He very obviously isn’t.

He says he’s a Christian. I assume he has read the Bible at least once. Right?

Here’s what he could have said:

You’re wrong, Bill. Apart from the fact that rape and incest are forms of adultery, which is specifically addressed in the Seventh Commandment, there ARE Commandments against rape, torture, and incest, Bill. For instance, if you read Matthew, you will find the following lines in Chapter 19: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. And a second is like unto it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

And even before Chapter 19, there is Chapter 7, where it says, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Insisting that what I just quoted to you does not really cover rape, torture, and incest is a pharisaic, i.e. extremely hypocritical, thing to do, Bill.

Bill Maher would have gotten pissed, but you know what? That answer would have instantly made the headlines. Not answering an interviewer’s question, evading it, etc, is, on the other hand, so common these days that no one really pays attention to it anymore; everyone just assumes that all politicians (including you, Madam and Gentlemen) are liars and hypocrites.

Let us take a peek on the other side of the barricades, so to speak. Here’s a question an interviewer posed to Rudolph Giuliani:

Do you think the Bush administration's strategy in diplomacy has been adequate to addressing the potential threat from Iran?

In normal English, this means:

Do you think President Bush can talk Iran’s government out of going nuclear without bombing them?

Giuliani’s answer was:

I think that we all have to make--maybe you don't, because you get leaks that I don't get--but you have to make certain assumptions. Publicly, I don't mind their position. I probably would prefer somewhat stronger language. What I really want to know is what's the bottom line--and I don't know the answer to that. I have a suspicion of what it is, but it really comes from my intuition. I think President Bush believes the same things I just said.

The points Giuliani made in his “answer” are as follows.

1. We have to make assumptions.
2. In public, he (Giuliani) likes to say he’s okay with the way George W. Bush is trying to talk Iran out of going nuclear. (Meaning, I suppose, that his PRIVATE opinion on the matter is somewhat different, but that’s none of the voters’ business).
3. He would “probably” like George W. Bush and his team to be rude to Iran. Like, “Get a grip, you dumb assholes! What are you all, nuts? Cut it out right now! Shit! What’s your problem, yo?”
4. He really wants to know what the bottom line is (the question, let me remind you, was not about what Rudolph Giuliani wants, or does not want, to know).
5. He thinks President Bush believes in the same things he (Giuliani) just said.

You’re kidding, right? …

So, does Rudolph Giuliani think President Bush can talk Iran’s government out of going nuclear without bombing them? We don’t know.

And so forth.

Not too long ago, a very pretty, very innocent girl participating in a pageant was asked why, in her opinion, so many American students could not find their own country on the world map. Her answer fell in the exact same category as our candidates’ answers to interviewers’ questions. Instead of answering the question, she started talking about poor countries where children could not afford education, etc. We couldn’t stop laughing. We, your voters, Madam and Gentlemen, could not stop laughing. We are not as dumb as some folks think. Eventually we will see the parallel. Do you really wish to be laughed at? Or do your plans for the immediate future still include being taken seriously?

I have no idea how well informed you are, Madam and Gentlemen. Let me just share with you what I know, and what anyone out there who is REALLY interested knows only too well:

The world is on the brink of two major crises, namely, an ecological crisis and an energy crisis. The two can be summed up as follows:

1. Human activity (burning fossil fuels, mostly) has destabilized the planet’s climate.
2. We are running out of oil, and the PROPOSED alternative energy sources are a joke.

There is a way to get out of both crises and restructure and restart our sclerotic, oil-subsidized, anti-enterprise, counterproductive, non-manufacturing economy at the same time. If we could quickly and efficiently phase out the private automobile and re-create our once-glorious rail infrastructure, we’d be fine – in the long run, in the short run, in the run of any length (and the terrorists would not be able to get anymore weapons, American or Russian-made, in exchange for oil, so THAT problem would go away too). No one would have to suffer; on the contrary, switching to trains as a principle means of transportation, freight and passenger, would create an unprecedented economic boom (and Pittsburgh would rise from the ashes: new train tracks require a lot of steel; and the failing automobile companies would quickly find that products that require train tracks are far more profitable in today’s business climate than products requiring paved roads; and the Federal Government would suddenly discover that train tracks are easier and much cheaper to maintain than interstate highways). Any candidate capable of explaining this clearly and coherently to the public would be an automatic winner come election time.

Just a thought.

Sincerely,
Ruggero T. Ricordi
Mighty Niche Books