Legends of our Times

The world's latest example of a living legend exerts the prowess of his intellectual decision-making in the choices and installations he selects to surround himself with cerebral, practical and experienced individuals, outstanding in their public endeavours, now being elevated to positions of collective political influence and power. President-elect Obama has been steadily drawing people to him, to assist him in the executive administration of the world's single most powerful, and wealthiest country.

He has dedicated himself to fulfilling the promise he held out to the American electorate; that he would undertake to produce for them, a fairer, more empathetic and just society. He would accomplish this new world order - for no one has any doubts that whatever social, political or economic journey the United States embarks upon will impact the rest of the world's fortunes - by advancing an new structure, a new imperative upon that republican democracy.

The critical function of his appointments bespeaks the eventual success of his aspirations on behalf of his fellow Americans. The choices he makes and the directions he takes are of prime importance to the world outside, looking in. And there's an odd, niggling little doubt in the process. Surely, democracy is celebrated for taking its guidance from the people, the population that elects its final, considered choice to represent their interests.

Yet it is a commonplace occurrence for the incoming executive body to be personally selected from among a coterie of individuals, outstanding in their fields of endeavour, be it industrial, academic or professional, or just simply as good and trusted friends of the incoming president, rather than be represented through the electoral process. That seems quite at odds with the precepts and values of a democracy.

President-elect Barak Obama has made his selections through the ranks of elected officials in both the Democratic and Republican parties, but he has also carefully elevated to high public office people in industry, academia, other levels of government, and his own political supporters. That doesn't seem consonant with democracy; rather presenting as an admixture of democratic action wedded to autocratic embellishment of opportunities.

When George W. Bush selected his close cabinet colleagues, he reached into private industry for his Secretary of Defence and his vice-President. As history tells us, upon the assumption of the identification of an "axis of evil" the president turned truth upside down in his determination to invade Iraq. The consequences of that war has materially benefited the bottom-line coffers of armaments and reconstruction and private militia groups his high-ranked officials represented.

Dwight D. Eisenhower knew well of what he spoke when he warned Americans to "beware the military-industrial complex". Enlarged to include compliant government, as a trifecta of questionable purpose resulting in a failed enterprise but an economic windfall for the usual suspects.

There are cultivated categories of public celebratory renown that the public at large renders obeisance toward as superior beings existing in the sea of mediocre talent and aspirations surrounding them. The cult of celebrity, wealth, power; that triad of aspirational achievement standing as the pinnacle of perfection in society. And when one has celebrity and wealth, then there is just the power to be aspired toward. In the case of America's traditional political aristocracy, the convention thrives.

Here is the daughter, now past the half-century mark, invoking the cherished memory of her father, John F. Kennedy, he of "Camelot" fame never quite realized. She has achieved her position in her society through her descent. She has busied herself with the usual do-gooding imperative of the idle rich, in cultural philanthropy. An obligatory social noblesse oblige. Power and public duty adds another dimension entirely to one's lifetime resume and personal legacy.

She wishes now to be acclaimed and elevated to a now-vacant position in the Senate to represent the State of New York; a nice little temporary occupational plum, despite her utter lack of personal political experience. The political dynasties of the Kennedy and Bush families do so very much resemble the banana-republic antics of self-entitlement seen so often in underdeveloped, democratically-challenged countries of the world.

One can only ask, with a modicum of sincerity, how different Caroline Kennedy's resolve to sit in the Senate, as an untried and inexperienced political leader, is from the now infamous debate swirling around Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's attempts to "barter" to the highest bidder, former Senator Barak Obama's Senate seat. In Caroline Kennedy's case old favours are being called in; in that of the Illinois governor's, filthy lucre.

Is there really that much difference? A question of the medium of exchange. The results being similar. What a truly peculiar set of situations and complex undertakings under the guise of a participatory democracy.