Did anyone ever see The Madness of King George? I remember driving out to Shirlington to watch the movie with some friends back in the day. A great movie, and the king's madness was played for laughs, which is a safe thing to do 200 years down the line. However, at the time, England was embroiled in several of its protracted wars with France and of course the American Revolution took place. The loss of the colonies was said to affect the king's mind rather poorly.
A ruler's mental state is of course of great concern to the people, especially during trying times. After all, if the leader of a nation loses his or her grip on reality, then there's little telling what might happen, as the leader continues on his or her voyage through fantasyland, immune to counsel and re-assessment.
Coincidentally, I opened up the Post today and on the front page the headline tells me, "Bush Still Upbeat on Outcome in Iraq." Part of me of course thinks, well what else could he say? The Commander-in-Chief is hardly going to make a public statement indicating that he's down on a war he started. However, another part of me feels that Bush really does believe in those rose-colored scenarios in which the Iraqi people will soon be strewing flowers at US soldiers' feet, if only they could get their hands on some flowers.
Under King George the Third's rule, the writ of Habeus Corpus was suspended. It was all done legally, through Parliament, and the end result was the imprisonment of those who questioned the power of the king. A cowed legislature had basically hoisted themselves on their own petards (for history buffs out there, I realize I'm simplifying in that PM William Pitt actually introduced the suspension of habeus corpus etc).
Now, in a classic case of "if at first you don't succeed, try try again," Bush is contemplating launching a third war. In education circles, it's called "mastery learning," however it's often conducted under controlled conditions and without killing thousands of people.
England, unfortunately for them, had to suffer their king for another three decades following the American Revolution, before he more or less became too insane to rule in 1811. Luckily for us, we have elections in 2006 and 2008 that can do much to limit our own leader's follies. I'd like to say that we should be hopeful, but I certainly recall in 2004 believing that one could run a doorknob against George Bush the Second and win, given his lies, incompetence, and downright idiocy. Democracy is no guarantee of wisdom.
2 comments:
First, from a diehard U2 fan, nice title.
Second, I think the best hope we have is for both parties to come up with qualified candidates. I'd like for once to feel that I'm voting for someone instead of against someone.
Damn, you got me to make a political comment, that does not happen very often.
So smart. So interesting. That's why I keep coming back.
Post a Comment