A Man for the Age

In a little over two years' time, America will go to the polls once more to choose its next president. Of course, this means that Barack Obama's term is not even half-finished, yet it seems that it is already time for the speculation to begin in earnest once more (which reminds me of this). Cast your eye to the right of this article (and possibly up or down a bit) to the blog roll (which always sounds distressingly like "bog roll" to me, but how and ever); chances are you will find something to do with 2012 speculation on the front page of about half of those blogs on any given day. A few examples: Marc Ambinder's brilliant take-off of Bob Woodward's assertion that Hillary Clinton will be Obama's running-mate; Andrew Sullivan's citation of Jonathan Chait with regard to Mitt Romney (admittedly, I chose a bad day to do this: The Spectator and Nick Robinson are rather more concerned with the Conservative party conference). Also this, which speaks for itself, really.

Sadly not.

Probably not a good idea.

With all this in mind, I thought that, in typical WAKE UP fashion, I should put forward my own candidate for the presidency. Choosing the candidate proved a little more problematic. John McClane? Sounds too much like last year's Republican candidate, and more or less devoid of political experience; Hans Gruber would almost be a better choice, if not for the fact that he'd probably rob the country and run away. The Master? Did more than enough damage as Prime Minister of Britain. Alan Shore? A friend suggested him during the 2008 election, but I can't help but think that womaniser Shore would fall at what we might term the Bill Clinton hurdle before the campaign had even properly started. Sarah Palin? I can't even joke about that.

A bit of a wild card.

Good God, no.

After much deliberation, it came to me. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the WAKE UP party's candidate for 2012: Malcolm Reynolds.

A President if ever I saw one.

(Or possibly just Nathan Fillion.)

The reasons for this decision are manifold. The American people, in common with people everywhere, love a good war story. David Cameron, though no hardened military veteran, is skilled at framing his rhetorical points with anecdotes. John Kerry and John McCain both made a great deal out of their experiences in Vietnam during their presidential bids (admittedly, both men were ultimately unsuccessful, but let's not dwell on that). Captain Reynolds ("Mal", as I call him; we're good friends) has plenty of war stories; he can raise a laugh during a debate with his amusing tales of grenades hidden in apples, or hold an audience spellbound with the story of the Battle of Serenity Valley.

Pivoting from this, it should be noted that Mal could make an excellent debater. He has an excellent line in dry wit, especially in verbal sparring with those opposed to him. Take for example his response to an obnoxious drunk's questioning of his loyalty in a bar: "I'm thinking you weren't burdened with an overabundance of education, so why don't we just ignore each other until we go away?" Or his statement when faced with Jayne Cobb's attempt to trade his favourite gun for Mal's new wife: "Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle". Admittedly, he has faltered at times, as in an argument with Cobb: "You want to be captain of this ship?" "Yes!" "Well..... you can't!" The point is made, but, as debating strategies go, this one is on a par with "I agree with Nick".

To take perhaps the most important point, Mal has excellent leadership skills. He is capable of making stirring speeches when necessary, and also of taking prudent action where necessary. He takes a firm but fair line with his crew, which would be excellent if replicated; how great would it be to hear that the Secretary of State was punched in the face for saying something that the President disapproved of? Admittedly, this may happen now, but we're less likely to hear about it; also, I for one wouldn't dare to attack Hillary Clinton.

What of his running-mate? I propose a man (again, I know; my apologies to the other half of the human race) who can complement Reynolds perfectly. In a sense, the two men have had their disagreements, but Mal is not this man's enemy. I am talking about Dr. William Horrible.

Every VP should have an evil laugh.

(Or Neil Patrick Harris. Let us not forget, however, that Fillion is unequivocally superior to NPH.)

The two men would work perfectly together. Mal is a man of the people, which the good doctor really isn't (for all his more or less good intentions); Horrible, meanwhile, has the expertise that Reynolds, though not lacking in intelligence, never gained. The combination of their different geniuses would be nigh-on unstoppable, while their agendas would dovetail to a great extent; after all, it's hard to imagine Mal quibbling with the concept that "the status is... not quo".

So there you have it, friends; WAKE UP's official endorsement for 2012. I firmly believe that Reynolds and Horrible (or possibly Fillion and NPH) can overcome all opposition and take their rightful position at the head of the US government. Let us not forget that Mal is, by his own admission, "okay". Besides, "President Malcolm Reynolds" has a rather nice ring to it; naturally, one of the most important determinants when running for political office is how good one's name sounds.



[A quick note: one of my golden rules for WAKE UP is not to appear to be on any political side. I worry that I may have come close to breaking that with this post; if you feel I did, please let me know. By the nature of my own interests, I can't stay away from politics entirely; I just don't want to seem didactic at all. I don't want to sell an agenda.]