From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:59:12 GMT

In article <nate.1035@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
| 
|     I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here that's developing from 
| Rush's oft-repeated claim that symbolism is more important than substance 
| in the Democratic party. Now when Democrats make symbolic statements (in 
| the same way that Dan Quayle's comments about Murphy Brown were symbolic), 
| it's seen as conclusive proof that Rush is right, but when Democrats make 
| rational decisions based on substance and realism it's seen as proof of 
| hypocrisy. As far as I can see, there's no way for Rush to ever lose in 
| an exchange like that, even in cases like this which I would have said 
| was pretty clear proof that Rush's assertions about Democrats are not 
| universally true.

The point is that the symbols you choose should express the substance 
of your ideals.  If there is _no_ substance underlying the symbolism
then you merely have a media image.  President Reagan used symbolism
well, but the symbolism conformed to those ideals which he held dear.
The choice of an elite school for Miss Clinton is an example of Governor
Clinton saying one thing and doing another.  What then does the President-
elect _really_ value?

| >I do not blame Gov. Clinton, either.  It is hypocrisy that I find
| >objectionable.  The rich and famous Clintons of the world can afford to
| >send their children to private, elite academies, while the middle and
| >lower classes are stuck with the drug- and violence-infested public
| >schools.  
| 
|     I suppose that I find hypocrisy objectionable as well, but I think 
| that I may be seeing hypocrisy in a different area than you. Rush rides 
| Democrats endlessly for being "Symbolism over Substance", but yet in this 
| instance where substance apparently won out over symbolism it seems like 
| you're now saying that Clinton should have been symbolic instead of 
| substantive?

Far be it from me to characterize the heroic Governor of Arkansas, but
it seems to me that actions speak louder than words.  He extols the
virtues of the public education system, but doesn't trust it with his
own child.  Therefore, he doesn't _really_ believe in the virtues of
public education; he only believes in the _idea_ of the virtues of
public education.  I guess it looks like the laws that Congress passes -- 
for everybody else but Congress.

|     What the Clintons are doing for their daughter is only hypocritical 
| if you accept the initial Rush-thought that Democrats always have to act 
| based solely on symbolism and that not doing so contradicts their stated 
| goals. Unfortunately, although it certainly contradicts the version of 
| their goals which Rush has made up, it isn't inconsistent with reality.

Perhaps you are correct.  It isn't hypocritical for Governor Clinton 
to send Chelsea to an expensive private academy so much as it is elitist.  
It is his elitism then that is hypocritical for a saxaphone-playing 
guy-of-the-people.


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush