Midwest Memo
Too high a cost
by Alan Shultz

My instincts are pretty good when it comes to knowing what I can and cannot afford. I've never even been inside a Mercedes dealership, nor have I spent any time trying on Rolex watches either. I figure I'm wasting time and energy if I'm where I don't belong, where the price is simply too high.

Everything comes at a price.

Last month I joined some colleagues for dinner.

don't do business dinners much. I don't have an expense account for same. I was pretty mute when it came to picking the restaurant. I didn't care where we went and others seemed to be very opinionated on the choice. My lack of opinion and involvement came with a price. We ate way too late and way too pricey for my taste.

During the Clinton impeachment I wondered aloud over the cost the nation would pay for choosing to go down that route. Finger pointing and fault finding for sport, that's what it all seemed like to me. Consider the focus, the energy, the time and money that went into that effort. To what end? All the while problems much too hard to tackle went unaddressed. I think the cost of the Clinton impeachment was too great.

I subscribe to Time Magazine. At least I used to subscribe. This week's issue has a big picture of Hilary Clinton on the cover. In the lower lefthand front corner, right under Senator Clinton's picture, there are two open square boxes. Next to the boxes in block letters a choice is presented: love her or hate her.

Good grief, talk about extremists.

At the same time that Time Magazine asks for ordinary folks to become extremists over a high profile politician, Fox News does them one better.

Here's the polling question that Fox was asking last week: "Regardless of how you voted in the Presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?"

Come again?

Some discussions of the polling question suggest it was a bad question. Those folks say that lurking somewhere unspoken in the question is the war in Iraq. But I think this Fox news "George question" is the equivalent of Time's "Hilary question."

Fox was really asking: "Do you hate President Bush enough to wish upon him a failed presidency?" And I wonder aloud, do they mean a hopeless war, a wrecked economy, a mess of a legacy. Boy, that gives hate a power it really doesn't rate.

So I ask, hate, at what cost?

I lean towards being an optimist, I prefer that glass half full. But I'll admit that Iran's atomic ambitions, North Korea's leadership, and the mess in the Middle East, well they've got my attention.

Given that, given that huge weighty issues face the world and that the world looks to the United States, I ask you this question. Can we afford the cost of either loving or hating our own leaders?

If belonging to one political party means hating those in the other, well then count me out and shame on somebody.

Frankly, I think a lot of it is pandering and it's something each and everyone of us should reject.

A leader nation on the world scene cannot be successful in much of anything if the citizenry is reduced to loving or hating their leaders.

Shame on Time, shame on Fox. The price they ask us to pay for all this political sport is far too great.