| Under the Influence of Politics |
|
| Sunday, 13 April 2008 | |
|
As I turn 21 (which should coincide with this article's publication), I have become aware of John McCain's-- or more specifically, his wife's-- significant connection with Budweiser. This is not only the second campaign in a row that features a presidential candidate with a spouse who is the head of a conglomerate (the other being Teresa Heinz Kerry) but also a campaign in which watery beer has played a significant role in electing our president. Joseph Coors, the former head of the Adolph Coors Company, was a fervent backer of "hard-line conservatives" like Barry Goldwater (whose opponent, Lyndon Johnson, hinted he would inspire nuclear holocaust in a campaign ad) and Ronald Reagan (a star figure for modern conservatives attempting to break away from neo-conservativism; look at his idolization during the Republican debates). Regan's greatest legacy is the Heritage Foundation, a leading think tank which was (and steadfastly continues to be) at the forefront of support for the Second Iraq War. His son, Pete Coors, continued the political aspirations with a senatorial run in 2008, although he had significantly progressive/leftist views, defending his company's pro-LGBT practices and support for candidates who the National Rifle Association had rated poorly.
What does this tell us about Cindy McCain-- or who McCain will be as President? It is quite clear that she has had an incredible impact on John McCain's campaigns. McCain started his career by working in public relations for his wife's company. Soon after his marriage, he won his first campaign thanks to her funding, which overcame his fundraising difficulties. Her company's distinct identification as a distinctly American beer may have also helped. It may affect his policy, though; like any president motivated by business, certain laws that currently protect us may be watered down (pun intended). If McCain means a lower drinking age, he may appeal to a wider range of college students. However, it'll mostly end up as wishful thinking, considering his tenuous relationship with conservatives, who are essential for his election and value tough moral stances highly. His Senate record on D.U.I.'s, on the other hand, show some signs of in vino veritas: he voted against a national .08 blood alcohol limit and did not vote when discussing a bill that would withhold state funds for those who did not adopt this regulation. The modern, beer-funded campaign is a distinctly Republican yet surprisingly moderate phenomenon. What does alcohol's involvement with American politics signify? It can be considered a pleasant reversal from the dark ages of Prohibition (when ironically America's drinking per capita was the greatest) that reflects our national interests. Still, I wish there was some truth in advertising: when will future politicians come from the brewers of "Arrogant Bastard?" Set as favorite Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 315 Write comment
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|