1
   

Former Presidents' Future Political Possibilities.

 
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2003 04:31 am
Sofia, you've definitely hit the nail on the head. People are living longer. With Clinton, we elected a much younger man to be President (same issue will crop up with Dubya). The dude's intelligent and active. He wants to do ... something. But what? What's dignified? What's appropriate?

Ambassador?
Supreme Court Justice?
Author?
Member of a Corporate Board of Directors?
Lecturer?
Diplomatic Negotiator?
Professor?

It just all strikes me as being massively dull. Why should Clinton have to do something so, so bland? Let's assume, for sake of argument, that Hillary's out of the limelight and no longer a Senator, so there's no overarching dignity thing going on. Why can't Bill just go play sax someplace? Plenty of young retirees, who've spent a lot of time doing regular work, look to do something fun. Why can't he?

I predict this is going to continue to be an issue as we go along. If Dubya is reelected, I believe he'll be in his late 50s when he leaves office (sooner, of course, if he's not reelected). His life expectancy would be, what, 20 - 30 years? What's a young, healthy guy to do with his life? Dubya isn't a lawyer, so Supreme Court Justice is out.

Hopefully, gone are the days when leaving the Presidency meant you were not long for this world. But it sets up a whole new scenario - guys (and women soon, I suspect) in their 40s, 50s, 60s, with long-term life expectancies, intelligence, health and energy - and crashing boredom. Do we put them on the dignity train for life? I don't want to see Clinton (or Dubya) doing something truly outlandish or foolish. I don't want to see stints on American Idol or a turn as the mascot for a sports team, but what should they do? Where do we draw the line? Do we have the right to draw the line for them? Or is that inherently wrong? Shouldn't they be able to make a living (or just work for the sake of working, even if they don't want or need the $$) in any legal way that they choose?
0 Replies
 
sweetcomplication
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2003 04:41 am
jespah wrote:
...The dude's intelligent and active. He wants to do ... something. But what? What's dignified? What's appropriate?

Ambassador?
Supreme Court Justice?
Author?
Member of a Corporate Board of Directors?
Lecturer?
Diplomatic Negotiator?
Professor?

It just all strikes me as being massively dull. Why should Clinton have to do something so, so bland? Let's assume, for sake of argument, that Hillary's out of the limelight and no longer a Senator, so there's no overarching dignity thing going on. Why can't Bill just go play sax someplace? Plenty of young retirees, who've spent a lot of time doing regular work, look to do something fun. Why can't he? ...

Hopefully, gone are the days when leaving the Presidency meant you were not long for this world. But it sets up a whole new scenario - guys (and women soon, I suspect) in their 40s, 50s, 60s, with long-term life expectancies, intelligence, health and energy - and crashing boredom. Do we put them on the dignity train for life? I don't want to see Clinton (or Dubya) doing something truly outlandish or foolish. I don't want to see stints on American Idol or a turn as the mascot for a sports team, but what should they do? Where do we draw the line? Do we have the right to draw the line for them? Or is that inherently wrong? Shouldn't they be able to make a living (or just work for the sake of working, even if they don't want or need the $$) in any legal way that they choose?


Jespah, I believe all of those job choices you listed are appropriate, although I personally hate it when office-holders (either pre or post) take corporate jobs...Just use Cheney as a great example!

However, IMO, you make an especially good point where you question if 'we have the right to draw the line for them': I believe we do not!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/15/2019 at 01:43:54