Broder: As it turns out, Royalty isn't such a good idea
Wanker of the Many Decades David Broder opines in a revealing paragraph stuck way down in his oh-so-balanced commentary:
Where I thought, mistakenly, that it would be a great advantage to Bush to have a White House partner without political succession in mind, it has turned out to be altogether too liberating an environment for a political entrepreneur of surpassing skill operating under an exceptional cloak of secrecy.
"A White House partner without political succession in mind..."
Hmmm... Let me try to translate that. Yes, I think little chunk of Broderese could best be rendered as "A White House partner with no accountability in a democractic system," right?
Because democracy is so messy, don't you see. So full of conflict. And hippies. So much easier and more pleasant for all concerned to have someone trustworthy who stands above the fray.... Like Royalty... Except with real power... To get things done...
Broder can say "mistakenly" and "Boy, was I wrong" (love the faux naivite) all he wants, but he couldn't have done more to enable Bush and Cheney if the both of them had left the money right on the dresser. And, tellingly, Broder doesn't really say why he was wrong, or what he was wrong about.
See, it's really just a personalities thing: Bush turned out to be of weak character, and Cheney too "entrepreneurial," but there's nothing wrong with the idea.
To Broder, Versailles on the Potomac--and, by extension, the country--still needs Royals; just not these Royals.