At times I feel guilty for fostering an abiding contempt for my fellow man. I appreciate the effort of many people who try to be nice to me; while it makes me uncomfortable as hell, I recognize that—as with a crappy birthday present—it’s the thought that counts. All the same, I can’t seem to lose this nagging feeling that mankind is, as comedian Bill Hicks once put it, “a virus with shoes.” It’s not the usual self-indulgent celebrity silliness that’s reconfirmed this feeling; it’s the common man that’s fostering an irrepressible fascism within me. The kind where I believe it might be a good idea to have laws that prevent certain people from breeding.

To bolster my case, I’d like to enter ABC’s The Bachelor into evidence. The show was a recent success within the reality TV genre, which I thought was on its last legs after the big dip in interest in the latest editions of Survivor and Temptation Island. But instead of crassly exploiting survival or relationships, The Bachelor presented 25 women desperate enough to jump through emotional hoops for the smarmiest guy I have ever seen. I can’t deny the show’s appeal; its producers struck upon a newfound form of reality camp when they had the bachelor insincerely presenting his chosen women with a rose at the end of each program. Nonetheless, the level of degradation involved was worse than all the gross-out stunts on Fear Factor. There’s almost something more pure in embarrassing yourself solely for the money than there is in doing it for the “love” of some jerk.

I can see how the reality TV genre was started with the best of intentions. It’s the same reason documentaries are fascinating: Real people’s lives are often more appealing than fiction because you can genuinely relate to them. But reality TV isn’t reality at all; it features attention-hungry freaks in contrived situations. And it’s making our fellow Americans look like shallow, self-interested morons. Perhaps viewer disdain for this stereotyped image is one of the reasons The Osbournes has struck such a chord this year. Maybe we just need to take a break from what a depressing lot we are, America. Even MTV, who really started this all with The Real World, seems to be growing tired of the monster they’ve created: This coming August, they’ll be running a made-for-TV movie in which a deranged fan kidnaps a fictitious Real World cast and kills one member. And I thought I was misanthropic.

Character-driven

Of course, when it comes to breeding contempt, you can’t beat politicians—or in this case, how they’re perceived. Lately, the term “character” has been increasingly used to affirm some sort of moral certitude, and according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, Americans are wishy-washy about President Bush’s programs but they strongly support his leadership because he has “good character.” The popular belief is that President Bush is restoring dignity to the presidency because he has character and President Clinton did not. Well, there certainly may be a restoration of calm stodginess to the White House, so long as President Bush isn’t eating any snack food by himself. And if you prefer his policies or demeanor, that’s fine with me. But quit telling me this narrow-minded dullard has more character than Bill Clinton.

“Character,” I would argue, is entwined with personality and based largely on one’s experiences. Bush’s realm of experience and definitions of personal belief are indistinct to say the least. Billy Boy may have been sleazy and at times unscrupulous, but he was a far more complex and compelling figure than Dubyah. A few indiscretions don’t preclude someone from being able to lead or inspire. For instance, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a remarkable person and activist, but as we know now, he was as much a philanderer as Clinton. To many nowadays, his character would be substantially less than impeccable. But I fail to see how that makes his ideas any less powerful.

It may have been a bit much to swallow at times, but Clinton’s gargantuan personality may have been a key ingredient to the personal chemistry that resulted in a productive eight years as president. Primary Colors author Joe Klein argues that same point with an unbiased eye in his recent book, The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton. Klein contends that the pitfalls that plagued Clinton were an unfortunate side effect of this larger-than-life personality and his willingness to take chances. People with a lot of character aren’t always likable or pleasant, but they may be capable of greater things than some of us will ever know.

That said, what in the hell has been going on in Clinton’s brain in recent weeks? The downside of too much character is apparently not knowing when enough is enough. His recent flirtation with becoming a talk show host is simply flabbergasting. It has been reported that CBS first approached him to replace the departing Bryant Gumbel on The Early Show. CBS’ thought processes here are as astonishing as Clinton’s apparent interest. How utterly awkward would this seem? On the one hand, it’s a tradition that we continue to refer to former presidents by their executive title. Yet, the marketing appeal of morning television is the informality of the hosts; you refer to them as “Matt” and “Katie,” not “Senior Anchor Lauer” and “Vice Anchor Couric,” because they’re positioned to feel like your TV buddies. So would Jane Clayson say, “Bill, let’s check out today’s weather,” or would it be, “And now, Mr. President’s exclusive interview with J.Lo. Better watch that can, Jennifer. He likes ’em meaty.” Are the “pinheads at CBS” (as David Letterman calls them) really under the impression that either alternative won’t weird people out?

Apparently, though, NBC is no smarter, because they had a meeting in L.A. with Clinton about a daytime talk show. Reportedly, the former prez wants to avoid political talk—and any potential contradictions of his senator wife—and he wants to be as big as Oprah. (Frankly, I think Bill might actually have a Girl Scout cookie or two on the ol’ girl.) This doesn’t make any more sense than a morning talk show. Is he going to talk to people about their problems and offer advice? Who wants solutions from a guy with a personal history like his? “I know you’ve impregnated your babysitter, Harold. But if you pretend it didn’t happen until they confirm it with a blood test, you may get off scot-free, man. Trust me.” I can’t wait to see the President Clinton book of the month club: Lady Chatterly’s Lover, Delta of Venus, The Story of O. All the classics will get covered.

For Pete’s sake, Bill, if you have to be back in the spotlight, why not go on a political talk show on CNN? That’s the one thing you’re really good at, and you’d actually probably do a service for the Democratic party in tackling ideas. At least that way you might be doing something halfway productive, rather than continuing to rake your own name through the torrid celebrity mud.

Quotidian Challenge

“It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you’re the smartest person in the room.”

“No. It’s awful.”

Be the first to e-mail the origin of this useless bit of trivia to btpoplife the shame of your name printed as the winner and some free useless crap from the Nashville Scene!

Previous week’s answer: “Gum would be perfection.” — Chandler Bing stuck in a vestibule with Jill Goodacre on Friends.

Winner: Graham Griffith.