Both inheritors of great family wealth albeit
a generation, culture and national origin apart
one poses as a patrician, the other as a bluff
entrepreneur, coarse in his manner. What they
have in common is their stated representation
of the common man as the guiding principle in
their positions as national leaders. The older man
passionate in his love of country, the younger
declining nationalism opting to alter his country
into a post-national state. Political orientation is
diametrically opposed one to the other though in
polite parlance diplomacy narrows the gap. The
younger man for whom carefree whimsy with
his nation's treasury and a penchant for elevating
the public fortunes of the marginalized in society
take precedence in showy displays of virtuous
choices betrays a shallowness of character in his
partiality in denigrating those whose values fail
to align with his own. And nor is the more powerful
neighbour re-elected to lead the most influential
state on the globe exempt from the mockery and
contempt doled out as he extols his own virtues
and deplores their lack on the part of the other. A
casual and caustic threat by the incoming leader to
burden the trade exchange between the two nations
portends economic disaster in the near future leaving
the suave younger leader in throes of uncertainty
suddenly transformed to a humble supplicant eager
to amend relations to salve the rancour he earned.
No comments:
Post a Comment