Charlatanic

Today we’re going to discuss a political concept extolled by the federal government in many arenas of its purview and, in particular, by the executive branch in its avowed crusade for democracy throughout the rest of the world—the concept of the charlatan. I know, already you’re murmuring to yourself, “But that’s an oxymoron,” because, simply by definition, the charlatan defies the very concept of a concept. Unless of course quackery can be a concept. So before we go any further, let’s begin. Webster defines charlatan as “1 : QUACK 2,” which is further defined as “a noise made by quacking,” and then “a pretender to medical skill.” Well, first that’s a duck, and then it’s a doctor—maybe not yours, but others we know. After quack, Webster goes on to define charlatan as “2 : one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability : FRAUD, FAKER.” All right, now we’re getting somewhere. Fraud, of course, is a concept most of us are familiar with, and we all know what a faker is. But let’s dig a little deeper here—an exercise characteristically uncharacteristic of charlatanic characters—and consider “pretenses to knowledge or ability,” and specifically where pretense alone might lead us:

1 : a claim made or implied; especially : one not supported by fact;

2 a : mere ostentation : PRETENTIOUSNESS ; b : a pretentious act or assertion;

3 : an inadequate or insincere attempt to attain a certain condition or quality;

4 : professed rather than real intention or purpose : PRETEXT ;

5 : MAKE-BELIEVE, FICTION.

Wow. How now brown cow. Fiction certainly has created a lot of journalistic and Oprahtic friction lately in the guise of nonfiction, itself a double negative. First there was the pretext of WMDs in Iraq, then the pretentious Mr. Frey, and now we make believe we have Homeland Security, the ultimate oxymoron. No wonder charlatans get confused. Add to this confusion an ostentatious national budget deficit, inadequate polar ice caps, and then the associated concepts of inanition, “the absence or loss of social, moral, or intellectual vitality or vigor,” and bathos, “the sudden appearance of the commonplace in otherwise elevated matter or style,” and you’ve really got something. Or do we? Let’s review—in PowerPoint:

1. Quack
2. Quacking
3. Fraud
4. Faker
5. Pretense
6. Pretext
7. Inadequate
8. Insincere
9. Fiction
10. Nonfiction
11. Empty
12. Absence
13. Loss
14. Pretentious
15. Ostentatious
16. Otherwise
17. Commonplace
18. Oxymoron
19. George
20. W.
21. Bush

Whatever.

History

As defined by Webster’s dictionary, history is “a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes.” And what would be the use of studying such a record, you may ask. Judging by the Bush administration’s actions at home and abroad for the past six years or so, it appears that no one has given them a satisfactory answer, if any answer at all, assuming they actually asked the question in the first place, which appears doubtful at best. Had the question been asked, and then answered by anyone with even a superficial grasp of our most recent history, the abject folly of the current administration’s actions in both war and peace would have been shockingly apparent. (What was it the French, for example, accomplished in Algiers or Vietnam?) But, alas, the one basic truth history has revealed consistently throughout the ages is that nobody really studies it, at least not in any meaningful way, and, therefore, fools that we are, we are doomed to be the victims, time and time again, of history simply repeating itself. We’ve heard that little axiom all our lives, haven’t we? But we learn nothing; we make no progress; we are the human stain on history, which otherwise would be the most enlightening compass for navigating peace and prosperity around the world. It seems so simple, really, but it must be very difficult somehow. Or else, as a race, we’re just born psychotic: “fundamental mental derangement (as schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality.” That’s the way it could appear, anyway. But, wait; could it just be, say, politics? And these days the political fight for democracy really seems to empower the, dare I say it, oligarchy, “a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control.” Now there’s some history for you. Or would that be histrionics: “of or relating to actors, acting, or the theater?” Oh my.