Oprah for U.S. president? Oh, please no

The celeb statesman is an ugly fad, Aly Kamadia writes.

The word arrogant doesn’t automatically come to mind when most of us think of Oprah Winfrey. But what better word would describe her if she were to run for president of the United States in 2020?

One reason she should not be “actively thinking ” — though she apparently is, according to unnamed friends in news reports — about running is both obvious and familiar to anyone who opposed the Trump presidency: He had absolutely no political or military experience.

We demand experience. Would you take your car to a dentist’s office if its brakes needed repair? Would you let your favourite celebrity perform heart surgery on you? In contemplating who should occupy the top political office of the most powerful country in history, shouldn’t we remain logically consistent?

Inexperience alone is sufficient to disqualify Oprah from a 2020 presidential run, but it’s hardly the only reason.

It’s no secret that the Democratic party finds itself in a depressing situation. The Republicans hold a majority in the House and Senate. Top this off with a president whose very existence gives Democrats (and many Republicans) migraines.

A central problem for the Democratic party is more than a year after Trump’s victory, it lacks a core message. The right message and conveyor can deliver victory. Will you ever forget the slogan Make America Great Again, delivered by a political outsider who was spitting at the establishment at a time when populist sentiment surged through many American veins?

In 2020, who will deliver punches to an unqualified, self-serving media star billionaire president (assuming he’s still in office)? It would be foolish to reply to that question with: an inexperienced, unqualified, media star billionaire competitor.

Would you let your favourite celebrity perform heart surgery on you?

Oprah just happens to make you smile. This phenomenon has implications for America.

Despite Hillary Clinton being a severely flawed candidate, what can we say about the state of American democracy given that her experience, and that of more than a dozen Republican primary contenders, including governors and senators, wasn’t enough to defeat an inexperienced celebrity billionaire? Has America learned nothing, more than a year after the 2016 election, given that some otherwise-serious voices support the idea of an Oprah 2020 presidential run?

This is baffling. The United States has roughly one-third of a billion people, with legions of experienced and astute public servants. Rather than tapping into talent that is suited for the job, money and fame have infested politics — territory in which neither has any business.

Thus we hear Oprah enthusiasts claim she is clearly smarter than Trump. So what? Notwithstanding Trump’s masterful sales skills and unrivalled theatre (even his most bitter enemies can’t deny Trump’s ability to put on a show), millions of Americans are more intellectual.

But yes, intelligence is an excellent quality for a president to have — perhaps the type of intelligence capable of navigating a second gilded age of inequality where some people take home billions while others remain homeless, or perhaps the type of intelligence skilled enough to deal with a potentially hostile Congress or a massive bureaucracy, including elements that seek unprecedented powers such as the national security state.

What’s needed is a mind with a sophisticated world view, that understands the threat of terrorism while also keeping an eye on a rapidly rising China. (The Asian competitor remains the only country positioned to challenge the United States in the coming years.)

The celebrity-president who claims to be a “very stable genius” has left no evidence for us to conclude that he has such statesmanlike intelligence, let alone genius. But after spending decades in millions of peoples’ living rooms, despite her warmth and empathy, there isn’t any evidence to be confident in stateswomanlike intelligence from an untested Oprah either.

If running under such circumstances isn’t arrogant, what might you call it?