What do George Clinton, Schuyler Colfax, George Dallas, Hannibal Hamlin, Richard Johnson and Levi Morton have in common? If you know without flinching, you are a remarkable person. Why would you know them?

They were all vice presidents of the United States of America. Don't ask me why, but I've been reading about the life of Theodore Roosevelt who became president one day when McKinley was assassinated. In his biography I ran across an interesting word.

"His corollary to the Monroe Doctrine prevented the establishment of foreign bases in the Caribbean and arrogated the sole right of intervention in Latin America to the United States."

When was the last time you used arrogated in a sentence? I found I couldn't use it in a sentence. I'll come back to this word.

As a teacher, you get to see a cross-section of the community. Communities vary of course, and I teach in a very nice community of middle class Americans. The spread of folks is still broad, including physically handicapped and mentally handicapped who I interact with only occasionally. The unhandicapped folks that I encounter are widely different from each other. Some categories follow. I realize that generalizations are inherently false. . . nevertheless:

The brilliant without trying--photographic or near photographic memories, 1400 to 1590 SAT scores. They take academics for granted. When they choose kinesthetic pursuits they are moderately to very successful. They usually choose academics over kinesthetics. They see the big picture. They philosophize and theorize. They see several futures for themselves and have difficulty trying to decide which one they should take.

The brilliant by trying--kids so industrious that you are amazed that they are always working at something. What drives them? I don't know. But they work. They are near the top of the class in grade point average but maybe not in SAT score. They are the best athletes, dancers, and singers. They see their future and want to get there.

The average students--the great mass near the middle. They are not driven, they are thinking about the future some, but not much. They have a few interests but lack the focus to really prepare for them. They work when you insist they must. They like athletics and a few excel there in kinesthetic education. Oddly, a few are gifted in kinesthetic endeavors.

The academic apathetes--well athletes is a word, why not apathetes? They can't bear the written word. If everything was on video they'd have a chance to get it, but opening books puts them to sleep. They live in the present. They take the SAT but their score doesn't help define them, except that it eliminates them from some things. Many will go to college. A few will graduate. Remember only 25% of us will ever have a college degree.

The indifferent students--nothing interests them except things that entertain without causing them to think--pop culture, sex, drugs, alcohol, TV and movies. Their future is the same as their present. When they are 30, their friends and relatives will still be hoping they will grow up. They don't.

The anti-students--they actively work against education. They are vulgar, resisting culture. They are violent, resisting order. They don't want to be touched and resist love too. I don't know what has created them, dna, or a horrible environment. They cannot escape their future. They often recreate themselves.

Pardon a change in direction here. I'll pull it back together at the end.

Leadership today is most often taken by people willing to offer simple solutions to complex problems. They see and speak in black and white. They answer in short sentences. They say the future is rosy and that they know the way to it. Sometimes they say that they alone know the way.

I like to listen to a program on the radio called the Infinite Mind. It features doctors and scientists. One night the program was on "optimism and pessimism." I found that I fell into the pessimistic group. The optimists are better liked, become leaders at every level. They move and shake the world. Their lives are better for many reasons, better jobs, handsome friends and connections, wealth and material prosperity. Toward the end of the program there was a startling moment when the scientists presented research on one other finding in their study. They compared the optimists' and pessimists' points of view over time to decide which point of view proved to be correct. The program said that in almost every case, the pessimists were correct. But no one cared. The audience still wanted to listen to the optimists.

George W. Bush was elected President of the United States a few days ago. The exit polls showed that people with graduate degrees voted against him over 4 to 1. His party is now calling for "unity." "Let's come together to support the mandate he has received," they say. "Throw your weight behind him so he can reshape America."

I could borrow a phrase from Dick Cheney, vice president of the United States, but I will restrain myself. But listen to this. There will be no honeymoon. There will be no unity. I call rather for resistance, disruption at every level, stonewalling, and filibuster. George W. Bush is a cock-eyed optimist, a C-student apathete, elected by C students, a coward who orders men to death, a thief. George W. Bush and the Republicans ARROGATE that they have the country's mandate and that the record number of people who voted against a sitting president should fall in line. Arrogate means to "claim or demand unduly or presumptuously, to lay claim in an overbearing manner, as to arrogate power or dignity to one's self." Thank you Teddy Roosevelt’s biographer for digging that one up.

If the Republicans thought the election campaigning was a time of division and dissonance, they are in for a rude awakening. It was the calm before the storm.