Pundit. Husband (seven times). Father (18 times). Born August 17, 1953 in Pashtcasht, Uzbekistan. Died August 12, 2008 in Washington, of laryngitis, aged 54.
Arnold “Bud” “Jerry” “Gar” Hegemione was a well-respected journalist. His columns, which in his later years were written for the New York Times, were often reprinted in newspapers around the world. He was a regular guest on Meet the Press and he often appeared as a political analyst on Fox News. He won the Pulitzer Good Grooming Prize twice.
What is truly amazing about his career as a political pundit was that he was always wrong. In this case, I use the word “always” in its literal sense of “every single time.” His record shows that he was wrong in one hundred per cent of his pronouncements. This is an astonishing record, given that the average error rate of pundits is only 72 per cent.
Hegemione started his career with a bang: he wrote an op ed piece in the Tacoma Post-Nonintelligencer in 1974 explaining why Watergate would prove to be a minor problem for Richard Nixon that wouldn’t overshadow the accomplishments of his presidency. Two days later, Nixon resigned.
It was just this kind of keen insight into the political process that led Tacoma Post-Nonintelligencer to give Hegemione a twice weekly column. Well, that and the fact that a previous columnist, Flirty McSalves, unexpectedly died of a massive hemorrhage of the big toe, leaving a gaping hole on the op-ed page.
Over the next decade, Hegemione grew to national prominence almost despite himself. His column on why Gerald Ford was a shoo-in for a second term was picked up by The Washington Post. His column on how Jimmy Carter would easily solve the Iran hostage crisis was reprinted in 27 newspapers around the world, including The Guardian, Le Monde and Hello, Kitty Weekly. This led to the syndication of his column. His 1984 column advising that Ronald Reagan would finally bring the budget deficit under control brought him to the attention of the producers of Meet the Press, who offered him a spot on the show.
True to form, at first Hegemione turned the offer down. Trent Alcoa, in the biography Bud Hegemione: Boy Detective, explained that Hegemione couldn’t believe that television would be an effective medium for political discourse. It wasn’t until his second wife, Frederica Pons, hit him upside the head – literally – that he changed his mind and accepted the gig that would give him a whole new national audience.
On television, Hegemione was just as factually inaccurate as he had been in print. He supported increased defense spending, warning that the Russians would see anything less as a sign of weakness, and use its massive military to invade the United States. A week later, the Berlin wall was torn down, signaling Russia’s ultimate collapse. He argued that Vice President George H. W. Bush had earned the right to lead the country, and that the time just wasn’t right for upstart Bill Clinton.
He liked new Coke.
As astonishing as Hegemione’s inability to read the broad strokes of history was, it was his attention to detail that brought him the most respect from his peers. He used to refer to the Russian President, for instance, as “Michael Gorba-whosa-whatsits.” Whenever he quoted the price of oil, he was always seven to 12 cents a gallon or five to 18 dollars a barrel off. In small matters as well as large, Hegemione was never correct.
Towards the end of his life, Hegemione did almost spoil his perfect record by getting something right. According to biographer Alcoa, Hegemione had doubts about the effectiveness of the invasion of Iraq. He even wrote a piece suggesting – however tentatively – that troop levels stated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would not be enough to keep the peace once the war had been won. Then, his sixth wife, Majorca de Villepsin, hit him upside the head and he abandoned the piece and fell in line with the general opinion that Rumsfeld was a strategic genius.
Would one correct opinion on such an important issue have affected his status as a senior Washington pundit? Doubtful. For one thing, he followed this up with a series of columns outlining why ethanol wasn’t intended to be an economic windfall to large farming corporations, but would actually be a valuable tool in combating global climate change.
But, it’s also true that, by then, Hegemione had developed a reputation as a man who doggedly pursued the common wisdom, no matter how faulty it was. A single correct assessment – even a dozen right opinions – could not tarnish the reputation of this giant of journalism.
Enterada Fricoles
Enterada Fricoles teaches journalism at Wryerson University.