SuperLefty, I treasure your observations, which usually stand on their own in their wisdom and hilarity. But I believe the essays of this week, considering the sheer enormity of the event that reaffirmed my complete faithlessness in our electorate and system, deserve some added discussion. I ask you no more than to consider my comments and discard or comment on them as you deem appropriate.
Have you considered the possibility that the election results can be simplified to one overarching if disturbing fact, that we now live in a completely reactionary/counter-reactionary epoch and Kerry's message of moderation, whatever its logic, necessarily appealed to a minority? To me there are times of relative tranquility, when a compromise agenda like Clinton's could draw voters, and there are times of reactionary upheaval, when compromise utterly fails to energize. There are two waves right now, oversimplified into the pro-War on Terror and the anti-War on Terror. The former is clearly still dominant, although one can only hope that as its complete hypocrisy is exposed, if it ever is, its foundation will collapse. Today we only see the hypocrisy exposed on the fringes, and only time will tell whether the curtain is opened. Considering the state of the media these days, whose primary agenda seems to be to duck the 'liberal' moniker, I have my doubts. All the side issues identified by the exit polls, ridiculous notions like morality, Christian fundamentalism, and leadership, all derive their significance today from this one reactionary wave.
The second wave is smaller but growing...but also perhaps likely to collapse under its own failed momentum. There was light at the end of the tunnel at the beginning of November for many of these people, as if Kerry's pro-war stance was likely to be significantly better than the Moron Puppet of Evil's, to use your creatively appropriate phrase. Again, time will tell us whether this counter-reactionary wave can overtake the one that gave it birth. And again, given the magnitude of faith in my fellow Americans that they have provided me with thus far, I have my doubts.
Although the medium is not terribly conducive to a expressive sharing of views, I ask you to consider my rationale, overly-succint as it is, in your continued discussions about the litany of reasons listed in your most recent essay.
Thanks.
Post a Comment
Have you considered the possibility that the election results can be simplified to one overarching if disturbing fact, that we now live in a completely reactionary/counter-reactionary epoch and Kerry's message of moderation, whatever its logic, necessarily appealed to a minority? To me there are times of relative tranquility, when a compromise agenda like Clinton's could draw voters, and there are times of reactionary upheaval, when compromise utterly fails to energize. There are two waves right now, oversimplified into the pro-War on Terror and the anti-War on Terror. The former is clearly still dominant, although one can only hope that as its complete hypocrisy is exposed, if it ever is, its foundation will collapse. Today we only see the hypocrisy exposed on the fringes, and only time will tell whether the curtain is opened. Considering the state of the media these days, whose primary agenda seems to be to duck the 'liberal' moniker, I have my doubts. All the side issues identified by the exit polls, ridiculous notions like morality, Christian fundamentalism, and leadership, all derive their significance today from this one reactionary wave.
The second wave is smaller but growing...but also perhaps likely to collapse under its own failed momentum. There was light at the end of the tunnel at the beginning of November for many of these people, as if Kerry's pro-war stance was likely to be significantly better than the Moron Puppet of Evil's, to use your creatively appropriate phrase. Again, time will tell us whether this counter-reactionary wave can overtake the one that gave it birth. And again, given the magnitude of faith in my fellow Americans that they have provided me with thus far, I have my doubts.
Although the medium is not terribly conducive to a expressive sharing of views, I ask you to consider my rationale, overly-succint as it is, in your continued discussions about the litany of reasons listed in your most recent essay.
Thanks.
