Shame and Tantrums in Massachusetts
Today is Wednesday, 20 January 2010.
When confronted with a ruthless political demagogue such as Scott Brown of Massachusetts, the only way to fight back is with an axe dipped in poison.
Obama is often chastised for a “too cerebral” approach and style. However, his failure to realize the dangers of Brown’s far-fright [sic!]“populist” campaign speaks ill of his political intelligence. Rather, it seems to be the mistake of one smug, arrogant, self-satisfied, and complacent. Certainly, there’s enough blame to go around in the Coakley campaign, but the buck must stop with the leader of the Democratic Party.
Brown was elected by two types of voters: drones who always vote Republican, and “angry” independents. The latter seemed typified by a male quoted on CNN: “I’m not angry at Coakley or Obama. We’ve got to send the message that we’re angry.”
While the temper tantrums of three-year olds may be annoying and distasteful, the inchoate temper tantrums of adult voters are disgraceful, irresponsible, and immoral.
Tea Party = Tantrum Party.
Of course, there is also a racist undertone. The Tantrum Party damns Obama and the Democrats for incurring massive additions to the National Debt. The truth is that more than 2/3 of the National Debt was added by the regimes of white males Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush, with the eager endorsement of the (overwhelmingly white) Republican Party. And yet the Tantrum Party made not a peep.
Anger was shown by voting for “the opposition”, an opposition which when in power caused the problems for the anger. True, the great powers of socialization conspire to render voters into ignorant and misguided children, and yet the voters are adults, and bear complete responsibility for rejecting that socialization and seeing the world as it is.
Obama and the Democratic leadership should have been barnstorming this country for the past year, relentlessly driving home one salient truth: that the key reason for the mortgage crisis, the financial system meltdown, etc. was the Reaganite Republican emasculation of necessary regulatory regimens, in favour of putting foxes in charge of henhouses.
In 1972, a majority of Massachusetts voters covered themselves with glory, being the only state to vote for McGovern and against the ruthless war criminal and high traitor Nixon. In 2010, a majority of Massachusetts voters covered themselves with shame.
When confronted with a ruthless political demagogue such as Scott Brown of Massachusetts, the only way to fight back is with an axe dipped in poison.
Obama is often chastised for a “too cerebral” approach and style. However, his failure to realize the dangers of Brown’s far-fright [sic!]“populist” campaign speaks ill of his political intelligence. Rather, it seems to be the mistake of one smug, arrogant, self-satisfied, and complacent. Certainly, there’s enough blame to go around in the Coakley campaign, but the buck must stop with the leader of the Democratic Party.
Brown was elected by two types of voters: drones who always vote Republican, and “angry” independents. The latter seemed typified by a male quoted on CNN: “I’m not angry at Coakley or Obama. We’ve got to send the message that we’re angry.”
While the temper tantrums of three-year olds may be annoying and distasteful, the inchoate temper tantrums of adult voters are disgraceful, irresponsible, and immoral.
Tea Party = Tantrum Party.
Of course, there is also a racist undertone. The Tantrum Party damns Obama and the Democrats for incurring massive additions to the National Debt. The truth is that more than 2/3 of the National Debt was added by the regimes of white males Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush, with the eager endorsement of the (overwhelmingly white) Republican Party. And yet the Tantrum Party made not a peep.
Anger was shown by voting for “the opposition”, an opposition which when in power caused the problems for the anger. True, the great powers of socialization conspire to render voters into ignorant and misguided children, and yet the voters are adults, and bear complete responsibility for rejecting that socialization and seeing the world as it is.
Obama and the Democratic leadership should have been barnstorming this country for the past year, relentlessly driving home one salient truth: that the key reason for the mortgage crisis, the financial system meltdown, etc. was the Reaganite Republican emasculation of necessary regulatory regimens, in favour of putting foxes in charge of henhouses.
In 1972, a majority of Massachusetts voters covered themselves with glory, being the only state to vote for McGovern and against the ruthless war criminal and high traitor Nixon. In 2010, a majority of Massachusetts voters covered themselves with shame.
posted by HH at 10:35 AM
4 Comments:
What happened in 1972 and what happened in 2010 is our democratic process. Love it or leave it.
There can be no democratic process when the majority of the electorate is ignorant or misinformed.
Thanks for "love it or leave it". Haven't been told that in years. Should I also move to Russia?
:-)
If the electorate is ignorant or misinformed, what are the solutions?
You can move to whereever the hell you want. You obviously don't like it in America.
The Mike Judge movie 'Idiocracy' is an uplifting parable by comparison with the current U.S. electorate. The time traveling heroes of the tale were sought out as sages who could help to improve society. Quite the opposite mentality from what we are privileged to experience.
Arch conservative H.L. Mencken nailed it when he opined that, "Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good," not that I am able to find much comfort in this affirmation of my observations.
Naomi Klein's "The Wrecking Crew" is spot on with the assessment of the goals of the so-called conservative movement that the 1980 Reagan resurgence spawned. They don't want government to work and they have vigorously employed every tool irrespective of law or morals to create a supremely ineffective government in the name of protecting and fostering the primal liberty of the economically advantaged to prey upon the weak, to eliminate the middle class and to swell the ranks of the permanent underclass.
Post a Comment
<< Home