OK

Another PulicanT pundit just wrote feeling her way in the dark, "We are a center right country...and (the election was) to some degree a rejection." The answer to her anguished "WHY???!!!" is to be found in her opening declaration. But my own cyinical response is, "Of course everybody likes 'legitimate rape' or fuck yew, so to speak!" The bubble seems not burstible, but those of us to the left of this whiffle ball appear to have a protective bubble of our own.

After the '08 election, those on my leftist blogs repeatedly laughed derisively or at least chortled at the demise of the PulicanT Party. Having witnessed the '64 and '68 elections, I cringed and wished to be able to kick sense into them. That impulse is stronger still now. While the PulicanT Party remains the party of the rich white male only and still couldn't win an honest popular election, such an election is not possible. More alarming is that by cobbling together enough special interests willing lemminglike to vote against their own interests in pursuit of the vindication of their single or extremely limited issues, that organization still could claim 48% (and dwindling) of the vote. With money, the nutwing blat machine and time, it can exert its will as witness the control of the gerrymandered House of Representatives (total Democratic votes for Representatives exceeded theirs). Worse, they continue to pursue means of diminishing the expression of the majority will through the ballot.

"We beat Cits U!" Nonsense. In just the last year we've learned from serious studies (not unlike those demonstrating that Ohio's electoral vote was stolen in '04--that is, with mathematics and logic notwithstanding a lack of tangible proof or confession) that Mr. Obama's popular vote was depressed three points by racism. Similarly we will come to realize just how devastating money actually was in this election.

Meanwhile the pundits of all stripes continue to state with all the conviction of the righteous that by virtue of the economy Mr. Obama hardly could have hoped to snatch victory from certain defeat. Only due to the brilliance of his staff was this remarkable achievement possible. Without questioning the overall efficacy and brilliance generally of the organization, realistically the result should have been a vastly larger popular margin and electoral landslide. Consider Mr. Romney's remote, cold persona, his awkwardness in public, his repeated failures and secretiveness, his blatant arrogance and the near total (apparently) incompetence of his campaign staff. However did they come so close? Never mind that their divorce from reality as we now know--further evidence of that incompetence--so permeated the campaign, they just kept tripping over themselves at most turns and in full view of the public. Can anyone truly believe that money didn't bring them several per centage points closer than they had reason to hope?!

Having watched and listened to the continuous din of the right wing blat machine and its effect on the discourse (regular use by those who should know better [even at places like Daily Kos] of "Democrat" for "Democratic" might be the simplest example), I have no doubt about the efficacy of overwhelming money in politics. Granted that voter registration, GOTV, and effective use of smaller resources helped to overcome the tremendous disparity with respect to the presidential election and most Senate races, at least a few House races appear to have been determined by superior financial force, and a great many state races may have been overwhelmed by the will of the likes of the Kochs. Given the likelihood of a less personally appealing candidate (or one more readily subject to caricature [please don't, Uncle Joe!]) for president next time, Senatorial and House candidates of less appeal, the continued dilution of the popular will (see Court, The Supreme, e.g.), increased throat of the blat, and more effective use of continued unlimited dark money, the likelihood of a reassertion of the will of the minority will be great. None of this can be expected to be countered simply by intelligence and superiority of issues and candidates.

In short, the ride will be only bumpier. The fascist element reloads; it only appears to change; and it has no recessive gene.

As a trial lawyer (and later judge) I learned that when someone said "to be honest," "to tell the truth," "frankly," ad naus., I was about to be lied to. As a political science student later involved (slightly) in politics, I reallized that when someone spoke of taxes or economics (of which I have only the crudest comprehension), I was about to be lied to. When our top income tax rate was 90%, I naively wondered how large an income would be required for comfortable existence on a mere 10% thereof. The reality is that the middle two thirds of us must support the government/society simply because the top won't and the bottom can't. There may be various means of affecting this reality to some small degree, but the fact is that the will does not exist to effect such change.

As for Mr. Obama, he has and will continue to dissapoint me greatly as he pursues some sort of illusory concensus and moderate goals. On the other hand, when he speaks addressing major issues, I am reminded that if one can love someone he cannot possibly know, I love this man. What a fool, I.

So rub-a-dub-dub; bless this grub; yea god; let's eat...oh, and fuck you very much.

PS While in law school campaigning for (in essence only) the governor of my state of residence, in a men's room I was introduced to the great man who was then standing at a urinal. He altered his positioning to offer me his dominant hand for shaking as I considered how appropriate that I shake that hand at that moment...

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.