Why A Democratic Victory Nov. 7th Means Very Little (To Me)

| | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

There’s a lot of talk around the world about the upcoming defeat of the Republicans on Election Day, and what it means. Words are being bandied about like “precriminations”, or “Speaker Nancy”. You can almost smell the nervous anticipatory sweat wafting off the pages of Daily Kos.

Most pundits and analysts have zeroed in on the Iraq boondoggle or the economy, specifically gas prices. There’s also been plenty of talk about Mark Foley, Jack Abrahmoff, Tom DeLay, etc, etc. These are all valid reasons for why people might be seeking to toss some people from office. However, few commentators outside the internet have spent any time examining what truly matters to me these days: the state and safety of our personal liberties. We live in a time, as Keith Olbermann has noted, of “exaggerated crisis”. Days from the election Republican talking heads spin desperately daring people to vote for the GOP claiming that people who vote for the Democrats or 3rd Parties are doing so under the influence of insurgents in Iraq, bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, and probably the Grinch, sitting smugly in his undisclosed location above Whoville.

Even worse, people in the US still overly fear these bogeymen, believing as some article of faith that any minute now we’re all going to die in a fireball or chemical attack. I believe as an article of faith that if anything, the fireball most likely to kill you will erupt from your grill one summer night as you attempt the perfect sear on a steak like you saw on the Food Network.

The Democrats know that people still fear these bogeymen. They know that Americans worry about these things. They’re savvy enough to know these things this year, and because they know these things, they also know their hold on power will be tenuous. They know that if they come into leadership it’s not by some landslide of electoral support, sudden voter enlightenment, or righteous moral outrage fueled by Americans sick and tired of being misled (in all senses that word can mean), but instead because in Washington they’re the “other guys”; the ones not overly smeared by all scandals or failures of leadership. They stand to gain power because they’re not quite tainted yet.

The leadership of the Democratic Party knows the slippery transient nature of the power they’re being given so they’re not going to do anything that might make them appear weak or foolish; anything that might lead to them being swept from office in a few years. Sure, they may seek to push through social and economic issues that are important to them, like minimum wage increases, changes in Medicare and Medicaid, or rolling back tax cuts. Sure they may speak of checking the power of the President, but when it comes down to the brass tacks, on matter of terrorism, and more importantly civil liberties, they’re going to quietly toe the line drawn by the Republican Party. Hell, they may even become more hawkish and reactionary than the Republicans. Why?

They’ll do this because they know that if they stray beyond that clearly-defined line, and something should happen in the US the Party is dead in the water. They will be figuratively, if not literally, radioactive, and utterly unelectable. Then the American people will elect into office a far-right Republican administration that will rule with an iron fist and leaden intolerance for all things not socially conservative.

So for me, thinking that the NSA wiretapping, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the PATRIOT Act, and others are the most pressing matters of our times, I’m gaining nothing by a change in power. I’ve accepted the fact that we’re only trading in one set of nearly the same shitheads for another.

Well, it’s not entirely true. There’s one other possibility that I can see coming from all this that might make me happy: gridlock. It’s possible that neither power will have a firm grip on power, so that things in Washington will grind to a halt. Nothing will get done at all as the partisans spend more time sniping at each other across the aisle. Now, that might not be such a bad thing after all.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why A Democratic Victory Nov. 7th Means Very Little (To Me).

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.mauricereeves.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/836

2 Comments

Maurice,
You're right about NSA wiretapping, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the PATRIOT Act being the most pressing matters of our times. The REAL concern for me is virtually none of our elected officials see that. At this point, I'm actually concerned, that these issues will take a "back burner" stance for anyone in the near future and by the time any new administration gets into office, it'll be something (barring some major new issue with our rights to bring it to the fore) considered almost to passe to worry with, let alone repeal. Leaving the American people to contend with the chaos Bush left our rights in like some janitor after a kegger a CEO threw at the company picnic before he floated away on a golden parachute. To say that this is criminal is just understated by far. Deadlock might be okay for about 2 more years but after that? I would just like our rights back. Civil liberty is oh so delicious!! Please sir, can't I have some more??........


Exaggerated crises!
It's what I call Viral Fear.
The mass media has been awash with scandals, predators, terror attacks (real and imagined), brutality, crime, sexual assault and malignancy of so many varieties it's a wonder any of us can think straight enough to get to the bathroom in the morning.

Fear is perhaps the most contagious emotion of all. It is, in point of fact, the FASTEST. While it takes upwards of 3 seconds to feel a pleasurable sensation, the experience of fear is literally immeasurable, instantaneous.

This begs the question: Why?

Simply because it is necessary for survival.
If we are not afraid of the tiger stalking us, we won't take defensive action. Fearlessness is not only stupid, it's dangerous.

HOWEVER, when it is constant, battering, useless, unchanneled, it is harmful, most especially because it renders us numb and unresponsive.

When there is danger--and there is plenty in store for western civilization unless we stop watching television and eating at denny's--we need to do something productive, pre-emptively or reactively, whether that's hide or fight back. Otherwise the system stays on high alert and wears itself into the ground.

There's a book I've been reading about this viral fear process in this country and its effect on 4 small lives. It's by J. Acosta and it's called THE NEXT OSAMA. A good read.

D

Leave a comment

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.21-en

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mo published on October 22, 2006 9:19 PM.

Redskins Lose Again was the previous entry in this blog.

Loosening the Reigns of the Military is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.