I Believe
I had decided to post this if last night’s US Election result had turned out differently, but then thought I’d post it anyway.
Those of us of a certain age will remember the sense of incomprehension that spread around the world when Ronald Reagan was elected president of the United States in 1980 and were bracing themselves for similar trauma last night if Mitt Romney had won. I’m sure I’m not the only person breathing a sigh of relief this morning. In deference to the losing candidate, I’ll echo the title of the song with a piece of Mitt Romney’s most inspirational rhetoric:
“I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.
Quite.
Anyway, lest you all get carried away with the euphoria of a second term for Barack Obama, I’ll say that although I’m glad the electorate stepped back from the apocalyptic vision of a Romney victory, this is very much business as usual – with all that entails. Here is the late Gore Vidal’s summary of American politics (written in the 1970s).
Follow @telescoperThere is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.
Share this:
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Related
This entry was posted on November 7, 2012 at 7:28 am and is filed under Politics, Television with tags 1980, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Not the Nine O'Clock News, Ronald Reagan. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
In the Dark 
November 7, 2012 at 9:15 am
I don’t think the voting system is the main reason. The main reason is capitalism.
November 7, 2012 at 10:50 am
Capitalism has brought wealth unprecedented to the West. I’d rather have that than everybody poor, which is the alternative. The problem is that the Big have perverted capitalism.
I’d have voted Romney, but basically I agree with Gore Vidal.
November 7, 2012 at 11:17 am
I think I would have gone for “other”; that’s always been my favourite party.
November 7, 2012 at 11:43 am
“False dichotomy: either capitalism or everyone poor.”
Give me a counter-example Philip. Although ‘capitalism’ might need defining more clearly.
November 7, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Well you (not Romney) used the phrase “pure capitalism” so I wonder what you mean by it. I am reluctant to say I agree or disagree with you without definition.
It obviously can’t work in places where there is so much corruption that contract law is unenforceable, for a start, but I don’t think that anything else can either.
November 7, 2012 at 2:56 pm
In the district I live in we have a rather interesting congressional representative who ran unopposed. However, voters have the opportunity to write in a candidate if they so wish, and many have written in the name “Charles Darwin”. So when the numbers have all been tallied, it will be interesting to see how many Americans voted for a dead Englishman as their representative – I’m hoping it’s a substantial number.
November 8, 2012 at 11:19 am
Was the rep who ran unopposed against the teaching of evolution? That would explain the choice of Darwin by those who could be bothered to vote and wished not to vote for this rep.
November 8, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Hi Anton,
Well, it’s unclear if his views on evolution (he has similar views on embryology and the big bang, all being “lies from the pit of hell” – oh, and he’s a practicing doctor!!!!!) are part of his political platform, or even if he actually believes what he is saying rather than saying things be believes his listeners wish to hear. But yes, that was the one. He has also said in public that climate scientists are perpetrating a hoax on the US.
From what I’ve seen so far, Darwin seems to have received about 25% of the vote, but I’ve only seen a limited amount of data and we’ll have to wait a few more days to get the detailed count.
He was basically unopposed because the boundaries of his district have been re-drawn to give any republican candidate a sizable majority.The democrats seem to have been very clever in their strategy of deciding where to target their resources.
Still, we’ll have to see if the republicans will start to take their responsibilities seriously and actually help to govern instead of voting down anything that comes from the Whitehouse on principle, even it is basically the same as legislation they themselves came up with!!
November 8, 2012 at 7:03 pm
As an update, in just one part of the district (the bit where I live), the live contender garnered a tad over 16,000 votes, the dead Englishman polled a little over 4,000 votes. The tallies for the whole district will be in next week.
Next thing you know they’ll be voting to reinstate the monarchy!
November 9, 2012 at 9:27 am
Thanks for the info Adrian. I spend some time trying to convince one or two creationists in the same congregation as me that before the Big Bang was proposed science was silent on the origin of the universe – so that the verdict of science, when it came, is that there was a beginning. Then I ask them to read the first sentence in the Bible (In the beginning God created the heavens…) Then I ask them why they are anti-Big Bang.
November 9, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Yes. Nahmanides, a mediaeval Jewish scholar with a large school of followers, for a start.