I was recently bemoaning the fact that I've moved from one solidly "blue" state to another (and isn't that just the oddest terminology? Teevee shorthand has become legitimate political description. Although "blue" and "red" are no stranger, really, than "right" and "left", which were simply the location in the meeting hall of the radical delegates (the Girondists) and the extremely radical delegates (the Montagnards) in the National Convention which governed during the French Revolution. Leftists all, but the more conservative ones sat on the right side of the hall, and forever after "right" and "left" have been part of our political lexicon. "Blue" vs. "red" is certainly no odder than that - and, to be honest, I'm glad that my guys are "blue" rather than "red", the word "red" having all sorts of negative connotations to it, notably being a synonym for communism, whereas "blue" has mostly positives. "True blue" and what have you. All of those connotations being further historical accidents, of course.)
Okay, that got pulled off hard into a tangent. Let me try again. Ahem.
I was recently bemoaning the fact that I've moved from one solidly "blue" state to another - California to Maryland, although Maryland's ten electoral votes tend to get overlooked in national political analysis - since it means that my vote doesn't really count. Ah, to live in a "battleground" state, where just because more of my neighbors were dupes or zealots (i.e. republicans) would mean that my vote was precious currency. What might I be paid for it? Certainly lots of attention. Also lots of junk mail. But here in Maryland I get bupkis.
I guess it might be worse to live in a solidly "red" state, where my vote was equally worthless, but due not to the moral rectitude of my neighbors but rather to their foolishness. So I guess that's a silver lining.
Polls showing "W" in the lead scare me. I try to take comfort in the fact that, historically, the good guys have, if not always, at least frequently won. Sure, "good guy" in an international context is never an unmitigated statement; but it is often the case that the loser is unquestionably more evil than the winner. Good examples being the American Civil War, both World Wars, the Cold War. Enslaving or butchering millions of people wildly outweighs interning innocent civilians or using indescribably powerful new weapons for the first time. I'm sorry, but anyone who claims that the U.S. was no better than the Japanese because the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs is an idiot and deserves a good slap across the mouth for being stupid.
"The winners write the history" is a statement remarkable being observed more in the breach than in practice. Orwellian post-facto vilification has - excepting of course the current radical conservatives (e.g. the "inherited deficit" bullshit - Clinton started with a deficit and reduced it every single year of his administration. Sure, Bush Sr. was also significantly responsible for turning the Ronald Reagan National Debt around, but every action that "W" has taken since the day he was selected has plunged us deeper and deeper into penury), uh, Orwellian post-facto vilification has - sorry, it's a tangental day - occurred more often to the winner rather than the loser. Cowboys vs. Indians - who do we think were the good guys now?
And that's because we're the good guys, and part of our creed is allowing people to say whatever stupid things they like. For instance, taking the side of the losers, rightly or wrongly. Us good guys value the truth, even if it's not always what we want to hear.
So being a good guy certainly seems to be handicap - the willingness to use any tactics, regardless of morality, as long as they might lead to victory would definitely appear to give the bad guys a certain advantage. And yet the Nazis and the Soviets are no longer with us. Sure, it could be historical accident - they had numerous other drawbacks - but I do hope not.
Because the bad guys won the last round. I'm not living in a "red" state - I'm living in a "red" country. The radical conservatives have seized control of the nation; Court, Congress, and Administration. My country is handing billions of dollars directly to the president's rich friends, and paying for it by writing checks that everyone else is going to have to cash. My country is killing its own soldiers by sending them to invade and occupy a country that posed no threat to us at all, for no other reason than the personal desires of the president. My country is making itself internationally reviled because this government just doesn't care what's right, wrong, or what anyone else thinks.
They did it in such a slick way. Say we want to take over the country - we've got no moral preferences, no political values. We just want power. Half the country doesn't vote anyway, and we only have to take control of one of the two parties. That's government by just a quarter of the population right there. Of the two parties, you have the big government free speechers, and the fiscal restraint morality regulators. Ah, but the fiscal restraint sorts value unity and will suck it up "for the good of the party", and the morality regulators are perfectly happy to be led around by the nose as long as you pay lip service to their values. So that's the party for us. Then we nuzzle up to agribusiness and mining and lumber concerns, and thus lock up all the sparsely populated states with exaggerated electoral college power. And viola! - victory despite our egregious moral flaws (draft dodging? drug taking?) and flagrant disregard even for our own party's values. And now we get to run the country for our sole benefit, and as long as we pay lip service to the values of the party, we can do whatever we want.
Democrats would never have stood for it - they self-analyze and complain and forever wonder if they did the right thing. But not Republicans. Republicans have signed their opinions over to the Party, and the fact that it is now in the hands of a radical few who believe in hugely expanding government and finding ways to make torture legal just doesn't matter. They say "Republican" on the outside, dammit.
I wonder if we're in for another party shift, or if the current administration is only a terrifying outlier. Will the rest of the Republican party ever realize they're being hoodwinked? Do they care? Or will they follow along obediently, as they tend to do, as the "W" mob lead them towards a monolithic Soviet-style state?
Maybe that "red" appellation is more accurate than I thought.
- Sun Ra