My Election Analysis
December 4, 2012
This is from an email I sent to a friend who sent an analysis of our last election written, allegedly, by “a rabbi from New York,” the relevance of which information I cannot figure out. Oh well. Anyway, if you google “a rabbi from New York” and “election” you will find it I imagine. It is too long to paste and copy here, at least too long for me. But then I may be one of those Americans who have abandoned the “traditional virtue” of “hard work." Here is the link:
Oh boy, this guy couldn't be more wrong, in my opinion. The American people chose what they were presented with, a "choice" that was hardly a "choice" unless of course for those who believe that Mormons are members of a cult or Obama is a secret Muslim born in some other part of the world. Of course, such people constitute a very small percentage of the people, despite the attention they attract from our media, which would do almost anything not to deal with significant issues. As there was no choice and the people sensed this, they went with the incumbent, as they do and have done for decades now, regardless of party or person. Of course, as almost no one pays much attention to history in the United States, the power of incumbency entered into few analyses of the election. "Better the devil you know than the one you don't."
And as far as his judgment that "the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate" he is just wrong. First, it is less than clear that these virtues are as "traditional" as he would like to believe. Hey, all one need do is read a little Mark Twain to see a different picture of "traditional American virtues." We all love the illusion of a "lost golden age," when "virtues" reigned supreme and everyone was working hard, loving their spouses and children and attending church faithfully.
But secondly, insofar as these virtues have lapsed somewhat, it is because our political class has created an economic and governmental arrangement and perpetuated it in which such values are more often penalized than rewarded. They, and I mean both Democrats and Republicans, have created a society where being a "bureaucratic" person is socially desirable, a cog in the machinery, whether that machinery be public or private, government or corporate, makes little or no difference to what is asked of us as "proper behavior." "Free enterprise" is increasingly bureaucratic, and Republicans like Romney or Ryan said nothing to indicate that they understood this or saw it as problematic. Government is of course increasingly bureaucratic - hell, our "warriors" push buttons in Tampa to kill people in Pakistan, which requires no courage at all - and Democrats show no awareness of the dangers of bureaucratization. Two parties, one future: Bureaucracies rule and will rule. [You should see how colleges and universities, allegedly places of "education," are bureaucratizing their students, not educating them but "training" them to become successful cogs in a brave, new world.]
Both parties kept any one who was a genuine alternative to what we have now suppressed, from Rick Santorum to Ron Paul to Gary Johnson to Jill Stein. This is no accident; in fact it is absolutely essential to maintain the status quo, which is what both Romney and Obama represented. And, of course, by trotting out all these canards as he does, this "rabbi from New York" - the relevance of which is what? - only helps to maintain that same status quo.