I got the latest TIME and was impressed by its unusual heft. The heft wasn't all additional advertising, as I had suspected, but actual news articles concerning something other than the latest Hollywood movie. The last issue devoted 27 pages to the latest movie by Spielberg. I wonder how much Spielberg paid TIME for that amount of advertising. I also wonder why I should be paying for a magazine that is composed of advertising and not news.
Would this issue of TIME mark the brand new, never-before-seen inclusion of investigative journalism and tell me something that I did not already know? Would this issue be reality-based, or a bunch of rumors and half-truths? Unfortunately, TIME squandered all its pulp to analyze the election and the supposed technical, financial, demographic and logistical factors behind Romney's defeat, based upon its various sources in the rumor mill. I scanned those articles but found them beside the point. I don't expect that many people in the media will get the point. At any rate none of it was interesting to me, and I went back to Doris Lessing and her confessions of being a Communist divorcee in Southern Rhodesia. Yes, even that was more interesting.
Who won was a function of the candidates themselves, the ideas they espoused and how those ideas resonated with the electorate. I don't expect Republicans to gather any clues from the election. Republicans never take rides on the clue canoe. The only likely change is they will become more extreme and crazy than before to reflect their base. The Republican party is the extreme right wing, while the Democratic party is the moderate right wing. There is no left wing political party in the United States. Anyone who looked at Obama's policies for five minutes without bias would conclude that Obama is a conservative. In large part he continues the policies of his predecessors Bush and Clinton, which is why his relations with the former Presidents remain so good. Romney, at least the latest version, was not a conservative, but a radical Social Darwinist who promised extreme change that would result in unnecessary suffering and additional warfare and debt. There were enough voters in 2012 that perceived enough of this to make the crucial difference--more than enough voters, as a matter of fact, because the margin was not as close as pundits predicted. Romney lost not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote as well, and he lost in all those battleground states that the Republicans were boasting they would carry, and in doing so he squandered hundreds of millions of dollars from his unethical donors. Perhaps his supporters on the ground were uninspired by his background at Bain Capital, his flip-flopping on issues, and his fumbling of words and facts. But the central problem was Romney's ideology, and I am pleased to predict that Republicans will never admit that in a million years, because introspection is unknown to Republicans. No, they will continue to commit the same old errors, which bodes well for the opposing party of the future, be it Democrats, Greens or Libertarians.
No comments:
Post a Comment