Congeries of cross connected concepts
Gene at Harry’s Place comments on the desire of some people to vote for President Bush just to annoy some of his opponents. Let me say that beyond my basic support for Bush, the thought of just how painful his re-election will be for a certain crowd was part of the thrill of voting for him.
But this brings up an interesting point. I’m not all that old, yet I can remember when most of the nationally known annoying people were on the conservative / Republican side, the Swaggarts and the Buchanans. Now, however, it seems that almost all of the big name cretins are on the Left — the Michael Moores, the EUlite posers, Hollywood liberals, etc.
I suspect that this is a side effect of the long term political shift rightward in the USA. Shedding the human dross costs in the short term but pays off in the long term. Oddly, it’s usually the dominant party that feels that it can afford to do that. The minority party tends to cling to whatever support it can muster even if it’s unsavory. As the country has trended conservative, the Left (as embodied in the Democratic Party) has increasingly turned to who ever can get votes, regardless. Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, George Soros — these are the type of people who call the shots on the modern American Left.
It’s unfortunately like a drug addiction, where each hit requires a little bit more while the body is increasingly enervated so that the drug is ever more important. The Democratic Party has the problem that if Bush pulls of a re-election then what depths can the party plumb that aren’t net vote losers?
I thought at the time that President Clinton would be, in hindsight, considered a pivotal President. I’m ever more convinced of it, that future historians will mark his terms as the high point of the Democratic Party.
