Skip to content


March 24, 2012

Following is an edited version of a letter I sent today to an old friend/classmate and now retired college professor abiding in New Mexico.

I enclose some matter I cannot send via email. I liked the cartoon where the guy sitting at the desk (outfitted as an elephant/repub) asks his secretary to be a good little slut and bring him another cup of coffee. What this actually points up in my mind is not just the continuing assault on women but clear proof that the GOP has been hijacked by a peculiar grouping of (some remaining) moderates, libertarians, papal secularists, Limbaugh women haters, Santorum definitions of women as dishwashers and sperm vessels, Wall Streeters, tax haters (even as we go under for the third time) et al., et al., et al.

The hijacking is going to fail miserably. As I have written before, there are now too many disparate elements within that party for any one person (or even view) to bring them together in the fall. It is possible that we will have a Democratic sweep. It will be very interesting to watch the repub convention up in Tampa later this year when they are hearing reports from their platform committee. I think there will be knee-deep blood (figuratively speaking) in the committee’s attempts to come up with a platform and that whatever they come up with will be further bloodied on the floor when the convention is asked to adopt it. That is one of the prices you pay with such differing views within the general framework of a party. Doles and Santorums do not and cannot mix.  

It may surprise you to know that (in overall terms) I am sorry to see it happen. They didn’t have to go the way of the Whigs. They could have corrected the Limbaugh and libertarian views now holding forth in their party, but they chose not to do so – so now they will pay the price. I have reason to believe, for instance, that literally millions of repub women are so incensed that they are going to vote Democratic this fall. Not one of the four candidates has the guts to call Limbaugh out, nay, not one! If they cannot handle buffoons and defamers and libertarian dreamers within their own family, how can they possibly claim to be able to handle Putins, ayatollahs, and various other warlords and dictators? When does their pandering stop and when do they get a bit of Harry Truman in their respective backbones?  You can bet that a guy who fires McArthur and drops atomic bombs and breaks the Berlin Blockade would have no trouble at all in handling such situations, whatever you may think of whether his decisions were appropriate. Harry Truman pandered to no one; he told them what he thought in plain words.

It appears Romney is going to be the repub candidate. I haven’t heard any plain words from that pandering Midas since he announced his candidacy. I am not particularly worried about his wealth and the world view landscape that comes with it; I am basically worried about his strength of character, something his religion cannot help. You can be a very religious guy and utterly amoral in terms of public weal because you were born and raised in a rich family. Truman was dirt poor, and walked many a mile behind horses plowing up the Missouri landscape. He probably made up his mind on a lot of things when looking at the posteriors of horses all day long. None of these four could tie his shoes. What a bunch of losers! GERALD E

From → Uncategorized

One Comment
  1. William Berlin permalink

    I agree that the R’s are too diverse, in almost all categories, to come together to the extent of being a political force this year. But they aren’t the only ones with strong ideological, religious, socio-economical, ethnic, and cultural biases; many D’s, leftists, independents, radicals, et al, have theirs, too. It is my fear that so many of the most crucial of our national problems are rooted in these topics rather than in the political arena. Therefore, a change in — or continuation of — political direction, policies, etc., will have but minimum effect on such problems.

    Social media has exacerbated the effect of the biases and will continue, even more rapidly and broadly, to affect the national discourse. The across-the-board shibboleth of “American Exceptionalism” allows the U.S. to decide whom to favor and whom to ignore, both at home and abroad. What leader, of whatever organization or sect, has the courage to challenge it openly?
    The concept of democracy, across the space-time continuum, has had many definitions expressed in countless forms as it has lurched along, none of them perfect. The most recent forms are the easiest to dissect and criticize because . . . egad, they are the most recent! — in memory, on record, in terms of numbers involved and/or affected thereby. However, on the basis of what we “know,” it cannot be stated empirically that any one or more forms are “better” or “worse” than others.

    What we do know is that the only constant is change, and change it will! In the current phase of the lurch now underway since the 1950s (or perhaps since the so-called “Industrial Revolution”), whose ox gets gored is still the question. It is the eternal question for the concept of democracy, whenever, wherever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: