Sunday, November 07, 2004

I know there are a lot of you who are pretty disgusted with this last election. The previous (2000) election was easy to hate because it wasn't legitimate and the entire world knew it. Bush was selected, not elected.

This time it's different -- the citizens (albeit by a slim 51% margin) have actually chosen this former cokehead to continue leading them despite failure after failure. Iraq. Job creation. Energy policy. The economy. Enron. Osama. The Patriot Act.

But I suggest everyone step back and take a look at the grand scheme. Progressives, by their very definition, progress. Conservatives, by their definition, are conservative about progress. And given that a conservative's agenda in 2004 was a progressive's agenda in 1974, you can't escape the conclusion that despite some dire, backward-moving years (read; Reagan), we are winning. In fact I'm here to suggest it's inevitable.

All the next four years are going to achieve is to demonstrate in undeniable terms how catastrophic the conservative agenda is. Bush said he needed four more years. Ok, he just got them. Congress is heavily conservative-controlled, so he can't use that as an excuse for his failure. His full 8-year term are his responsibility and his alone. Both for the successes and failures.

So where could his policies take us?

You can't win the war on terror with the use projection of force against a group that isn't state-sponsored. If you can't threaten immediate destruction (nuclear weapons) and you can't negotiate with them (since negotiation invariably involves compromise, something that religious folks seem to take a dim view of), then your policy is useless against those who either don't fear your threats or find a way through the cracks. Witness 9/11.

Progressives believe the only way to "win" is to have policies that treat other countries fairly so that such hatred never forments and if it does, you'll have too many friends to allow it's spread. In other words, "the only way to win is to not play the game."

Sound familiar? It was considered both obvious and insightful in War Games because it was a computer that arrived at this conclusion. I still think it's obvious and insightful.

You can't continue depleting natural energy resources. They're finite. As the situation in the middle east becomes more tenuous, their use becomes more costly. Not only in terms of dollars but in terms of human life and global and domestic political goodwill. The solution is renewable sources such as hydrogen.

Does anyone doubt that hyper fuel efficient cars will be widely available in 2050?

You can't continue to spend 400bn every year on your miliary and only a fraction of that on education and domestic infrastructure. The Soviet Union learned this in a pretty painful way.

Gays have moved from the alleys (1960s) to the bars (1970s) to the TVs (1980s) to the senate (1990s) to demanding equal protection under the law (2000s). If you think they're going to get back in the closet you're out of your fucking mind.

Call me crazy, but I predict that being gay in 2024 will be pretty much like being black in 2004 (read; annoying only the truly ignorant).

Nah, call me progressive.

No comments: