The best tweet of a night of billions of ‘em came from Jamelle Bouie: “This is a perfect representation of the campaign: an old white man arguing with an imaginary Barack Obama.” Sad-funny, and not just for Clint. It’s a sad-funny rather than tragic observation, at least so far, but it’s not sad-funny just for Clint and the Rs. The seemingly random mistake, putting him up there to speak off his decidedly frayed cuff, becomes typical not just for the Romney campaign, but for the epoch as the campaign embodies it. The R message, the message of R and R, is the ludicrous and insane notion that we can and should want to pretend that our Clint-nation can start all over again as a bunch of young singing cowboys looking for a break. Being aware that there is no easy answer, and that acting as though there might be might makes things much worse, is not the same as actually possessing the answer or even a good answer.
…though a testimonial blurb reminds us that Jacobin means to be “radical left,” the site’s quaint user icons, “prettied up” fonts and washed-out tones and and half-tones, Toussaint-Louverture period graphic, and mind-numbingly cute and self-conscious article excerpts convey an overall impression that’s about as radical and polemical, as revolutionary and Jacobin, as a restaurant menu. It’s “radical leftism” as de-constructed period piece or bourgeois diversion, hardly as a life-and-death confrontation with power.
Why does a scorpion defecate in the desert? Because it’s in his nature. Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, whenever a scorpion poops, a galaxy explodes. That’s how many galaxies there are!
We seem to be moving gradually toward a more sustainable spheres of influence structure, an uneven geopolitical web to be intermittently traversed by ad hoc coalitions acting on interpretations of their own particular and joint interests, or regional interests, or global economic or ecological or humanitarian interests. In some ways, this result is what conservative opponents of American internationalism (whether liberal idealist, hegemonist, or just imperialist) have always wanted, but, as those same internationalists have often warned their critics, escaping global-governance idealism may not equate with more conservative outcomes. Less political globalism does not necessarily mean less global activism, least of all for a maritime military-economic power like the USA.
Seems what really keeps the debate alive is ANY determination that it’s over. It seems to be a debate whose beginning is its end, and vice versa, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, til kingdom or caliphate or chaos come.