Like a lot of people, I think, I feel more relieved than celebratory after the election. Basically, we’re back at square one, except that the Republicans are pretty much in a situation where they have to abandon their tactics of confrontation and obstruction. They failed in their bid to destroy Obama, to make him a one-term president. I don’t think most people want another four years of their intransigence. The one aspect of the election that cheers me is the very real possibility that the Republican strategy of depending on the angry white male voter has finally reached a dead end. This is a common theme in all the commentary I’ve been reading. It all began back in 1968 with Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” a transparently, if not openly, racist approach. They’ve been tweaking it ever since. But it may finally be dead, dead, dead. Thank God! (Demographically speaking, I am a white male, a taxpaying, home-owning WASP. But I’m not angry.)
In the last two or three weeks I’ve been distracted by the election. Now I can get back to work in earnest. I haven’t done any final-draft level writing in ten years. It feels good to be back in the saddle. I’m satisfied with how it’s going.
An addendum a few hours after posting: No one knows really knows which way the wind will blow, but the Republicans are actually talking intransigence. For them it’s apparently got to be either victory or self-immolation.
Tags: Nixon, Obama, Republicans, the Angry White Male, the Election, the Southern Strategy
November 9, 2012 at 8:45 am |
“I feel more relieved than celebratory after the election.”
Ditto here.
“The Republicans are actually talking intransigence. For them it’s apparently got to be either victory or self-immolation.”
No surprise. Why? They don’t have a legitimate argument for why anyone in the socio-economic bottom 90% should vote for their members. If you want to understand the general mindset of the party’s leaders, strategists and supporters, might you consider reading these books by Robert Hare? —
- Without conscience
- Snakes in suits
Now, we move to more pleasant pastures.
“I haven’t done any final-draft level writing in ten years. It feels good to be back in the saddle.”
Back in the saddle! Hooray and happy sailing.
November 9, 2012 at 8:51 am
Immediately after I posted the above comment, I visited NYTimes.com and went to Paul Krugman’s latest article, which says:
“Representative John Boehner, the speaker of the House, wasted no time in declaring that his party remains as intransigent as ever, utterly opposed to any rise in tax rates even as it whines about the size of the deficit.”
Intransigent! There you are: the very word you’d used! I can’t believe it. hahaha
November 9, 2012 at 11:20 am
Well, to be honest, I wrote the addendum after reading Krugman’s column.
November 11, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
so write, man! WRITE!! we’re waiting! : )
November 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Six days a week.
November 24, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
Thanks for keeping us posted and we’re looking forward to the upcoming book.
I do have a question about the documentary, however, who is the guy at the beginning who interrogates you about the birds? And how did Judy get him to sign a release? Did you ever hear from him after the film came out?
November 25, 2012 at 1:04 pm
That shoot was done on a Memorial Day weekend when a lot of people were going up and down the Greenwich Stairs to the view spot at the top of Telegraph Hill. He was one of those who passed through. Everybody that Judy shot that day had to give an on-camera release, which is a standard release when there’s a crowd. We did hear from him. He saw the film, and he liked it.