We live in a society people. Take bodily function management for example. Though it usually goes without saying, every once in a while some dastardly miscreant comes ambling along, soiling the world around them with reckless impunity. And in those instances it is up to the good, the decent, the exemplary, the veritable moral rocks of Gibraltar, as it were, to give society the sort of stern reminder about what the core components of the social contract are. See, somewhere near the top of the list there is a rule that says it’s just not socially acceptable to defecate in places where others have to live. With 2008 being an election year, never has there been a more pertinent maxim for a truly decent and moral society to live by.
For instance, a recent satirical piece published in the British tabloid rag The Economist titled “Richard Milhouse McCain,” uses a bit of poorly-crafted, condescending, tongue-in-cheek humor to insinuate that Richard Nixon’s introduction of what it calls “the politics of cultural resentment,” into the presidential campaign was somehow a disservice to the American political process. The basic rationale of The Economist stated that during the 1972 presidential campaign, Nixon cornered the market on populism — a tactic used with roughly equal frequency by both parties and to roughly the same measure of success in decades prior — to gain political leverage with average Americans, thereby alienating the political Left from the populace. Nixon later accidentally disgraced the office of president; ergo everything Nixon did must have also been a disgrace.
What uproariously foul dishonesty. It was no more wrong when Nixon did what the liberal media termed “illegally” expanding the powers of the president than when Bush did it. Nixon demonstrated an profound understanding of the vision of the founders when he said, “if the president does it, it can’t be illegal. I mean, checks and balances and due process are simply courtesies that we, the majority, afford marginalized minorities to prove our benevolence. That’s what the disaffected are for: opportunities for charity. The article went on to state that today’s issues are “too grave” to be filibustered by a squabble about culture . . . wah, wah, what? Well we’re going to need a square-nosed shovel here, also a baggie and a rolled-up newspaper, because The Economist just left some bulls— in our public sphere. Unacceptable!
I got so upset after reading this treacherous bit of smut I had to take a cold shower. As I hunkered under the cascading streams of water, blindfolded, with one arm covering my nipples, wearing rubber gloves, using my padded tongs to scrub my, you know, down there parts, the answer sprang forth: Sarah Palin. She’s a woman, right? Women are considered a minority. And if, as a woman, she doesn’t voice any discontent with Nixonian tactics like ballot initiatives proposed by home-schooled Baptist women in Colorado — that declare a fertilized egg to be a human life, rendering all forms of abortion and some forms of contraception to be the same as murder — intended to rally fundamentalist conservatives to the polls, then that justifies it.
Who are we to question the next vice president of the United States of America? McCain made a wise choice in selecting her as a running mate. The only possible better choice would have been a reanimated Spiro Agnew-Nixon’s first VP-dressed in one of J. Edgar Hoover’s dresses, to simply pose as an example of unquestioning compliance not just to women but also gays, minorities and immigrants alike. That way Palin could have stayed home where she belongs.
Why don’t people realize that just because a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without the notice of our Creator, that doesn’t mean that our empire can rise without making his aid a legislated directive? Why don’t people realize that free speech only works when marginalized minority groups keep their mouths shut? And, likewise, that freedom of the press only applies to publications that tacitly agree to reaffirm the world-view of the majority? Consider yourself warned, The Economist.
At the end of the day the McCain/Palin campaign should be flattered by their comparison to Nixon/Agnew. It’s THE ECONOMIST that should be ashamed of their attempts to discredit the well-established stratagems of the Right. This aggression will not stand. The dookie left by the “open-minded” European liberals at The Economist must be disposed of, the culprit rebuked, censured and emasculated. We must all, as the majority, share in the collective burden.
I’m not talking about torches and pitchforks here. That would be too kooky. But there will be shovels involved, as well as plastic baggies. As for the rubber gloves and the tongs, just leave that part to me.
