Comments on Rich essay, "After the Mass. Massacre"

Dan ThomasCedar Falls, IowaJanuary 23rd, 201011:52 pm

Hi gang, This is my personal commentary, actually written last night in response to the Frank Rich essay in today's Times (it appears about 10:00 pm CST online). It's still in the qeue waiting publication and will be buried by the hundreds of others from people weighing in on the meaning of the Mass vote. Since we're all entitled to make of "objective" election results whatever narrative we wish, I'm choosing the one that follows. (I noticed that Chelsea has posted her review of Avatar in this blog, and because it has elicited considerable commentary from viewers on its political message, which Chelsea's take picks up on, I and a colleague are in the process of doing a Q study of viewer reactions to the movie. It may therefore be something that we as a class want to consider part of a class assignment: i.e., to watch and comment on it as it relates to politics if at all. Just a thought; be sure to read Chelsea's review and feel free to comment on it as well. Also note that in addition to Joe's story about KnightCallers and the Ricci effect, there is a comment from our colleague Sam Dunn on one of the earlier posts. In it, he has some not very kind things to say about the Democratic Party which he has worked tirelessly for in the recent electoral cycles. I have to concur with his assessment, for what it's worth. Finally, for what it's worth, my picks for later today are the New York Jets and the New Orleans Saints to defeat the Colts and Vikings respectively to set up the Super Bowl Matchup for two weeks hence. Here, then, is my two cents on the Massachusets special election:



Obama laid out for readers of Dreams from My Father, this presumed capacity to evoke different projections from different quarters as to his real identity. That may have served him well in life thus far, even in political life as a candidate whose promise of change was phrased in articulate oratory strikingly void of non-negotiable policy specifics. His biography -- as the son of a mother forced to take who food stamps, his decision to serve a low-pay, hard work stint as a community organizer between college and law school -- was enough to convince voters that his was more than a place-holding venture cynically exploiting the "change we need" slogan at a time when change was our only real option.

But now here we are, with a sinking feeling, fearing that we've been duped again, and that the Court's removal this week of all the cosmetics that cover the blemishes of a corporate oligarchy already controlling the purse strings and big votes of elected politicians plenty well enough to drop one more effort at long overdue health care
reform in its tracks.

All the handwringing and all the talk by pundits about resetting the Whie House's strategy is in order, just as the President's newly acquired demeanor as a combative populist is hardly unexpected in the wake of the Massachusetts result. But given the conditions of the ground since Senator Kennedy's death, that too could well have been expected. It would have likely been no different had Martha Coakley displayed due knowledge of, if not appreciation for, Curt Schilling, bit her tongue before dissing her opponent's judgment in shaking workers' hands in the cold without wearing an adequate overcoat -- as revealing as those stumbles were.

The MA voters were saying what, apparently, only those in the White House couldn't hear before the votes were counted: this president behaves as if his central if not sole mission is to manage -- carefully, deliberately, thoughtfully, while duly consulting all prominent advisors along the way -- the Corporate State in a serene, zen-like manner, showing no visible signs of disturbance or upset at a political process that has long since abandoned any pretense of seeking the fundamenal changes we so critically need and cannot afford to back away from yet again.