11 Nov

It’s All Over. Not.

Andrew Klavin @ PJMedia:

I think it was Orson Welles who said, “If you want to tell a story with a happy ending, it all depends on where you stop.” To put it another way: every story is a tragedy, if you tell it to the end.

As with lives, so with republics. Freedom is a living thing. It dies. Conservatives are like doctors. They can only win for the moment, the day, the year, the election cycle. And no matter the victory, time only goes one way. The republic grows older every day, the people travel further from their founding values and nothing lasts forever.

There are many responses to that situation. Only one of them is wise: good cheer and defiance. Keep laughing; fight back; fear nothing. Mortality makes time too precious for despondency and death makes a fool of fear. There’s nothing to worry about: disaster is certain. And nothing can be that serious since, whatever it is, it’s guaranteed to end.

Since Tuesday, I have heard enough conservatives saying, “It’s over! We’re through!” in serious, important-sounding voices to last me the next four years. I don’t care how important you make it sound, it’s whining; any child can do it. I’ll let you know when it’s over by putting you in the ground and throwing six feet of dirt onto your face. Until you get that secret signal, really, pull yourself together.

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

6 Responses to It’s All Over. Not.

  1. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 1

    According to the great of metaphysical, political dialectic, of the two competing positions—liberalism vs. conservatism—liberalism won an enormous victory on Tuesday. Out of the war of these two competing theses, a new synthesis will arise—a combination of the two. And this is how the great movement of ideas proceeds—sound quite Hegelian, huh? Or when we consider the economics of the matter, which the extreme righties keep telling us—that we’re on the road to socialism—sounds kind of (heave forbid the sound of the word), Marxist.

    ReplyReply
  2. DaNang67 says: 2

    Lib1(Stupidity)… That’s the political dialect of the silly socialists at DKos and DU. Romney was never a conservative. He is at heart a Republican progressive. He ran on a single message: “Obama can’t fix the economy, I can.”

    He lost to a “perfect storm” of a corrupt media acting like a propaganda machine, an inept political operation, a stalled momentum brought about by an actual storm and an immense vote fraud effort involving millions of foreign citizens and funded by stimulus dollars. The average American still identifies with mostly conservative and libertarian values. The average American can’t define terms like “right wing”, “left wing”, “progressive” or “fascist”. There will be no synthesis due to this election. It wasn’t an ideological victory. There was no campaigning on values, just personalities and competence.

    ReplyReply
  3. DaNang67
    YOU said it better, much better than I would,
    and this election is not legit, the narrow margin make it a recall
    of the whole votes, and machines and tactics from the OBAMA supporters, they need to be caught their hands in the pot, and justice must be following it’s course, so there will be the message they cannot get away with fixing an election that represent the most important in the history of this NATION,

    ReplyReply
  4. dtih says: 4

    I saw a motivational poster at a Catholic elementary school that went something like this:

    ‘ You’re not finished when you lose, you’re finished only if you quit.’

    ReplyReply
  5. dtih
    hi,
    yes that is a good one to remember when one is down,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  6. johngalt says: 6

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    Hegelian dialectics again? You do realize that Marx and Engels co-opted that idea, except they decided to force the antithesis pitted against the accepted thesis in order to achieve what they viewed as their predetermined position(s), right?

    In that sense, it wasn’t as you described it, as Hegelian, but rather, Marxist. Plain and simple. Of course, reality never played into Marx’s views of the world, just as they do not from the modern standpoint of liberal/progressivism. One undeniable truth over the course of the history of the world is that a spade is still a spade, no matter how it’s looked at.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>