Why the question marks? Well, I guess because I know for some of us, the year will end happily, with a President OTHER than Hillary Clinton OR Mike "Evolution is just a theory, kinda like gravity" Huckabee, or even Mitt "Really, I'm not a RINO, truuuuuuuuuust meeeeeee" Romney, and for some of us, there will be "Burn-My-U.S.-Passport-Parties."
I also question how NEW the year will be in the sense that I lately despair of finding the truly NEW. It seems that--whether we're talking about our culture or our political scene--everything old, tired, unproductive, unconstructive and ultimately toxic is new again. Whether it's bitter partisanship (yawn) or oversexed starlets in crisis, I am hard-pressed to envision anything but more of the same in 2008. I see little in the way of real LEADERSHIP, either politically or culturally, and most people around me are either apathetic about the situation or are in denial, with their heads buried firmly in the sands of "Farther-Away-Than-the-Tip-of-My-Nose" and "Less-Interesting-Than-My-Navel." Both sound like places in a Shrek sequel, which is fitting considering I predict more sequels than you could ever dream of...Even in your worst nightmares.
I hate to sound so gloomy, especially after declaring my support for a guy who at least hopes to be the embodiment of HOPE itself, but it's hard not to. I do believe Obama would be a breath of fresh air for the country, and those of you who know me know that's not an easy thing for me to say. To support someone you will have to oppose from the day-one on many key policy issues seems symptomatic of borderline personality disorder, doesn't it (Steve, chime in here, you're the shrink after all, and my friend, so I know you'll be honest with me...)?
But there it is, the truth as I know it, and the truth is, the "new," the truly experimental and novel may well be that which seems LEAST logical and least predictable. Although, having just said that I realize it may constitute an argument FOR a Hillary presidency! I mean, what could be LESS predictable than the positions of that woman? The questions "Will she or won't she?" "Does she or doesn't she?" were practically written with her in mind weren't they? (Deb chuckles softly and sadly to herself...). Nah, not really. I think those of us who have followed her "career" over the years realize she is nothing if not predictable. If it's mean-spirited, underhanded, dishonest and self-serving, she'll probably do it. So the policy position is immaterial really, all that matters is her character (or lack thereof) and there's nothing new to talk about where that is concerned.
Why does a conservative fixate on the "new?" Isn't that in and of itself "NEW?" I suppose it is, superficially anyway. I like to think of it as "new" in that it's NOVEL. Today's conservatives--those in power anyway--have so forgotten who they are and what they represent (Ron Paul excepted of course, but I wouldn't say he's "in power" either) that calling them conservative is merely a way of letting liberals know they oppose gay marriage and abortion. Beyond that, there's nothing conservative about them. So for me, the "new" I seek is not just hope and courage and character, it is REAL conservatism. It may not be "new" in the literal sense. In fact, it may be as old as this country itself, but in this decade--what's left of it anyway--it WOULD be a novelty to see, and THAT is what I want.
How can I possibly expect to get that from 2008 if Obama wins? Well, call it reverse psychology, call it "intelligent design" (of authentic conservative opposition that is), the point is that it's too easy for lazy inauthentic conservatives to stand up against a Hillary. How could you call yourself conservative--even in name only--without doing at least THAT much! But to stand against a man who WILL talk to you, who WILL work with you and listen to you, that takes guts, that takes brains, that takes IDEAS. New ones, old ones that didn't see the proper light of day when we held power for six long years, and everything in between. The point is, enough with resting on our anger and partisan invective. It's boring, it's tired and, most importantly, it's INEFFECTIVE.
If we pick one leader, who has the potential at least to be honest and fair and GOOD, perhaps others will rise to meet him, to challenge him, to work with him and bring to the fore the REAL conservatism, the one I hold dear, the one I"m proud to associate myself with, the one I haven't seen in a loooooooong time. And that my friends, if it came to pass, would be very "new" indeed.
So here's wishing all of us who long for the same thing a HAPPY and a NEW year.
Posted by insomnomaniac at December 31, 2007 10:18 AM | TrackBack