From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 20:10:39 MDT
Charles writes
> Michael Wiik wrote:
>
> > Interesting alternate history scenario. I found it amusing anyway.
> > Actually, I agree with every word in it.
>
> I wish I didn't agree with you. Gore would have been much more polite
> about things,
to other nations, I think you mean.
> but many of the contracts seem to have been let before the
> election was held, which makes one wonder slightly just how
> significant it would have been. My general impression is
> that the Democrats are more concerned with people liking them,
> and the Republicans are more concerned with shoring up their
> own power.
Not at all! Political parties by their very nature do
everything that they can "to be liked", especially on
election day. Just apply a little Darwinian logic, and
see what would happen to parties that didn't care if
they were liked!
But yes; there is something disturbingly feminine about
Democratic approaches to foreign policy and masculine
about Republican approaches.
> Still, one must bear in mind that a (small) group in
> control of power will almost always decide on actions
> that retain its control over the power, however it
> may have to justify them to itself.
Exactly right.
> That said, Gore appeared from the first to be the
> "chosen loser" [each of these is spelled with just
> one "o"] in the election (bland, unemotional, unable
> to motivate people).
Well, he only failed by a hair. I'd say in roughly
half the worlds it *is* "President Gore".
> And he was as fervently in favor of increased centralized
> intelligence gathering and surveillance as Bush was. Perhaps
> more so. He was pushing that during Clinton's term. Still,
> I got the impression that everyone was surprised as how hard
> it was to get Bush chosen. (Why they wanted to is still a puzzle.)
Perhaps I don't understand the depth of your puzzle. For
me, it was simple: the Republicans badly needed a cynosure,
or a Shelling point, whatever, that they knew that they could
all rally around. Despite his appalling inarticulateness (which
I guess has improved), he was the clear choice that would
provide the best chance of beating those awful Democrats.
And that's the only reason he was chosen. Am I missing
something?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 03 2003 - 20:20:42 MDT