It wasn't till Obama's first campaign that I really became interested in following political news. Even Watergate went by in a blur as I was dealing with a toddler. I'd always voted and voted Democrat--not particularly for the candidate but because it was my feeling that, on the whole, the Democrats were more interested in taking care of ordinary folks, as opposed to Republicans, kowtowing to the wealthy.
Obama was something different. I felt really invested in his candidacy and was delighted when he won two terms.
I was impressed with Hilary's intelligence and composure during her debate with the Orange man and bereft when she lost--not the popular vote but in the Electoral College.
Four years of the Orange One were, in my opinion, a national embarrassment. And worse was seeing how his crass and vulgar demeanor emboldened so many of my fellow citizens to give vent to their racism and misogyny.
Joe Biden served his country well these past three and a half years. And, unlike the Former Guy, he proved himself capable of putting his country and party ahead of his ego.
And now we have Kamala--whose vision and happy energy have brought forth a surge of support.
Yeah, I'm deep in the daily reports--as well as the odd stuff that washes up on Facebook (my only social media.)
And I watch in amazement as the MAGA crowd decorate their ears with sanitary pads, wear adult diapers over their clothes, and wave plastic cups purporting to be filled with JD Vance's semen.
WTAF?
As John said, If this were a novel you were writing, you'd dismiss most of this as too far-fetched.
True.
I only wish I could read the history of this time, say fifty years from now. Assuming, of course, that propaganda hasn't replaced history by then.
Interesting times. . .
8 comments:
Assuming that we di get past this, the historians will have grist for a very long time. How embarrassing it is.
I know mainly from old political editorial cartoons, that politicians have long been involved in "muckraking" and nefarious activities. The histories do skip these details. We might do well to have editorial cartoon history classes available somewhere.
Barbara Rogers -- a course in political cartoons through the years would be very educational!
That anonymous comment was from me -- once again blogger is getting weird with me. 🤔
I checked into this and found that the history of political cartoons is taught at numerous universities around the country as part of history or political science studies.
Because of the Vietnam war in the 60s I became interested in US politics. Then I could not believe that people believed the lies of the Government. I knew from my father’s friends who fought in the French Indochina war that the last years of that war had been pushed by the US and armed by them too, and they had forbidden the signing of a peace treaty by De Gaulle, but there was nothing about that in the news (and still now, you can find out only in French speaking Google.) Since then and even now I find that the majority of the people here believe what they want to hear, like millions of US people who still think the orange kool-aid won the last election. How else can you explain educated Americans believing all his lies? I was hoping it would get better…..it will that decades, me think.
It's not just the political cartoonists who provide a means of tracking the news and its context, it's political humourists of all sorts. I remember in my early teens watching the late Mark Russell's broadcasts from his gig at the Shoreham Hotel in DC. Today, we have a wonderful variety just on YouTube alone -- Randy Rainbow and his parody songs, Trae Crowder and the Yankee Farm Wife with their folksy slant, monologues from John Oliver and Stephen Colbert ... And, of course, political humour goes *way* back, still visible in some of the grafitti in Pompeii. It's just that, today, non-written material has a chance of surviving, too, as a rich source of historical evidence.
So much of our history is completely embarassing.
Post a Comment