|
i dont see any disconnect between the "terrorism" issue (vote for bush or you will die die die.. resolve resolve what matters is a photographic posture that implies resolve yes--without it you will die die die) and "moral" issues (discriminatory legislation or amendments--on the question of morality in general, nietzsche was right)--it would seem that one way to channel the fear used in the campaign to mobilize folk in a negative way (which is all the "terrorism" trope amounts to) would be to invest energy in questions that are irrelevant, that work on different grounds, that enact a flight away from the ugly history thing into a suffocating world of absolutes
maybe bush got one thing right, at bottom--change is scary...why face it when you can run from it. after all, you've got an otherwise inexplicable rise in protestant fundamentalism since the 1970s, which shows you pretty clearly that running away from a changing world appeals to alot of folks.
\
on the article itself, i think manx did a good job dismantling it. the problem seems not only one of internal logic, but also of spotty and questionable source material in exit polls. seems that the article was generated out of a desire to say something quick rather than as a result of a serious analysis. which would run into methodological problems from the outset. if you want to get a better idea of how one might think about this kind of cluster of issues and the rise of the new right, check out the work of sara diamond. it is not perfect, but it is more serious than the slate guy.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|