micah holmquist's irregular thoughts and links
Welcome to the musings and notes of a Cadillac, Michigan based writer named Micah Holmquist, who is bothered by his own sarcasm.
Please send him email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Holmquist's full archives are listed here.
Sites Holmquist trys, and often fails, to go no more than a couple of days without visiting (some of which Holmquist regularly swipes links from without attribution)
Blogs that for one reason or another Holmquist would like to read on at least something of a regular basis (always in development)
Wednesday, November 06, 2002
that election thing
To repeat what everyone has already heard, read, said and written, Republicans won big yesterday and will soon be in control of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
Some may be suprised to hear me say this but I think David Horowitz got it right in "Republican Surge" by giving credit to Bush:
It’s the war, stupid; and the leader. No one should underestimate the transformation that George Bush is working on the American electorate and on the fortunes of Republicans. This is a leader who has opened up new electoral horizons for his party.That said I wonder if Horowitz is engaging in a bit of wishful thinking when he writes:
The consequence of the defeat for Democrats is likely to be an internal battle royal, a lurch to the left, and a push for the presidential candidacy of “populist,” anti-war Gore. This could provide an historic opportunity for the Republican Party to become the party of an American majority.Horowitz has a tendency to always see the Democrats heading leftward so it is no suprise that he sees it likely to happen here. The idea that the "internal battle royal" might turn out like it did in 1992 with the rightward side winning is never really considered. I tend to think Douglas Anders is more realistic:
Hopefully, these losses will make the Democrats more courageous rather than less (really, what's left to loose? New Jersey?). But I won't believe that until I see it.Despite what Eric Alterman, Andrew Sullivan and The Wall Street Journal like to believe, the Democrats aren't an anti-war party and anti-war activists tend not to be Democrats. It will be a big deal if any of this changes.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I think it is very unclear what is going to happen within the mainstream of politics in the U.S. but my 25 year old self is bold enough to say that the Democrats aren't going to become an anti-war party without a fight unless of course the "war on terror" becomes disastrous for people in the U.S. between now and 2004, something I see as a very real possibility.
Regardless of what else happens, it would be interesting to see some independent or third party presidential candidate make his or her campaign about opposing Bush's "war on terror." The candidate I envision would make it clear that he or she has very specific reasons for this position and has very specific opinions on other issues but would welcome all who genuinely oppose the war in an attempt to make such voices heard and respected. I don't know how such a candidate would do. He or she might do really well two years from now and get a fairly large chunk of the vote or he or she might start to gain a following and wind up imprisoned. I see either as legitimate possibilities.