The Status Quo and Santorum

The Status Quo

P. Schultz

April 26, 2012

            So, now isn’t this interesting? In the midst of what must be one of the most uncivil times in our history, with almost everyone pissed off at our politicians and even at our political institutions, who are the candidates for the presidency? That’s right: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney! If Obama weren’t black – although he isn’t actually “black” – we could call this election between two “Mr. White Breads.” And as shown on the Daily Show last night, Romney gave a speech which can only be described as vacuous and Obama appears at Chapel Hill with Jimmy Fallon to, apparently, appeal to “the youth vote” swaying to the tunes of Al Green! Oh yes, this is certainly going to be an exciting campaign. Of course the media will do all it can to convince us that these two white bread, wealthy, ambitious Americans are actually different politically. But at bottom we all know better.

            It is enough to make me wish Rick Santorum were going to be the Republican nominee or, better for me, Ron Paul. I don’t agree with much that Santorum supports but at least the man knows that the status quo is last thing we need to preserve.  And what’s so bad about a man who home schools his children? I mean that has to be better than No Child Left Behind or, what’s even worse, The Race to the Top! If only Rick would apply his pro-life stance across the board, that is, apply to foreign policy and crime policy as well as to medical policy. Then, for me, it would be easy to support him, even if he is slightly off center. Besides, who am I to criticize someone for being “slightly off center?”

            And as a friend pointed out, Santorum was played by the establishment Republicans. That is, he was encouraged to run, given no support [look at the money Romney raised compared to Santorum], while the establishment Republicans waited for him to “self-destruct” in order to pass “the torch” on to Romney. And it would seem that Santorum now knows he was played, which is why he has refused so far to support Romney. Of course, this is made to serve the interests of the establishment Republicans because they can say, “See, Santorum doesn’t understand politics. He isn’t stable.” Well, he might not understand politics but he does understand being stabbed in the back!

            And I watched a video of Ralph Nader being interviewed by Russian TV [Wow!] in which he asserted that Obama was actually worse than Shrub because, and this is persuasive to me, while Shrub invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, he could not legitimize his wars. But Obama has done that! So now these wars have been legitimized and with them presidential actions, like torture, that some consider war crimes. And now with a race between Romney and Obama about to unfold, so much of what has happened in the past 10 to 12 years is being legitimized. But then that’s the point, isn’t it? To legitimize the oligarchs’ seizure of power and their undermining of our republic even while they destroy the economy and whatever social safety net still exists. Ah yes, “what a country!” These are best characterized as “political crimes” being committed while hidden in plain view. It is difficult not to get discouraged.

             Here are a few further, discouraging thoughts. Now that any possibility of a successful insurgency has been laid to rest because, as we all know or should know, both candidates of the major parties are anti-insurgent, other changes can and probably will take place. For example, it is now possible for the Supreme Court, on the flimsiest of grounds, to gut important parts of Obamacare. Just as Obama could walk away from a public option early in his term, so too now the Court can walk away, without fear of any protest taking root, from the very modest "reforms" that Obama did secure. Also, it was reported in the NY Times the other day that the justices seemed to respond favorably to Arizona's immigration law that basically allows for racial profiling. What is to prevent the Court from upholding this and similar laws now that any possible insurgency has been controlled?  Not a thing. You can probably think of other policies that now can be endorsed or continued. But here is one that I find particularly ironic: Despite or perhaps because of the election of a black president, what has been called "the new Jim Crow" can continue. After all, it cannot really be "Jim Crow" - even though massive numbers of blacks are imprisoned and then disempowered - if we have a black president, can it?

              Not only it is difficult not to get discouraged; it is even difficult not to get disgusted.