Name:
Location: Vancouver, B.C., Canada

I'm a PhD student in econ at UBC. For fun, I write this blog.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Please nominate this man.

Ryan Lizza on Confederate George Allen. The problem, as I see it, isn't that Allen "is" a racist -- that's probably impossible to know, and he almost certainly doesn't see himself as one. It's that he was too weak, too mean, too much of a shock-pleaser not to have been drawn into the "rebeliousness" of southern racist culture in his youth. For an aspiring politician, that's dumbness on a grand scale. Allen is like the Mr. Hyde version of Bush. Dubya might have passively accepted his entitlements, afflably for the most part, and shrugged off attempts to be more or think beyond (or question in any way) what privilege could do, just loafing along until his time came as it inevitably would. That's hardly admirable -- in fact it's a fairly disgusting commentary on the shame of American meritocracy. But it's one we, apparently, can live with; Bush was a winker. He knew how to stay out of trouble for the most part, knew there was nothing to get irreparably angry over for the sheer hell of it. Call it the zen of the frat brat. Allen, judging by Lizza's story, was the just the total opposite: the classic rich-kid thug, acting it all out, not content merely to be rich and popular and athletic, but needing to hate as well, needing to inflict punishment and discomfort. His sister has even written a book about what a sadistic brat he was! And it's early days yet. Lizza moved a little too much earth for the Senator just looking at Allen's yearbook photo.

Oh, but wouldn't it be wonderful for Americans to get a chance to prove that it is possible to be too retrograde for the U.S. presidency? Reading the article I acutally got excited about the dormant sense of national greatness that a George Allen defeat would reinvigorate. What a fine thing for Americans of all incomes, genders, races, relgions to unite in denying George Allen and everything he represents 45% of the popular vote. And there's just so much there -- so much history, so much narrowness -- for a smart Democrat to run against. Bring it on.


Update: Ed Kilgore's version of this:

As a native southerner, I find this weird and a bit troubling. Personally, I have all sorts of issues with the Confederate Flag and the whole self-destructive cult of the Lost Cause. But I do understand its appeal to people who have grown up saturated in southern culture; I may sometimes consider them SOBs, but they are my SOBs. The idea of young, incredibly privileged, golden-boy-quarterback George Allen of California choosing to embrace southern shibboleths at the precise moment, in the late 1960s, when they were most associated with atavistic racial attitudes, bothers me a lot.

Allen is going to make a lot of Americans feel pretty squirmy; but that's no reason he can't win a GOP primary.

3 Comments:

Blogger Dave said...

Wouldn't that be glorious?! I'm almost ready to send five bucks to his campaign fund.

4:00 PM  
Blogger nightshift66 said...

Oh, be careful what you wish for. Jimmy Carter prayed the Repugs would be 'foolish enough' to nominate Reagan. W was considered a flyweight by most pundits.

Most US presidential elections come down to a referendum on the party in power, period. Do NOT assume that the machine cannot put lipstick on this pig.

2:27 PM  
Blogger Laura said...

You're right nightshift -- the upshot of my "please nominate" argument, was that Allen probably wouldn't make a substantively worse administration -- except on the symbolic level -- than anybody else the GOP spits out except maybe Romney or Guilliani who can't win their primary. But the satisfaction of seeing him lose would be that much higher.

3:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Web Site Hit Counters
Web Site Hit Counters