One of the seminal themes in the recent sci-fi remake of the classic Battlestar Galactica is the religious incantation, "Everything that has happened before will happen again." In a twist that was anything but accidental, when the 1978-1980 series was revived in 2004, it chose to be ambiguous about its relation to the original. Was it a sequel? A remake? They chose the term "
re-imagining," allowing them the flexibility to suggest that both timelines could co-exist, somehow different cycles of eachother.Another relevant quote to the topic of hand is the fabricated admonition, again of religious origin in the show's canon: "So say we all."As an avid fan of the new Battlestar Galactica (and let's be honest, a decent fan of the much lamer 1970s version), I could go
on tirelessly about how brilliantly this is all constructed, abstracted, and generally used to create a wonderfully realistic and emmersive experience for the audience.
But rather, I'll fall back on the true nature of all good sci-fi, pointing a mirror at the events and concepts of our own time through the conceit of supposedly foreign, or in this case, alien, facades.
January 20th marked the 44th time in our nation's history that we have peacefully transferred power to a new president. That's the soundbyte anyway. In actuality, power shifts were not always so deliberate or innocent, as the several assassinations in our county's history illustrate.
Regardless, with the possible exception of the judicial hocus-pocus of 2000, there is no precedent for a change of power by coercion, military force, or outright coup. That's impressive, but when we celerbrate "consistency," all we're really doing is acknowledging that we've resisted the potential of dramatic change, even when necessary, and simultaneously affirming that this static approach to domestic and international policies is a good thing. That whatever we've done before, we will and should do again.
Indeed, with only rare exceptions, so say we all.
To be clear: I'm no fan of George W. Bush. In fact, with possible competition from Taft, Hoover, and Nixon, I believe him to be among the worst presidents in our nation's history. Not only did he lead poorly and make bad choices, his decisions were based upon concepts I fundamentally reject as being not only ill-informed, but unethical, immoral, unjust, and illegal. And these are not my opinions, though I express them as such, they are facts. This president broke not only international law, but those of his own constitution, then used Nixon's infamous, "it's not illegal if the president does it" excuse which smacks of all the totalitarianism
But rather, I'll fall back on the true nature of all good sci-fi, pointing a mirror at the events and concepts of our own time through the conceit of supposedly foreign, or in this case, alien, facades.
January 20th marked the 44th time in our nation's history that we have peacefully transferred power to a new president. That's the soundbyte anyway. In actuality, power shifts were not always so deliberate or innocent, as the several assassinations in our county's history illustrate.
Regardless, with the possible exception of the judicial hocus-pocus of 2000, there is no precedent for a change of power by coercion, military force, or outright coup. That's impressive, but when we celerbrate "consistency," all we're really doing is acknowledging that we've resisted the potential of dramatic change, even when necessary, and simultaneously affirming that this static approach to domestic and international policies is a good thing. That whatever we've done before, we will and should do again.
Indeed, with only rare exceptions, so say we all.
To be clear: I'm no fan of George W. Bush. In fact, with possible competition from Taft, Hoover, and Nixon, I believe him to be among the worst presidents in our nation's history. Not only did he lead poorly and make bad choices, his decisions were based upon concepts I fundamentally reject as being not only ill-informed, but unethical, immoral, unjust, and illegal. And these are not my opinions, though I express them as such, they are facts. This president broke not only international law, but those of his own constitution, then used Nixon's infamous, "it's not illegal if the president does it" excuse which smacks of all the totalitarianism
from which our forefathers theoretically rejected in the Old World, and our government ostensibly combats in the modern
Third world.
Having said that, and feeling in my heart the undeniable optimism and hope which all Americans place in the person of Barak Obama, I am finding it very, very difficult to let go of my cynicism. I like
Having said that, and feeling in my heart the undeniable optimism and hope which all Americans place in the person of Barak Obama, I am finding it very, very difficult to let go of my cynicism. I like what he has to say, and as I've been commenting to many of my friends as of late, I think it's fair to say that we'd all like to live in the America that he describes; but is that really the America we're going to get? After congressional compromises, pork-barrel spending, and back-room deals? I mean, he is just the President. If the office were represented by a shoe, no matter how battered or slick it was, and admitting that some shoes are better for some jobs than others (see Maxwell Smart's shoe phone, for example), we still wouldn't expect a shoe to cure cancer. right?
I watched the inauguration at a local pub, having decided that Columbia's campus JumboTron wasn't intimate enough for this profound m
I watched the inauguration at a local pub, having decided that Columbia's campus JumboTron wasn't intimate enough for this profound moment. By 10 am on a Tuesday the place was packed. People watched every second of CNN coverage, trying as they might to savor the moment despite the insipid punditry. (later inthe afternoon I caught some of Fox's coverage, and that was an instant begin
ner's lesson in identifying bias). When the big moment came, I think everyone found meaning and a serious emotional connection. I don't know when that happened last in America, maybe 2001, but to be honest I can't compare moments of retrospect horror with those of anticipatory optimism.
So we're all excited, and I have no reference for it within the scope of my lifetime. But when facts hit paper, it becomes more difficult to sort out what exactly is so different this time around. I
hope the mistakes of the past 8 years are rectified, that law and ethics can define US actions, not "again," but perhaps for one of the first times. As many savvy historians will point out, while the Bush regime was more blatant about their crimes and the motivations behind them, most if not all previous administrations enacted policies which in retrospect seem equally, if not more, objectionable. Torture, state-sponsored assassinations, funding of terrorists, condoning genocide, and anti-democratic coups are all verifiable legacies of the United States, confirmed in our own government documents, from just the past 50 years.
In this way, a more honest appraisal of the Bush legacy is not that he did terrible things, but that he didn't hide them or why he was doing them. If the only criteria we hold the new administration to is the obligation to help us feel less guilty about the actions of the USA, both domestically and internationally, then I fear we're setting the bar too low.
Then again, is it too much to expect an elected official, who can only come to office through the use of connections, lobbyists, broken promises, etc. to substantially deviate from virtually every precedent? Aren't we asking too much if we want one man to not only fix 8 years of proactive decline, but also resolve 2 major foreign conflicts and a financial meltdown all without violating our supposed values and principles?
In this way, a more honest appraisal of the Bush legacy is not that he did terrible things, but that he didn't hide them or why he was doing them. If the only criteria we hold the new administration to is the obligation to help us feel less guilty about the actions of the USA, both domestically and internationally, then I fear we're setting the bar too low.
Then again, is it too much to expect an elected official, who can only come to office through the use of connections, lobbyists, broken promises, etc. to substantially deviate from virtually every precedent? Aren't we asking too much if we want one man to not only fix 8 years of proactive decline, but also resolve 2 major foreign conflicts and a financial meltdown all without violating our supposed values and principles?When the speeches were finished, there wasn't a dry eye in the pub, and I'll bet it was a similar situation at many other locales across the nation (not sure about Oklahoma - someone want to chime in?). And I get caught up in it, and I do want to hope, but every time I start to get optimistic, I see the curve of history on the horizon, and wonder what new absurdity we're returning to this time around?
I can go on and on and on, but truthfully I have no idea what it means that Barak Hussein Obama is the President. Our President. In America. It sounds like a plot straight out of Sliders, but no Jerry O'Connell in sight (wait, wasn't he at one of the Balls?). I'm in total limbo, with nothing to grasp onto intellectually except my exceedingly limited experience, and what little of that I have demands a staunchly pragmatic skepticism.
It's not much fun to want to hope, and yet have your brain constantly telling you what a bad idea it is to expect much.
If you'll pardon just one more bad sci-fi reference, I think David Duchovny put it best almost a decade ago. It's not that I feel certain of Barak Obama's intentions or abilities to deliver on his promises, nor do I immediately deny them. I don't believe in Barak Obama, but I very much Want to Believe.
Do or Do not?
Engage.
Frak.
Weber
::super(lame) Texpatriot
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment