Well, to be serious one minute, maybe it's not such a bad idea.
The interactions of political parties, after all, are hardly the creative, rallying points for the interation of thesis and antithesis that one might have hoped they'd be.
Each phalanx has decided in advance what its agenda and programme is. The debate too often consists in which side will prove supreme and oust and silence the other.
The all-sovereign lust for power sidelines considerations and perceptions that the other guys might be speaking value, after all - because if they aren't so sidelined, so it's thought, you'll be left impotent, an audienceless middleman, shorn of influence, consoled only by the unvirile wisdom of the Janus faced fence-sitter, whose words court the wind.
At Camelot, where all had power, and none were owned by pre-solidified agendas, one imagines thesis and antithesis could interact with far greater fluidity and freedom.
One might have hoped it would be the same in a democracy.
How's blighty? I miss the place. Seems like another world, depite BBC World and this anglicised campus.
Like the superb Leonardo, I was born precociously, centuries before a climate of thought existed in which my genius could be acknowledged. But whereas the Florentine saw it as his mission in life to experiment secretly and to investigate, it is intellectual cupidity and the need to alter perceptions that gave my brain a kind of superhuman power ( and myself an absolutely fantastic ass). I am, in truth, a confrontation between the sexes in a dualistic universe which I am just passing through, waiting out my final sublimation, my Epiphany, I trust. Farfetched? Not if one considers Selena's passion for conspiracy and her ability to wait patiently for the right moment. In short, I am an expert at laying false trails...And thanks again for your interest in my somewhat unpredictable affairs...
7 comments:
Excellent work!
Well, that's show business, David...
Well, to be serious one minute, maybe it's not such a bad idea.
The interactions of political parties, after all, are hardly the creative, rallying points for the interation of thesis and antithesis that one might have hoped they'd be.
Each phalanx has decided in advance what its agenda and programme is. The debate too often consists in which side will prove supreme and oust and silence the other.
The all-sovereign lust for power sidelines considerations and perceptions that the other guys might be speaking value, after all - because if they aren't so sidelined, so it's thought, you'll be left impotent, an audienceless middleman, shorn of influence, consoled only by the unvirile wisdom of the Janus faced fence-sitter, whose words court the wind.
At Camelot, where all had power, and none were owned by pre-solidified agendas, one imagines thesis and antithesis could interact with far greater fluidity and freedom.
One might have hoped it would be the same in a democracy.
How's blighty? I miss the place. Seems like another world, depite BBC World and this anglicised campus.
Elementary, Jonathan.
Democracy is all about creating enemies instead of winning new friends, and the odds are that it will so remain...
My thoughts exactly (see post). Trying to work out which party has the best policies has only ever got us into deeper trouble.
...and let's not forget that Obama came into prominence through the Chicago political machine and the politics of racial grievance!
Post a Comment