Wednesday, July 11, 2018

"Genus Envy"

Specifically the “Genus Extremicus.”

There is a price for everything, I suppose.  (Not, really, “I suppose.”  I actually believe that.  I just wanted to start “folksy.”)

I recently belatedly dropped in on a C-SPAN show on which a collaborating duo of pollsters with branded conservative credentials reported on a series of interviews they conducted with a sampling of unwavering backers of the current president, which they subsequently turned into a book.  

(Note:  To me, “affiliated pollster” conjures the stench of “affiliated umpire.”   Though confined to the immutable standards of “gathered statistics”, how could their partisan bias not inevitably seep in?  (More about that when my partisan recognized bias seeps in, which, though, hard as I try to exclude it, will not be difficult to detect.)

What I heard from the prejudiced pollsters – sorry, the people doing their darndest to remain carefully objective – was an illuminating perspective.  Meaning, I never thought of it before, though this view could, in fact, be widely disseminated.  (I discard a lot of my mail – “e” and otherwise – unread, and am embarrassingly sloppy concerning my phone messages.)

A general belief – a shameless euphemism for my ownbelief – is that the current president’s supporters voted with their gut and not with their minds.  (A belief particularly affirmed by the people who voted with their minds and lost the election.)  The prejudiced pollsters – sorry again – the participating pollsters reported that a prominent sector of Trump enthusiasts had, in fact, been thoughtfully practical in their selection.

Electoral experience had revealed to them that the conservative candidates they  previouslysupported never delivered on their promised conservative agenda, either because, when they were elected, they immediately abandoned their “bedrock beliefs”, or they maintainedtheir “bedrock beliefs” to the end but were never elected.  (Arguable Reason:  The majority of voters preferred candidates with markedly differing bedrock beliefs.)

Determined to be sensibly practical this time around, Republicans voted for the only candidate proudly proclaimed his conservative bedrock beliefs – if you ignore his pronouncements before entering politics – who promised to “Be their ‘Voice’”, and had the perceived best chance of winning the election.

Which, to everyone’s shock and dismay, including that of the unconventional candidate himself – he eventually did.

(LAST NOTE BEFORE MOVING ALONG:  One of the pollsters revealed that although few Trump enthusiasts endorse his personal behavior, they view him akin – no pun intended – to their crazy Uncle Harry who said – and did – unwelcome things, but hey, “That’s just ‘Crazy Uncle Harry’.” 

To which the “hypothetical” that bubbled to mind was, “What if “Crazy” Uncle Harry groped your mother? Because he could.  What if he walked into your daughter’s bedroom while she was changing her clothes? Because Uncle Harry’d paid for the house.  What if your Uncle Harry spread scurrilous lies about your father?  Because the two were embroiled in a serious legal dispute. 

Where, I am wondering, is the immovable “Line”, where Uncle Harry rises from  goofy “Family Character” to flagrant “Monstrous Degenerate?” 

My hypothetical was never responded to because the show was on C-SPAN and I was sitting alone in my house… muttering angrily at the TV. The president, one show’s guest reported from the collected interviews, receives an untroubled “pass” on such matters. Hence, the sobriquet, “prejudiced pollsters”, for not asking the pressing “follow-up” question, staring them screamingly in the face.) 


Here are these passionate people who, despite his acknowledged deficiencies in decency and deportment, opted to support this eventual winner, who said all the right thing and had no previous record of letting them down.  They were scarily ferocious in that support – “scarily” to those sensitive to the historic resonance of choreographed crowd roars of “Lock her up!” – and have continuedthat steadfast support despite accumulating evidence of ignorance, incompetence, instability and unprecedented self-interest.

Which theycount as further evidence of “colorful uniqueness.” 

The point is, they are unequivocally “All in” for their (now governing) candidate.

On the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, a side so equally “Genus Extremicus”, if the continuum were looped into a belt the two would meet at the bellybutton…

“I guess we have something in common, after all.”

“Yes.  The only difference is we’re right, and you’re wrong.”

(Who said which? “Dealer’s Choice.”)

You know what?  

I’ll do the opposite side of the spectrum tomorrow,

Including my own offered position, as well.  

Assuming I have one.

Ithink I have one.

If “Genus Moderaticus”is a recognized perspective,

Not an equivocal, fence-sitting punt.

See you, hopefully, manana. *  

(* My computer does not do the  “n’yuh.”)

No comments: