Is Postmodern Conservatism Not Listening to Prozac?, or Thoughts from a Giant Turnip

Of course pomocons don’t listen to Prozac! Nor should they, but in our fascination with the vicissitudes of the presidential nomination process, might we not be asking to be put in a giant sack hanging from a tree? Learning the style of populist rhetoric may make us as (un)popular as Gingrich or Perry seem to be when they wager in their own campaigns on that trope—but at the end of the day it seems to be a rhetorical and literal trap. A dead end. Pete points to this conundrum in his post below.

Nonetheless, with Peter’s depressing thoughts, Pete’s recent grumpiness, and Carl’s analyses of rock and pop “shut ins” (analyses which nonetheless sensibly extol the “shut ins” to go out and take the risk of making friends and stop ruminating over death)—one must wonder whether negatively thinking against the obvious sets one up for a disastrous double-cross move? Or it may it all be a case of simple depression?

Despite the science which allegedly tells us “what it is” (as Peter Kramer puts it) regarding the “disease” of depression, sometimes black bile is the proper “physiological” response to disappointment in the possibilities of political choice and persuasion in terms of a slate of candidates which inadequately present themselves and their plans as ways to deal with our real problems. If this current slate of candidates and programs is less than desirable, and if Romney is just another lame version of Dole or McCain, and if this means that the current president will be re-elected, then so be it. There is no need to try to spin it another way less we end up in a sack hanging from a tree like the youthful seeker of knowledge in the Grimms’ tale of the turnip. After the election, we at the least we can expect another two years of divided government, in that the Republicans seem to be poised to gain in both the House and Senate. The president’s giant turnip of a campaign in 2008 is perhaps a trap from which a mere reliance on the auxiliary precautions of the constitutional form of government could withstand—at least from a conservative point of view. There is no need to offer other rhetorical riches.

With Romney as the nominee we can expect a full-frontal assault on the evil, but in truth mixed, result regarding the activities of Bain Capital, as well as out of context criticisms’ of Romney’s loving to “fire” people. The few who make abstract capital wealth on the backs of those unemployed hard working producers and manufacturers who get downsized and downgraded, will be President Obama’s team’s major assault. All the while Team Obama will try to outflank Romney on the dry, technocratic aspect of his solutions. Of course, the president is not short for his own technocratic solutions—in fact he is overflowing with an abundance in this regard. Big government vs. free enterprise will be fought out over whose technocratic 59 point plan is best.

Whereas Obama is a nice guy who is in over his head, Romney will be the nice guy who has had every opportunity put in his way. Two privileged candidates vying one amongst another—Obama the product of modern American meritocracy (and affirmative action?), and Romney the scion of wealth and privilege made well. Either way it is a question of doing the right thing at the right time as the formula of success puts it.

One could only hope that either found themselves stuck in a tree in a sack, and like the truth of the Grimm’s folk tale, both would replace themselves with the earnest truth seeker.

So there is no need to be depressed. Depressive types tend to obsess over patterns that repeat themselves. Romney v. Obama is such a repetition, but we do not live in an entirely presidential form of government. Congress will be there to mess things up—as Willmoore Kendall spoke of the two majorities.

Given what Pete speaks of the necessity of the unsubstainability of our entitlement problems, this lackadaisical stance of our president and various contenders may not be enough. I agree with Pete, but politically and rhetorically such it is for now.

Nonetheless, there is a serious depression that afflicts myself when I think of the candidates for whom I must vote. I think depression and recession are more psychological than economical. Perhaps Jimmy Carter (Christopher Lasch) was onto something when he spoke of malaise. Regardless, this malaise sucks, and Obama (“our dear leader of hope and change”) must take at least a portion of blame for this mood.

If I were to take all the leading economic indicators as evidence of my own mood I would say they we are in a depression. But who the hell am I? and moreso I know better than being depressed. I agree with Dylan Thomas in terms of “rage.” This may not help with the presidential election, but such “rage” it is.

“Rage, rage, against the dying of the light.”