When leadership is disconnected with the mores of the culture, engendering followship becomes extremely difficult.
Whether we like it or not, Clinton's approval ratings have remained extremely high throughout, which suggests that the mores of the culture are not what they once were. While I understand your feelings on the matter, it does not seem that the majority of Americans agree. Is it really Clinton who is disconnected with the mores of the culture? Vox populi....
Since the Clinton administration is not running for re-election, it hardly matters. I don't see any reason to believe that either of the current candidates are listening to the voices of the people. These are consummate children of privilege, born and raised in the world of politics and utterly divorced from the realities of everyday life. I don't expect either to be an agent of meaningful change, and I suspect that either way it goes, the next administration will be an exercise in damage control.
Like several other posters here, I hope fervently that whichever party wins the presidency takes a battering in the legislature. That would be cause for hope.
I do, I confess, tend to look at Bush as the greater of two evils; simply because foreign policy has an unusually high weighting in my calculation. I think that Bush has surrounded himself with some dangerous individuals in that department, and I doubt that he has the knowledge or the will to check and balance their rather extreme positions. Possibly an opposing legislature would be able to provide that balance.
On a lighter note, the Napster search engine has been causing me some distress. I went out looking for the work of Charlie Christian, and was delighted to see so many responses roll up, until I saw that most of them consisted of Christian music from the Charlie Daniels band. I can see how that would be inevitable, but it was still a shock to my delicate sensibilities. I can't imagine what would happen if I had to listen to the stuff. |
