Still Ignorant

It is 6:06 am Thursday morning, and I have somehow still managed to stay unaware of who the president-elect is. At this point it's like a game. How much TV do I have to avoid? I thought ESPN would be safe, but no. I have stuck to TNT and USA mostly. Comedy Central is out, and the Music Channels are too dangerous as well. I feel like I'm going to win some sort of prize if I stay ignorant the longest.

I got several emails questioning my strategy, and otherwise calling me Fool. For the record, I have nothing personal against either major candidate. However, I don't think either is the one for the job, and I don't support either. I think I would be much better, and any election that ends up without me as a winner is very sad. Why would I want to watch that?

As for the "history" factor, what a bunch of bullshit. I'm not saying whatever happened is not historical. Whether Obama won, making him the first half African American (Halfrican American? probably not) to win, or McCain shocked everyone, defied the polls, and became the oldest person elected, it was historical.

But here is the thing: elections are ALWAYS historical. How damned arrogant are we to continually think we're the fulcrum of history? Every generation has immense struggles, and they care (and don't care) in equal measures. Whoever they are electing, it's as important to their lives as ours. Just because we don't remember the elections as important doesn't mean they weren't.

I will prove what I am saying: the election of 1876 is easily one of the three most important elections in American history. Ten bucks for ANYONE who can tell me without looking it up who ran, what the outcome was, and why that was all significant.

Don't lecture me, you troglodytes, unless you want a can of historical whoopass opened up on ya.

Maybe you get my point. Every election is important, or not important, however you're looking at them. Things always change, or they don't. I am a student of history, and I want to know the essentials of every election.

But watching the Pageant of the Transmundane we call Election Night Coverage is not the way to do that. Either way it will be verbal masturbation, with pundits falling all over themselves to proclaim what "this" or "that" means, waxing eloquent about Change or ranting about racism. Why would I wan that?


Two months from now I will know more about this election than you do, and I don't say that arrogantly, but as a reflection of how much time and energy I will pour into researching every angle, covered or not. But equally helpful will be the fact that I didn't watch it live.

Unless everything I know about the world is wrong, I'm guessing no one got above 55% or below 45%. That doesn't make me a genius; it almost never happens. Understand what that means:

Let's say for argument that Candidate A got 55%, the outer limit of what I think is imaginable. This means that OVER HALF THE PEOPLE ARE DISAPPOINTED. How do I get those numbers, you ask?

Well, everyone who voted for the other guy is less than thrilled, and you absolutely know that upwards of a quarter of the people vote for the lesser of evils, in their minds. QED.

It's the same every election. Most people end up unhappy, but life goes on. You rally around the new guy for a short time, then all hell breaks loose again.

But that's not what we'll hear. No matter what happens, I guarantee you we'll hear about "mandates." Horseshit. The "mandate" is the victory itself, the right to become president, which all winners get, no matter how they go there. As for the "will" of the electorate, go back up a few paragraphs.

Of the people who voted for the winner, they did so for their own reasons. Each of them, which is totally cool. Voting is always an individual thing. The idea of voting for the country is mostly propaganda, since no one can say with any certainty who would be better. You vote the guy you want who you think will help your life, and even then it's a crapshoot.

(I know some of you are agog at the idea that you don't vote with the country in mind. Fair enough. Give me a few days and we'll have a big discussion. I will take on any and all comers who are willing to put time into it and render a thoughtful opinion.)

I feel myself getting angrier, and definitely going afield, so let me return to my central point. I am not disinterested in the election. I am passionately interested in politics, in the "best" sense of the word: ideas for shaping our future.

But I know what is real and what isn't, and Coverage the other night was anything but real. As the inauguration is ten weeks away I have plenty of time. For now, I am just enjoying the quiet.