Symposium of Destruction

While discussing the matter of whom one is voting for, the air seams a bit stuffy.  The rationale breaks down: voting Third Party is cool if slightly so 2004, not voting is a boring moral posture for the internet, voting Romney is gambling (for one’s eternal soul and all that); voting Obama is neocon spite.

I tend to lean that most of the major policy movements are already written and built into the system, and timing coupled with rationale being the only surprise which has always led to conservatives arguing about the last battle.  That said, some other sorts of predictions:

1)  If Romney wins, will there be urban “unrest”?  If Obama wins will there be urban “unrest”?

2) If Obama wins, will Conservative Inc lead with the charge of voter fraud?  Or will they favor blaming the Ron Paul wing and the Gary Johnson/Goode votes?  Or will they blame the bete noir, socons?

3) If Obama wins, will the storyline from Conservative Inc and the MSM be that the American people like divided government so lets all move along.

4) If Romney loses, will they blame anti-Mormon feelings?

5) Easy one:  will the debt ceiling be raised by a lame-duck Congress?

6)  What will be unleashed by a lame duck Congress?



delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

9 thoughts on “Symposium of Destruction

  1. JDP

    “Or will they blame the bete noir, socons?”

    prominent token media conservatives, definitely.

    Of course I find it intuitively silly that if Obama pulls out a victory based on swing states like Ohio, then that means Midwestern Democrats/independent Obama voters in the region just love the cultural liberal side of the Democratic Party. but maybe I’m overestimating the amount of would-be Reagan Democrats these days.

  2. JDP

    i mean the whole “jettison the socons” argument from select establishment conservatives seems predicated on the idea that a) the GOP would win enough moderate/liberal support to offset the loss in evangelical support, and b) this is a prominent reason why voters in the states that matter (i.e., not squishy Republicans in places like California) don’t like someone like Romney, as opposed to something more elemental like, i dunno, this perception of him as a Mr. Burns figure. i’m highly skeptical about both of these ideas.

  3. Kirt Higdon

    1. Yes to a limited extent; no prolonged or extensive rioting, but nasty incidents here and there. Disturbances are most likely in the event of a narrow Obama victory (celebratory rioting) or a prolonged series of recounts and battle for the electoral college.

    2. Goode/Johnson/Paul will be blamed if the libertarian/constitutional vote costs Romney the election by costing him a key state or two. But more likely fraud will be blamed.

    3. No, because the oligarchy does not like divided government even if the people do. Divided government will be Obama’s pre-emptive excuse for the fails of his second term.

    4. No

    5. Yes

    6. Nothing. Relevant cans will be kicked still further down the road.

  4. Bruce

    Agree with Kirt on 1. There will probably be rioting but not apocalyptic rioting. The worse scenario for rioting will be if Romney wins by a small margin.

  5. C Bowen


    It was in reference to the trend, I guess, but I was listening to Megadeth’s Symphony of Destruction and the title seemed apt. I did think a handful of prediction points might compliment general voting/support posts.

  6. JDP


    I assume that was sarcasm, but if so then I dun geddit, since social conservatives have been a meaningful part of the Republican coalition since Reagan, whereas neoconservative foreign policy (I suppose you could include Reagan there but there’s definite distinctions to be made between him and Bush-43) is a recent development

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>