Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search

Average Rating

(0 votes)

You must login to vote

Overheard: Two Brits talking with each other.

#1--Did you know that John McCain was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution?
#2--The devil you say!
Next you'll be telling me he became a POW during the battles at Lexington and Concord!

Overheard: Two die-hard Bolsheviks talking with each other.

#1--Did you know that John McCain was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution?
#2--Da! This is correct!
Do you think he could still be recruited?

Overheard: Two Israelis talking with each other.

#1--Did you know that John McCain was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution?
#2--Shalom! Oh, my God, who knew?
So how do you think he'd look with a black patch over his left eye?

Overheard: Two Germans talking with each other.

#1--Did you know that John McCain was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution?
Surely you are aware that to speak of this is verboten!

Overheard: Two Iranians talking with each other.

#1--Did you know that John McCain was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution?
#2--Ha! Pity the poor Americans!
They couldn't stage a revolution in their own back yard!

Overheard: Two Italians talking with each other.

#1--Did you know that John McCain was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution?
#2--Mam-ma Mia!
Here I am in the hospital with both arms in a cast! How you expect me to answer the question?

Overheard: Two Cuban-Americans talking with each other.

#1--Did you know that John McCain was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution?
#2--Por Dios!
I hope and pray he has not read Ché Guevara's book!

Overheard: Two Frenchmen talking with each other.

#1--Did you know that John McCain was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution?
#2--Oh, mon ami! Not only that!
I heard he was there for the storming of the Bastille as well!

Overheard: Two American college students talking with each other.

#1--Did you know that John McCain was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution?
#2--Dude! You've got to be shitting me.
Okay, so which side did he fight on?. . .the Contras, or the Sandinistas?

Revolutions (often called intranational wars and/or civil wars) are defined by who wins and who loses. Yet there are differences between a revolution and a civil war. Although the American Revolution is not usually called a civil war, it involved the same kind of political action as the American Civil War--the struggle for independence by one group of intranationals over another. Had the 13 colonies lost, it would have been considered an unsuccessful civil war. Because the Americans won, it's called a revolution(1)

Symbolism is also involved, of course, and yet the spirit of the concept is preserved even in the case of the Industrial Revolution where it could be said that the "Industrials" won. But what about the Reagan Revolution? Well here's a case where the concept of "winner take all" falls apart. In the Reagan Revolution, if there ever was such a thing, the Reaganites clearly lost. We need to set the record straight. "Reaganomics" has been thoroughly discredited.

But to keep the metaphor going we need a war. So what war? Beginning with Reagan, we've been involved in the longest, most vicious war ever waged by this country, and a war that continues on into the present. It's a civil war--also an economic war--and, along with its central strategy, "trickle-down,” it’s what we know today as the War on the Middle Class. "Feed big business," Reagan said, "and big business prosperity will trickle down through the economy."(2)

It's during this same period of time that CEOs began making one hundred. . .two hundred. . .even five hundred times the salary earned by workers in the very production lines that kept their corporations afloat, whereas the historical highs had hovered near twenty times. It was argued that a burgeoning global economy meant that workers would have to take pay cuts. Union busting became a long dreamed of reality for big corporations. It's been since Reagan that each new generation is expected to do less well, live less well and enjoy fewer of the finer things in life than their parents were able to enjoy. And what do we hear today from the mouth of John McCain? We hear the concept of "trickle down" raising its ugly head yet again.

But this is the nature of war. You hack and chip away at the enemy over decades. . .generations if necessary. . .until he lays down his weapons. And let's be clear. John McCain understands war at least as well as anyone alive on the planet today. The problem is that John McCain sees ways to turn those battle skills inward toward his own people--the privatization of Social Security being just one example among many. Would this be the first time in world history for such an occurrence? Not hardly. I have a useful reminder for John McCain. Fourth Century Rome fell when its middle class disintegrated. At the end, Roman society consisted only of the very, very rich right along side the most impoverished people of their time.

"The era of big government being over, is over."[Barack Obama]

Like it or not, the era of big government being over was never "over" to begin with. What's now over is the era of big government *oversight,* beginning with Reagan's obsession with deregulation. And despite the gains coming mainly from the big Internet boom (which went bust almost as quickly) the Clinton era did nothing, really, to reverse the trend. Clinton exacerbated it in fact with NAFTA and a lot of other falderal, leaving us in the interim with a set of "twin towers," if you will, namely, the economic drain of global war and the spectre warned of by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower--a runaway "Military-Industrial Complex."

What it all boils down to is this:

They say that John McCain is running ahead of his brand as a "maverick." But why do average working, middle-class stiffs (we in the "middle" who, according to John McCain, would include anyone who makes less than $5 million a year) keep voting Republican? Brand loyalty makes no sense. . .not when the commodity itself causes cancer, dare it be said? Could it be that if Americans began looking really closely in the mirror, a good percentage of them would begin to see just the faintest outline of the word "stupid" written across their foreheads? How charming of good old Forrest Gump to reinvigorate the great old phrase, "Stupid is as stupid does." Well brother, you sure got that right.

The abyss awaits.

(1) Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia--keywords revolution, intranational war.

(2) Translation: Trust the big, the powerful and the rich to act on behalf of your best intersts. It's a phrase that has echoed through humanity almost since Man first came down from the trees and began to be influenced by human eugenics. And it's the phrase that--right down to the present moment--justifies (in the minds of a privileged few, anyway) the right of emperors and kings to the undisputed ownership of all the land, minerals, oil, and yes, even human beings, who then become indispensable in the working of that land, those mines and yes, those oilfields as well. The plight of millions of Nigerians in the here and now comes quickly to mind.


Related Items


The following comments are for "John. . .Where'd You Park the Delorian?"
by fritzwilliam

going south
I can't really gauge what your stand here is, other than you don't care for Reagan or McCain or corporate generals who make tons more than the average peons who works for them.

I would gather you are in favor of unions, in favor of Obama, and in favor of keeping the current social security system in tact.

I wrote a piece on Capitalism and other topics, very long piece, hope you'll read it. I think it kind of runs parallel to some of your thoughts here.

My general thought on government programs is that they are inherently doomed to fail, regardless of the good they can accomplish. Like a new restaurant, a new government program will initially work as advertised, and succeed to some degree. But in the long run government programs fail because when they are no longer productive or effective the agency is loath to change -- and talk about the 'golden parachutes' every government angency is managed in two year cycles -- meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Won't get fooled again (Pete Townsend, The Who)

As a government employee I can say with 100% accuracy that there is no accountability in our country's executive branch right down to the lowest paid government employee who sits at a computer all day surfing the internet waiting for retirement. That is a big problem that we can never correct because there is no accountability and no consequences.

Good thoughts.


( Posted by: BWOz [Member] On: September 7, 2008 )

Hear, Hear.
Hi, Brian and thanks for the time you've taken. You get me pretty well--perfectly well in fact. As for the overall, I'd say I probably do ramble, but the idea I'd hoped for was the idea that Sen. McCain probably never met a war he didn't like, hence the "revolutionary" metaphor. In the unnumbered (comic relief?) conversations at the top, my hope was for the reader to see that in each case the spokesperson had the wrong revolution in mind--American, Russian, Cuban, French, etc. That. . .plus the irresistible urge to play on John McCain's age and the thought that he's really a (relic?) of the past--stuck in the '80s, if you will.

I'll definitely read your piece. But I do see problems for Uncle Sam on the horizon if we don't straighten out our political thinking. I'm convinced that we in the U.S. need to get in step with the other major industrialized nations. For one thing, we have the wrong political system for the times we're living in. We need to adopt the Parliamentary approach as has (I think all) of Western Europe. If we'd had the Parliamentary system, the election cycle of 2006 would have been the equivalent of a referendum on G.W. Bush, and he'd have been out of there--gone--goodbye baby. The (GOP) party animal would have had his "beggin' strips" (metaphor for Ireq) taken away, and in the end a better time (and a better future)would have been had by all.

( Posted by: fritzwilliam [Member] On: September 7, 2008 )

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.