End of the two-party system?
Above all, it seems depressingly clear that the Democratic regime will not accomplish the main task that the voters wanted them to do, and that is to end the war in Iraq. Of course warmongers like Lieberman and Clinton are hopeless. That we have known. What many are not prepared for is the large contingent of enablers, like Senator Harry Reid, who will actually support an increase (the "surge") in troops, providing it is somehow linked to a larger plan to end the war. Sure, sure.
We have a president who is delusional, and the opposition party, ostensibly in power, is not prepared to do anything about it. They are truly gutless.
There will be a large antiwar rally in Washington on January 27. I plan to be there. Remembering as I do the antiwar energy of the Vietnam era, I find the absence of such rallies puzzling. It can't just be the lack of the draft as a motivator.
Perhaps we have entered into a new age of electronic democracy. That might be a good thing, but I don't see that the bloggers are proving efficacious at a time when we desperately need their intervention.
The two-party system, though, is moribund. Perhaps the best that can be expected is withdrawal from Iraq (after two more years!), and then a period of isolationism in foreign policy and gridlock with regard to domestic legislation. The scenario assumes that the Chinese and our other foreign creditors will not pull the plug.
Then our own equivalent of bread-and-circuses--shopaholic frenzy at the mall--will have to stop.
We can still cultivate our garden. That's what I'll be doing, in the guise of a new research-and-thinking project. Details will be supplied in due course.