Thursday night Bush and Kerry faced each other for the first time in a debate leading up to the US Presidential elections. I read about their debates, and attacks on each other, and was very happy to read the following day that both parties claim to have won the debate. Does this mean that on election day both people can win the presidential race and possibly share in the spoils? In any case, I was happy to see that they can agree that in society, everyone can be a winner; to each according to their abilities, and to each according to their needs - they both need to claim that they won and so they both did. What is more interesting to me is that this is the same society that claimed to have thrown, via President Regan, socialist ideas into the ash-heap of history - the same society that writes about Ronald Regan as if he were a good president, and about their presidential candidates as if they can both be winners. I will not be surprised at all if on election day the two parties decide to both be winners and simply have two presidents who share the office - maybe with a 32-page document outlining time sharing arrangements, what they will and will not discuss and some form of 50-50 split on the paycheque, and so on. The state of the union address can have both claiming to have outdone the other and the press, so free to say so, can claim that both did outdo the other. Whether the production claims bear any resemblance to what is and was actually achieved, of course, will not matter - I think that after 1991, the Soviet propoganda writers realized that they would be unemployed in Yeltsin's Russia and later Putin's and they saw an opportunity of a lifetime in the Republican and Democratic Parties in the USA. They got their greencards and left, and the rest is history.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий