rubard...@gmail.com
unread,Feb 25, 2020, 3:12:15 PM2/25/20You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
From the "western avenue", a few reflections. (Yes, I wear on me too.)
A topic that was "implicitly defined" in events diverse occurring in Washington County over a space of some months was the old American trope of "Too Tall". "Too Tall" is a term well-enough-known to basketball enthusiasts and refers to a man that is ridiculously tall (almost "at any height"; the point is about their role in social interaction, not literal gigantism). "Too Tall" is a character that gawks around literally looming over others, perhaps not intending evil but occasionally effecting it as per *legitimate* accident.
So much about "Too Tall" in general, but one notable such character in American life today is Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York City. Mr. de Blasio has built a long career serving that distant burg in various roles, never quite leaving a "radical" role in the civic discourse (one which may not in truth quite carry over to his relationship with his wife Chirlaine McCray and their two children, now young adults). It is odd that the mayor of one of the richest cities in the world, in world-history, calls himself a "socialist" but he does.
According to the traditional "cinematic" theory of American political charisma, "Too Tall" de Blasio would make a maximally acceptable Democratic presidential candidate "from the left" -- and yet *does not*. Mr. de Blasio thoroughly scouted a bid for this election and was left wanting, but not in terms of implied "steadiness at the wheel" or palatability in terms of bromides offered. So, a question *naturally* raises itself whether we want it to or not: why would the much older and "redder" Bernard Sanders make a better candidate?
Bona fides? I have read most of the works of Marx in German (perhaps pointless and perhaps not), but I will tell you there is hardly any credible account on which Sanders would make a better candidate than Bill and thusly the question is genuinely "begged" what at all the Democratic Party is doing in not pursuing more plausibly electable candidates. Pete Buttgieg was not my favorite entrant in the early contest, with a carefully-milled "centrist" approach and a personal life which would naturally raise the hackles of social ultra-conservatives (though his relationship with Mr. Glezman may have *actually* borne some looking into) but...
Isn't it entirely the case that "Mayor Pete" is far more electable than a Sanders who could not best an entrant that could not win? A lifetime Democrat does think so.
Cordially,
Jeffrey Rubard