This US election “is about the clash of symbols”
Harry Binswanger reckons this US election is the most important since the Goldwater-Johnson election of 1964, which, “had Goldwater won, the entire course of world history would have been different… no ‘War on Poverty,’ no Johnson-era expansion of government intervention, no Vietnam War, and, perhaps, no New Left.”
Not because the two candidates are as wildly different as Johnson and Goldwater were--“the candidates, as men, are ciphers,” reckons Binswanger. “The election is about the clash of symbols.”
Obama symbolizes collectivism, and its psychological corollary and breeding ground: second-handerism. Romney doesn't symbolize much of anything, except that he's the non-Obama. This mean he symbolizes non-collectivism and pre-post-modern America. To his definite credit, Romney has said several times that he will not apologize for his success (at Bain Capital).
I continue to predict a Romney victory, in fact a solid one. But I have to admit that I'm scared. Can it be that all the polls are so wrong? It can be—but that doesn't mean they are. Still, I have made my bets, based on factors I've discussed here before: Obama has only lost supporters since 2008, and the failure of his policies is pretty easy to discern. In 2008, Obama was the One, the Messiah, our Deliverer. Now he's just that grim graying dude who scolds us and blames everybody else.
By this time tomorrow night we should know if the American sense of life still exists. If it does, “You didn't build that” and “We're all in it together” will have been slapped down. If it does not, we'll survive for many years as a nation, but not as America.