Sunday, June 8, 2008

Should It Have Been Obvious?

In a race with two candidates both making history at once, but coming from different constituencies:


  • Both candidates are superficially qualified for the position.
  • The constituencies from which both candidates were drawn have a history of being property, second class citizens and/or consistently marginalized.
  • Each candidate belongs to the group that the other constituency sees as the agents of oppression.
  • There can only be one winner.


  • Partisans for the loser were going to feel that the cards were deliberately stacked against their candidate, or that "people weren't ready" for their candidate to win?
  • There were going to be sore losers among the loser's partisans?
  • The most strident boosters of either candidate operated from an overblown sense of their candidate's qualifications, and the other candidate's lack thereof, that became functionally indistinguishable from chauvinism?
  • Some number of the supporters of each candidates were going to succumb to a clear sense of political entitlement, visible to everyone but themselves?
  • Partisans for both candidates were blind to favorable chauvinism, and hypersensitive to the appearance of unfavorable?
  • There were going to be ungracious winners among the winner's partisans?
  • Partisans for the winner were going to discount factors outside of their candidate that worked in their candidate's favor?

No comments: