What DOES the B5 Earth war look like to a Republican?
Well, to this Republican-leaning Independent, it looks like what it is presented to be - a Bad Thing, which no decent self-respecting person would allow to continue if they could possibly help it.
JMS did not attempt to present a fair and balanced view of the political situation in the B5 'verse. Clark was in office because he had President Santiago assassinated. (That was the name, right? Santiago?) Clark's every action was seen through that filter - nothing he did before or since could be seen as anything other than Evil.
IMO, YMMV.
I do not accept the (implied) proposition that Bush=Clark.
Bush didn't "steal" the election from Gore. The popular vote and the Electoral College usually correlate, but not always. Ballots have been spoiled and thus not counted in most elections. Selective recounting and rerecounting of votes in only a few counties in one state would not, in my opinion, have made Gore a "legitimate" president.
You want to recount ballots? Try to interpret what hanging and dimpled chads signify? OK, fine, but recount every damn ballot, then, and not just the ones that would likely favor one candidate over the other.
This maybe isn't your point, but that's the first point I have re your question about how the B5/Earth war looks from the Republican side of the fence.
You mention the Patriot Act, and Nightwatch. Again, I believe that JMS very deliberately designed Nightwatch and Clark's other initiatives to evoke a negative response from the audience. No attempt to show other interpretations.
I have reservations about the Patriot Act, but Bush did not single-handedly cause it to exist - Congress had a bit to do with that. Which doesn't make it Revealed Truth, or Divinely Inspired, but let's not put all the blame on Bush. And for it's shortcomings, the act does have a sunset clause - it will not live on for ever without reconsideration by (presumably) calmer and clearer-headed people of good will.
My take on the B5/Earth war in comparison to the current US political situation is that it's apples and oranges.
JMS did, I think, do a good job of storytelling, of setting up the good guys to battle valiantly against multiple bad guys, and stacking the deck so that victory was not inevitable, nor without consequences. But as a storyteller, he manipulated the story elements so that they supported the story he chose to tell.
The current US election isn't so synoptic as that. It is possible to look at it through Kerry-colored glasses *and* Bush-colored glasses. It is possible to see overlaps and contradictions, and to weigh the trade-offs in deciding which candidate to vote for.
Here's the main reason why I will not vote for Kerry: his campaign has said zip, zilch, nada about his 20 years in the Senate. Or if they have, I and a lot of other people have missed it. If all he can point to is four months from 30 years ago, I have to wonder what in hell he's done since then that earns him my vote to be POTUS now.
If that seems as though I'm chosing the devil I know, well, yeah, that's some of it. But Kerry has not earned my vote, and I cannot in good conscience vote for Anybody But Bush.
I hope this is an appropriate response to your question.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-25 09:16 pm (UTC)Well, to this Republican-leaning Independent, it looks like what it is presented to be - a Bad Thing, which no decent self-respecting person would allow to continue if they could possibly help it.
JMS did not attempt to present a fair and balanced view of the political situation in the B5 'verse. Clark was in office because he had President Santiago assassinated. (That was the name, right? Santiago?) Clark's every action was seen through that filter - nothing he did before or since could be seen as anything other than Evil.
IMO, YMMV.
I do not accept the (implied) proposition that Bush=Clark.
Bush didn't "steal" the election from Gore. The popular vote and the Electoral College usually correlate, but not always. Ballots have been spoiled and thus not counted in most elections. Selective recounting and rerecounting of votes in only a few counties in one state would not, in my opinion, have made Gore a "legitimate" president.
You want to recount ballots? Try to interpret what hanging and dimpled chads signify? OK, fine, but recount every damn ballot, then, and not just the ones that would likely favor one candidate over the other.
This maybe isn't your point, but that's the first point I have re your question about how the B5/Earth war looks from the Republican side of the fence.
You mention the Patriot Act, and Nightwatch. Again, I believe that JMS very deliberately designed Nightwatch and Clark's other initiatives to evoke a negative response from the audience. No attempt to show other interpretations.
I have reservations about the Patriot Act, but Bush did not single-handedly cause it to exist - Congress had a bit to do with that. Which doesn't make it Revealed Truth, or Divinely Inspired, but let's not put all the blame on Bush. And for it's shortcomings, the act does have a sunset clause - it will not live on for ever without reconsideration by (presumably) calmer and clearer-headed people of good will.
My take on the B5/Earth war in comparison to the current US political situation is that it's apples and oranges.
JMS did, I think, do a good job of storytelling, of setting up the good guys to battle valiantly against multiple bad guys, and stacking the deck so that victory was not inevitable, nor without consequences. But as a storyteller, he manipulated the story elements so that they supported the story he chose to tell.
The current US election isn't so synoptic as that. It is possible to look at it through Kerry-colored glasses *and* Bush-colored glasses. It is possible to see overlaps and contradictions, and to weigh the trade-offs in deciding which candidate to vote for.
Here's the main reason why I will not vote for Kerry: his campaign has said zip, zilch, nada about his 20 years in the Senate. Or if they have, I and a lot of other people have missed it. If all he can point to is four months from 30 years ago, I have to wonder what in hell he's done since then that earns him my vote to be POTUS now.
If that seems as though I'm chosing the devil I know, well, yeah, that's some of it. But Kerry has not earned my vote, and I cannot in good conscience vote for Anybody But Bush.
I hope this is an appropriate response to your question.