I recently found this. It explains in Vidal's own words why Vidal mattered and should still matter. But even if you're not interested in the entire interview, which most of you would be I think, you should find the comments starting about 9:18 into the interview interesting. We also get to see a clip of the famous Buckley Vidal spat. Given Vidal's cynical view of America's future, he might easily have predicted a Donald Trump would soon arrive on the stage of the American "political theater."
A belated 4th of July Requiem.
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
he didn't predict a Hillary Clinton?
ha ha ha, in a sense, I think he predicted a Hillary too, when He said in 1968 "there is no difference between the parties" and " the establishment controls the media and they'll "denigrate anyone who opposes them." Look what happened to poor Bernie, the media initially almost ignored him until they couldn't any longer. Now the Media has Trump in their sights. He is going to get a lot of bad headlines. Of course, in his case, there is plenty of material to use against him. He's self destructing more or less on his own. Vidal died believing we would drift further toward a police state and despotism. I just returned from Eastern Canada. Big contrast between Canada and the U.S.
Isn't good intentions the cover the democrat party has run under for the last 50 years. It doesnt matter that their policies are disasters, what matters is that they meant well. Look no further than the last 8 years and you will see exactly what I am talking about.
My view is that mistakes have been made regardless of the party occupying the White House. We go through periods when the mistakes are more serious and/or more numerous. I consider the Congress to be the real problem for America going forward, as that is where the real power lies. When the Congress shirks its Constitutional Duties, the presidents -- of both parties -- use legal, but occasionally questionable, executive orders to step in and keep the government functioning. The Congress is responsible for allowing the Presidents to do the things that you and I don't like. Congress has the real power -- un-exercised as it were -- and it's on Congress that our criticisms should focus.
Last edited:
blame it on California. They're the ones that elect bad congress persons.
Perhaps you're letting the rest of us crackpots off the hook too easily. I don't recall your time zone, but in mine the cocktail hour is beginning. Let us lift our glasses high and toast our fellow primates. Cheers!
Skirt what duties exactly?
"shirk". Here are duties, according to the Constitution, that the congress regularly shirks by allowing the president to: engage in indefinite military action or invasion of other countries without declaring war; to suspend habeas corpus. Refusing to act on presidential appointments is also a shirking of constitutional duty. And that's just the start of the list. (See "War Powers Act")
Actually, that sounds more like the job of the Supreme Court. The Congress is there to make laws. They are not there to determine if a President's actions are legal or not.
The Congress is also not required to give a vote on a Presidential appointment. They are there to advise. If Congress refuses to vote on an appointee, then the Congress has offered their advise and do not think the appointee is suitable for a vote.