Every now and then, a mass email hits the blogosphere like a game of Chinese Whispers. Like any fake but accurate story, the themes remain the same while details change constantly. So, is the company fifteen years old (as seen on Bablublog) or is it twenty-eight (Rottie)? Does it really matter? Memes like these exist and persist as a portmanteau of experiences and ideas that resonate across groups of participants.

The embellishments generally get laid on thick, and while I don’t have the resources to trace the origins of such a meme, I’m sure there are others that do. In the end, mass emails have some kind of role in maintaining a consistent message among those willing to suspend a little disbelief. The empathic appeal of these messages can outweigh the words of any pundit in print, online, or on television. I’m certain that anthropologists can tell us that this is a not a new occurence, and that the image of a diet of Ramen Pride noodles is pretty recurrent throughout history, albeit the subsistence foodstuff will be different.

I want the President to fail in enacting his policies and agenda, which I know are not good for the country. Not only are his economic policies damaging to our general prosperity as a nation, but they are so transformative that the success of those policies would transform the very nature of our country. The same way how Jindal would want him to fail, The same way Fred Thompson wants him to fail. Sorry to admit, but this is the time for the right kind of nuance:

But when you say you want him to FAIL, even if you try to qualify it by saying “if his policies hurt America I want him to fail,” you are alienating and losing the support of the vast middle, who do NOT want any American president to fail. When you insist on it, they hear you saying you want America to fail.

Wrong, Charles. Wrong, because the President is not America, and while our national success does not turn on one man, he has enough power to hurt our success. That our fate is inextricable from his is the narrative that our opponents in the media want people to believe and this is what I, politically, have chosen to focus on. Forget economic policy, NatSec, shit there’s enough wonks and a half out there to discuss the ins and outs of that. However, the high population density of the American Left in the Mass Media presents a challenge in presenting message, and until these people are called out, fought on our terms and not theirs, well, anyone’s words will be subject to their machinations.

I’ve lived in a third world, or “developing” country. My whole life in the Philippines the electorate has placed hope not so much in themselves but in the President, and by year two of a six-year, one-term-limited president, there are always grumbles. Frankly, this is what I am seeing here in the USA, and it is disheartening.

The blogosphere has grown, and its collective memory has shortened, in such a manner that were I to bring up a blogfight as recent as three weeks ago, my readers would be lost without a large number of supporting links. There has been a grand discussion on the nature of language, and peoples’ ability to redefine a message out of context and original intent, between Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom and Patterico. The argument itself is neither here nor there, at this point, at least for me. This, though, I find interesting:

And what I find disturbing is that, rather than ask me to explain that position, these “scholars” have asked SEK to write something up so that they can understand it. As if SEK, by virtue of having waded into the anti-intellectual depths of Wingnuttia, is, by virtue of his being “one of them,” more capable of making my argument than I am.

Goldstein is one of the premier intellects I have come across in my six years of online writing. His arguments are clear and founded in logical consistency. Don’t take my word for it either; rather, spend some time on his site and read, and read some more. I have not seen the man backpedal in the name of increased nuance… But enough of the platitudes. What is most interesting is that in many blogs, across all disciplines, comments sections generally exhibit a level of intellectual maturity that lags the author. The best comments sections have been built over a period of years from loyal readers. A good example would be OTB and Althouse. Majority of comment posters, though, add little to the discussion past beting their chests one way or the other.

Unfortunately, the image of pilotfish and sharks doesn’t really apply.

In the first episode of Boston Legal, Season Two, Alan Shore’s defense of a murder suspect hinged on our general, delicious desire to enjoy the suffering of others:

Shadenfreude. From the German words, Schaden and Freude, damage and joy. It means to take spiteful, malicious delight in the misfortune of others. We used to dismiss this as simply an ugly side of human nature, but it is much much more than that. Recently a Stanford professor actually captured Schadenfreude on a brain scan. It’s a physiological medical phenomenon. When we see others fall it sometimes causes a chemical to be released in the dorsal striatum of the brain which actually causes us to feel pleasure.

There is an ever-increasing wave of schadenfreude, and a backlash against moderate conservatives and libertarians who in the last year supported BHO. Megan McArdle expresses her regret:

Having defended Obama’s candidacy largely on his economic team, I’m having serious buyer’s remorse. Geithner, who is rapidly starting to look like the weakest link, is rattling around by himself in Treasury. Meanwhile, the administration is clearly prioritized a stimulus package that will not work without fixing the banks over, um, fixing the banking system.

The ensuing comments are unforgiving, relentless, and totally deserved. There are among us who spent the past year warning about the guy, talking about his lack of qualifications to run the office, and most of us yielded no ground. We knew what this guy was like and we were unafraid to talk about him. We bore the brunt of criticism from the left and the right, and to be honest, it was a tiring year, mentally and emotionally. I’ve since scaled back on criticism of BHO’s policies, in part because there are folk better than I at that kind of work, and second, because I am filled with both a mild anger and a lowbrow glee.

John McCain’s defeat was mainly at the hands of those Conservatives who stayed home, for their own reasons. I have no grudges against them; that is how they exercised their right. But McArdle and her ilk (e.g. Frum, Brooks, Buckley Jr, Douthat, Noonan) actively endorsed BHO and led the charge from the Right to help him get elected. Their words, spread through the Leftist media, gave credence to the idea that BHO had Conservative support. And now, they have buyer’s remorse? Now they have buyer’s remorse?

For years, Bush supporters like myself have had to be apologists (in multiple linguistic aspects) for some of his worst policies. My silence against his fiscal irresponsibility is, basicaly, complicity through silence, and I have my regrets, as an occasional political blogger. Sure, I don’t have a lot of trolls beating me over the head for it, mainly because back in 2004 the election was a NatSec issue and the choice was pretty clear. Now, though, the internecine conflict between Tea Party Conservatives and Dinner Party Conservatives is front and center; the DPCs have the backing of Leftist media outlets that are all too willing to grant them audience; the TPCs have the message that “resonates,” as Will Collier writes. The fact that a number of DPCs are now expressing remorse is nothing short of amusing.

To what end does this expression of regret serve? In whose eyes are they attempting to salvage the reputation of their integrity? They have gone all in on the bet, and now that they realize they are on the losing end they are making a desperate lunge for the chips. It’s a scene straight out of a movie. McArdle and friends may not ever be able to regain the trust of Conservatives, and of course the Liberals are already enjoying the sight of the infighting. Libs know that these Principled Libertarians, they would never set aside enough principles to be true blue Democrats, no way. The Libs know that we have basically exiled them from positions of power within the movement; that their policy advice would be taken under advisement, but never fully trusted. Their writing scope will, in a way, be limited; e.g. McArdle may be a brilliant economist, but I doubt her endorsement of anyone would hold weight.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. If only elections had no consequences, I would be spending the next four years trolling around making fun of all these Conservatives who helped elect BHO. Instead, in our own little ways, we now have the responsibility to hold the line and make sure he doesn’t do as much damage as we know he wants to do. (And for the record I will give the President this much: that he has little understanding of the effects of what he wants; that his motives are well-meant but his policies are inherently damaging to what the USA is.) I thank the squishy Conservative twits for this.