Resembling nothing so much as the guy who takes out a $10000 credit card advance and suddenly feels flush, the GOP contemplates an era of political dominance. (In fact, the administration is feeling so sure of itself these days that they’re bringing old Iran-Contra hacks like Elliot Abrams out of the woodwork.) Sorry, y’all, but the “young college Hipublican” vote only goes so far…most of these kids will drop you faster than a Linear Algebra class once their parents’ portfolios finish taking the Dubya tumble. As for the purported hepcats in this pic, I guess it all depends on your definition of “hip.” I can’t say I’m too plugged into the youth zeitgeist these days, but I do live and work at a university…and somehow I doubt these five Bushies are the leading lights of campus. They just look like five angry and self-satisfied white people to me, and there’s plenty of those to go around.
3 thoughts on “1896 it ain’t.”
Comments are closed.
I read the article too and thought to myself, “Well, this is just the current feature story cycle in effect.” About every four to five years, one of the big magazines has a long feature on 1960s-style Republican activists. But inevitably, it’s more hype-oriented than truthful. And it makes sense that the Times would run this, given the neocon criticism of Raines overseeing a “too liberal” Times.
Of course, if these “grassroots” folks wanted to mobilize, where the hell were they during the peace rallies? Where are their mass demonstrations upon Washington? I can tell you one thing: they probably weren’t busy smoking dope. If these Little Bushowski Urban Achievers were serious about their ideology, then they wouldn’t be sporting such verboeten corporate attire as blue jeans and tattoos.
Nice semiotics in that picture, too: pseudo-intellectual glasses boy in front, flanked by a pair of no-neck jock boys — and the women safely in the rear. Full speed ahead with the revolution; 1950s and/or bust!
If it’s so cool and hip why don’t any of these people smile?