Or We Could Always Just Tow It out to Sea, Sink It, and It’d Make a Great Artificial Reef

Amongst liberals, a popular American parlor game these days (in addition to trying to determine where the popular American parlors are), is to ponder this question: “How, exactly, will America’s long dark nightmare end?”

A typical response to this loaded query (a reply too often accompanied by a gratuitous snarky aside about President Cheney’s plan to nuke Iran in the next seven minutes) goes like this:

“What makes you think it’s gonna end?”

And this is the optimistic version.

Well, “Fie!” say I. Any gloomy Gus can write about how terrible things are and how much worse things will get, but aren’t there other possible scenarios, too, even shiny, happy perky ones? Of course there are! Now, I’ll admit, things may be a tad dicey at the moment, but just as sure as Iraq is well on the IED-laden road to freedom and democracy — you know, just like we have here — there are any number of post-Bushian possibilities for America, and none of which, mind you, include the cynical projection of living in a society under constant secret surveillance, stripped of civil liberties, pulsating with fear, run by corporations, perpetually at war and in which rigged elections preclude prospect for any real change.

Thank goodness, too, ‘cause think how awful that would be!

Without further ado, then, I present other possible future outcomes that might lie in ambush, er, store for our beloved America:

    * Costa Rica, deciding to make an exception just this once, temporarily suspends its fifty-eight-year-old constitutional ban against a standing military and drafts an army. Cleverly timing its surprise invasion of the United States to occur while most citizens are home watching American Idol, the fed-up but inherently docile Central American nation bloodlessly ousts the Bush administration overnight. Within weeks, the occupying Costa Ricans’ natural tranquilo approach to life precipitates a genuine friendliness and true appreciation for peace that spreads throughout the U.S.

Americans are perplexed.

    * Rupert Murdoch buys the Constitution, announcing he intends to “spiffy it up a bit” before featuring it on his Fox network in America’s newest reality show (for what he cryptically calls “America’s newest reality”). Proposed title: From Makeover to Takeover. He returns the document two days later, however, after discovering it’s been shredded.

    * Rupert Murdoch simply buys America and then features it in a show about how the liberal media control America. (Submit your own script here. Just make sure it includes plenty of lies, tired Jane Fonda jokes and blaming of everything from sun spots to mango blight on any Clinton, be it Hillary, Bill or George.)

    * Confirming rumors long considered laughable, it turns out America’s “leaders” really are reptilian shape-shifters, shockingly revealed when Condi Rice’s shifting mechanism prematurely and publicly misfires and she slurps up three youngsters with a long forked tongue in front of startled onlookers at a new U.S.-funded pre-school in Nairobi, Kenya.

    Horrified to learn the cold-blooded animals running their country really are cold-blooded animals, Americans react violently. PETA objects. The revolution falters. Americans, not particularly noted for being committed though many should be, soon accept being governed by giant green lizards. Many secretly thank their lucky stars (and bars) the creatures aren’t black, thus exposing the seamy soft white underbelly of American society: reptilianism, which sounds a lot like Republicanism, which should’ve been a tip-off to the enormous scale(s) of the whole charade long ago.

    * The entire country, groaning under the collective weight of a populace with a thirty-two percent obesity rate, sinks beneath the ground, never to be seen again. The Earth burps happily.

And my favorite:

    * A completely unexpected fascination with the French suddenly grips Americans. A cry for strikingly realistic re-enactments of events in France’s history, particularly from the exciting 1790s, sweeps the nation. The U.S. guillotine industry, moribund for centuries, rejoices; orders are at an all-time high. Many of our fellow citizens unequivocally disdain the device, however, calling it “too humane” and opting instead for rusty spiked bludgeons and draw-and-quarter chains.

    Then, with 300 million seething Americans feverishly finalizing preparations for the country’s first ever “Storming the Bastards Day,” an amazing thing happens: having done the math, every member of the Bush administration and Congress (with the exceptions of Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee and Ron Paul) tenders his or her resignation, every American troop is withdrawn immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan, all 700-plus U.S. military bases around the globe are shut down, peace reigns in America and the San Francisco Giants win the World Series. Admittedly, this is far-fetched (it was the part about the Giants, wasn’t it?), but it’s nice to dream, don’t you think?

    (Especially after a long dark nightmare.)

Mark Drolette writes in Sacramento, California. He can be reached at: mdrolette@comcast.net. Read other articles by Mark, or visit Mark's website.

8 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Ceri Cat said on October 1st, 2007 at 5:43am #

    Ah finally a beneficial repetition of history. I would imagine Bill Gates, Rupert Murdock, and Eminem (hey I can dream can’t I?) would meet them at the block amongst others. A good start to the month Mark. I needed the laugh.

  2. hp said on October 1st, 2007 at 11:39am #

    Uh, what’s a liberal?

  3. Ceri Cat said on October 1st, 2007 at 8:40pm #

    A liberal is technically someone who is open minded, however that’s not how it works in politics, it’s just a label which ultimately means nothing. My country’s current prime minister John Howard is a liberal, but he’s not very liberal minded.

  4. Deadbeat said on October 1st, 2007 at 9:40pm #

    A liberal is an elitist who desires are to moderate change and to preserve the status quo. Liberals desires to mitigate some of the extremes of Capitalism while at the same time maintain hierarchy and dominance. Liberals also often capitulate to the right wing and however where most people are confused by liberals is that they tend to be “open minded” on social issues but are definitely reactionaries when the masses challenges power. As stated they seek to mitigate all movement leading to the political and economic freedom and justice of the masses

  5. Ceri Cat said on October 1st, 2007 at 9:54pm #

    *chuckles* That’s pretty much all politicians Deadbeat, and truthfully it’s not liberalism either. A true liberal is open to reform and progressive development, they’re open to new ideas and favour freedom of action. As I stated in politics it’s a meaningless label as few liberals are anything of the sort even before their disillusionment. And being rather liberal minded (if you believe psych profiling) myself I tend to find myself in hot water frequently for questioning the status quo, and arguing for the repeal of laws and local ordinances that aren’t helping us. So far I haven’t been arrested for expressing my opinion, but it’s been close a couple of times.


    1. showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; “a broad political stance”; “generous and broad sympathies”; “a liberal newspaper”; “tolerant of his opponent’s opinions” [syn: broad]
    2. having political or social views favoring reform and progress
    3. tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative]
    4. given or giving freely; “was a big tipper”; “the bounteous goodness of God”; “bountiful compliments”; “a freehanded host”; “a handsome allowance”; “Saturday’s child is loving and giving”; “a liberal backer of the arts”; “a munificent gift”; “her fond and openhanded grandfather” [syn: big]
    5. not literal; “a loose interpretation of what she had been told”; “a free translation of the poem” [syn: free]

    1. a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [ant: conservative]
    2. a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

    WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

  6. Deadbeat said on October 2nd, 2007 at 9:51am #

    Ceri Cat you are very funny. It’s liberals who writes the dictionary and thus define themselves. I prefer analysis and reality.

  7. Ceri Cat said on October 3rd, 2007 at 8:16am #

    Hardly, true libs aren’t too well known for playing by rules they disagree with, are open minded, and are frequently outspoken, that doesn’t sound like any politician I’ve had the displeasure to meet (with the exception of a few independents and those not yet broken by the system). And the definition of liberalism actually comes more from medical (psychology) than political sources.

    And I’m glad you consider me a funny person, that makes you a first in thousands of people who know me.

  8. hp said on October 5th, 2007 at 3:50pm #

    I like Robert Frost’s definition..
    “A person too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.”