Que Sera Sera: 2016 and beyond

Whatever will be will be….

It’s a Spanish phrase famous in a Doris Day song. The phrase, according to Oxford, means the “fatalistic recognition that future events are out of (beyond) the speaker’s control.”

One that might fit the current political landscape. It certainly would have popularity with some laissez-faire advocates. Apply that to politics and look at the rot you can have. At some point one realizes things will be what they will, so why bother? Maybe it is not for us to decide or say anyway?

Given the passive attitude from some about our politics, the phrase can fit well — too well. Without some major change things will be as bad as they’ve ever been. Maybe worse. Just to keep further erosion at bay would require major intervention. And our passivity certainly doesn’t help.

I appreciate the word from Oxford fatalistic. The definition of fatalism, from Oxford, is “The belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.”

That could describe a cynical view on politics, too. Combined, it’s kind of dual unavoidable negativism that seems to flow uncontrolled. We can simply bet on receiving more of the same in the future, to which we say “Que sera sera.” Oxford adds: “A submissive outlook, resulting from a fatalistic attitude.” That tends to describe some attitudes.

The old saw is two things you should avoid in conversation are politics and religion. Why? They are considered divisive. Many people like that advice. But it goes a little further, they don’t want to know about either of them. When it comes to elections, they can say they’re all crooks, liars and con artists, and its a sham anyway.(libs prefer that verbiage)

Ignorance may be a virtue in some quarters.

Why would people get excited when one candidate is as bad as the next and where honest, good people would not be running? How do you counter all that negativism? You can’t, since you also know it is about as bad as it gets. There is not much to base hope on.

If you examine it from the other side it’s a bit more personal. Sure, if we keep doing what we are currently doing, in our involvement, then it will probably remain the same or even get worse. Though it does not get better by leaving things to their own devices saying “see, this is what we always have.” No, it doesn’t change and we don’t change. So we have the chicken and egg, which came first question?

Plug in the same scenario to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. [1]There really is not much to look forward to and [2]we pretty much know what to expect with Hillary.(aka evasion and diversion) The chances of either one changing are almost zero. Yet in spite of that gloomy outlook, there are still people willing to support and vote for her. What is wrong with that picture? We all know what to expect with her, right? So “Ready for Hillary”?

She could hardly be more obvious. She is not willing to answer any questions and believes any real accountability is beneath her. She has a team who believes much the same as her, that all she has to do is run to get into office. Then everything according to plan, past is prologue. You think we had scandals and problems with Bubba? Well, meet the new and improved version. Then everyone can just sigh and say, “see, this is always the way it is no matter who is in office… they’re all skunks.” But those people never seem to accept their own culpability for it either.

Reference: Oxford Dictionary http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/que-sera-sera

RightRing | Bullright

Advertisements

13 comments on “Que Sera Sera: 2016 and beyond

  1. Bullright says:

    I really wasn’t sure where that was going to end up. I’m just glad it came in for a landing before running out of fuel.

    Like

  2. Bullright says:

    Like

  3. the unit says:

    “Is nothing sacred anymore?” Yes, bullfrogging in the night. Pants up, my pockets are full of bullfrogs my Mama will fix. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  4. the unit says:

    OT, and I just recently learned what that means. Looking forward to your stance on this supposed mutiny on the trade thing. Wouldn’t sucker you into anything. I was just here when George H.W. couldn’t pull off NAFTA without giving up and letting opposing party become Slick to get the dems to go along.
    Gotta watch now with extreme, radical, interest. Just see Chamber of Commerce party then and now. Ignore last sentence!

    Like

  5. There are no other viable Democrat candidates, because Obama has sucked all the oxygen from the liberal political landscape for 6 years. He hasn’t let anyone besides himself be perceived as having any innovative ideas, or having any “rising star quality”. So Hillary is the only choice. She’s the has-been politician who ironically hasn’t-been anything — ever. She’s over the hill before she even climbed any hill. 🙂

    So liberal voters have two choices in the primaries: vote for Hillary, or vote for some radical or unknown who stands no chance against Hillary.

    And then they have two choices in the general election: vote for Hillary, or don’t vote. I think Hillary’s campaign logo should be a clothes pin: “Hold your nose and vote for me!” Perhaps I’ll work on a satirical article along those lines.

    – Jeff

    Like

    • Bullright says:

      Spot on, like it Jeff. Clothes pin really fits. But I hadn’t thought how much of this damage was self-inflicted from the top, Obama. True. There’s been no room for anyone on the horizon. Pretty bad. Even when he tries not to do her any favors, he has. She’s the bomb, in more ways than one.

      Like

      • My observation about Obama sucking all the oxygen out of the room came partly from a leadership concept I learned from a book almost 15 years ago. It’s called Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t by Jim Collins. It examined pairs of similar companies starting back a few decades when they were in identical market circumstances with identical potential, followed by a marked divergence where one company declined and the other company skyrocketed. In each case, the author and his research team examined the differences in the twin companies’ actions to see if they could identify any common characteristics that all the “Good-to-Great” companies exhibited.

        I remember one of the characteristics they isolated was the style and vision of the leader at the very top of the company. Chrysler’s famous CEO Lee Iacocca was perfect example of a self-defeating (in the long run) leader. Yes he did great things for Chrysler, but he ran the company like his personal super-hero project (also brings to mind Tony Stark — Iron Man — in the Avengers movies). Iacocca never shaped the company towards a long-term vision that it could sustain. He never developed a successor. His reign was all about his towering personality as an iron-willed disciplinarian. So the minute he was gone, Chrysler started to decline. He was a leader-of-the-moment but not a leader-of-the-ages, because he wouldn’t allow anyone else to be perceived as his partner or collaborator. His ego wouldn’t let him.

        Here’s a good article I just found that recounts that part of Collins’ book perfectly. I think you’ll agree this describes Obama’s narcissism and hog-the-spotlight persona perfectly. And now the Democrat party is like a sail boat far out at sea with not even a breeze to move it — no oxygen left.

        You can find other short articles about the Iacocca example in that book by googling “good to great collins chrysler”. For example, I think this is the full text of the book, unformatted but searchable.

        Feel free to formulate an article of your own about this idea. It’s low-hanging fruit for you to pick, Bull.

        Cheers, my friend.
        – Jeff

        Like

        • Bullright says:

          Thanks Jeff, I read things about Iacocca but not that. Fits well. Contrast with Jack Welsh who raised up a group of leaders around him.(some almost likened to a cult) Most of whom also were successful. Hey, I’m certainly no fan of Imelt , but the contrast is stark. (but there’s no replacement for moral principles either)

          Like

        • Bullright says:

          Hey, and look at Chrysler today when even many of its ads suck wind. That’s become my latest beef with them. How far do euphemisms like guts and glory go? Flailing in the wind is a kind way to put it.

          Like

  6. peppermintfarm says:

    Good article Bull and I very much like how you handled it at the end. Unbelievably Hill still beats any repub in the polls, not that polls are all that useful. But she still has (even with all of the scandalous things she’s done) the support of most democrats. I heard Kirsten Powers say she won’t vote for her but she won’t vote at all then.

    She doesn’t even have to work for the nomination. She knows there is no one of any import who will run against her. So she lies low, doesn’t give any interviews and she skates free. Disgusting and depressing.

    Like

Comments...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s