No problem! I'd never heard that story before.
Thank you for your tolerance & understanding, engineer. (I gave you a thumbs up for that.
Please excuse my typos, too. This seems to happen when I try to condense a ton-load of information (which I feel very passionately about) to a workable size.
I'm afraid this is one of those "trigger" subjects with me.
Now, where were we?
The reason I brought up the Whitlam dismissal in the first place, because (weirdly enough!) I can almost identify
with the current sense of disenfranchisement of the far right in the US. Their
reaction to Bush losing office is not all that different (minus the media support, guns at town hall meetings, etc) to what much of the left & far left in Australia felt after the Whitlam dismissal. In Bush, they had probably the closest reflection of their own political beliefs in office & to have the nation reject Bush at the ballot box (& replace him with Obama, who in their eyes, stands for everything they don't
) would feel like a huge rejection by fellow Americans. I'd imagine their reaction is not only political, but also quite personal. I know I, & many others, felt very a very similar sense of alienation when Australian voters rejected Whitlam at the ballot box, after the dismissal. It took many of us a long time to engage in mainstream political activity again.
I agree with you, Setanta, that left Australians at that time definitely had more valid reasons for our anger & our sense of betrayal & alienation, but I suspect the ultra right in the US feel pretty much the same as we did, anyway. Their dream is over. It is most unlikely that they'll ever see a government that they so closely identify with again.
I was wondering, in an earlier post, if this extreme response to Obama's election by the US far right could be more a transitional
response to the Republicans losing office, or something more permanent. Yes, I know they are just a small, extremely vocal minority, but while their minority perspective receives support & validation through their influential ( it seems) spokespeople in the mainstream media, they could be an extremely destructive & disruptive minority. I'm wondering if they'll do more harm to their own
party, in trying to exert their influence on future directions & policies there, than they will to the Democrats. (From a long way away) I see the right wing US media as the real
opposition to the Democrats at the moment. In a sense they are using
the anger & frustration of a small, angry minority of voters for their own ends. What I'm trying to figure out is what those "ends" actually are.