You might think Obama's strong win was proof that the voters re-approved his message and his accomplishments in his first term; the election could be regarded as a referendum on Obama and his "liberal" policies. Not so fast. Already, we hear The Establishment pundit class stating in no uncertain terms that we are still a "deeply divided nation," half and half, with the always-to-be-expected insistence that, well, Yes, Obama won, but... but half the country voted for Romney, so, of course Obama must now "move to the middle," and compromise with the losers--- who, remember, lost. This demand was not, so far as I can remember, imposed upon George W. Bush, who was appointed to his first term not by the voters but by the Supreme Court; he governed as ferociously as if he had received an overwhelming mandate, and charged off down an utterly disastrous road
What strikes me today is how we are individually positioned in time, how we think or feel about events that are on our horizon because we lived through them, or over our horizon beyond our personal experience, but perhaps within the experience of someone we know, or simply way beyond everyone's mental horizon, i.e., "history." How we think of an event, or even if we think of it at all, has a lot to do with how we conduct our lives, how we vote, what our cultural tags are, and what we want to preserve, or what kind of change we can believe in. In short, what kind of a generation gap must we deal with?