can’t see what forest for whose trees?

Fellow voters, Rep*blicans and De­moc­rats alike: we have all heard someone say, “There’s no dif­fer­ence be­tween the can­di­dates for ei­ther party.” Have you no­ticed that the only people who ever say any­thing that naïve are people who don’t vote?

“There’s not a dime’s worth of dif­fer­ence be­tween the De­mo­crat and Re­pub­lican par­ties!” George Wal­lace said that in 1966, but he was rarely cor­rect about much of any­thing and he cer­tainly isn’t cor­rect about that.

I cer­tainly know that there is a dif­fer­ence be­tween my views on things and those of any Rep*blican voter out there.

And I know that should there be any Rep*blican-voters reading my site (ho ho ho), they cer­tainly know that there’s a dif­fer­ence be­tween their views on things and those of any De­mo­c­ratic voter out there.

So, what is it? Are those of us who have chosen sides simply gotten too close to the trees to see the forest, or are the non-voters among us simply so over­whelmed by the forest that they can’t see the trees any­more? Or “Can’t see what forest for whose trees?”

NOTE: The painting at the top of this page is “You Can’t See The Forest For The Trees” by Marcel Oden­bach (2003). I found it at So­phie Munn’s Vi­sual Eclec­tica blog, a very cool site worth a visit or two …


Subscribe
Notify of
Rate this article:
Please rate this article with your comment.
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x