way too much tammy, i know. possibly i'm a bit too drenched in hip hop as i teach my course and need a break. so let me try a different defense of 'stand by your man,' obviously one of the iconic songs of the twentieth century for a variety of reasons. but if you're opposed to standing by your man, you're opposed to monogamy. that's your perogative, of course - you bobby brown bitch. i'm kind of into the idea myself. heterosexuality is a rich, complicated landscape, with all kinds of gender roles and stuff. it might have had some connection to the subordination of women, of course. but you know i don't think we can really help ourselves: we were born this way; this is who we are, not what we chose; it's an identity, not a lifestyle. perhaps heterosexual marriage failed as an idea; it just wasn't practicable. but it had a certain compelling yin/yang quality. and of course even heterosexuals should be able to marry whomever they please. tammy explored every mood and moment of heterosexual romantic love - complementarity - from infatuation to conflagration. but it took hillary clinton to really live this particular song fully.
in some cultures, time has been understood to be cyclical. in others, it's considered to be linear, a narrative or line of progress. probably, time is best conceived as a scribble: jagged, funky, continuously self-xing: an incomprehensible chaos that is still a single line, unreconstructible: the mad scribble of the insane. but we in the reactionary progressive party want to organize this scribble into a swirl of overlapping circular and ovoid forms, loops and figure-eights: upward and downward spirals: we demand a tornadic time.
we'll start by trying to recapitulate the nixon administration in its entirety. but to do that, we'll have to get involved in vietnam, which will require a full reinstatement of the cold war. this will in turn require re-fighting world war two. in fact, in our profound conservatism the reactionary progressives will have to tear everything down and start anew with the big bang. that's some pretty radical shit!
the most profound innovation would be a sheer, perfect repetition, which is what we of the reactionary progressive party are calling for. if you want to understand the astounding oomph of our amazing program, i direct you to three texts, which are to the reactionary progressives what the contract with america (or maybe burke or oakeshott) is to conservatism:
jorge luis borges, "pierre menard, author of the quixote" soren kierkegaard, repetition friedrich nietzsche, the gay science, sec. 341
reactionary progressivism is actually a practical program and has been applied many times. the founders of the american republic, for example, based their revolt against england not on a radical agenda for progress, but on the ancient british constitution and the rights of british citizens. confucius is often portrayed as an arch-conservative, but his extreme emphasis on ritual propriety and tradition constituted a radical reform agenda in a china disintegrating into small warring states. bill monroe invented bluegrass music by trying to make music in the 1940s that sounded like it came from 1880. progress and return are, let us say, always complexly related, and the choice is never flat.
announcing a new political party: the reactionary progressives. forward, into the past. our goal is to ban everything developed after 1820: corporate capitalism; abolition of slavery; woman suffrage. we don't expect to achieve this admirable, sweeping return to basic decency. but we do think that giving it a shot will introduce bizarre, completely unpredictable, extreme change in the immediate future, thus driving us into a 22nd century bright with innovation.