, , , , , , ,

I’ll admit, I’ve never read The Age of Uncertainty, nor am I all that likely to.

I did like the phrase, though, even if I’m turning it towards an entirely different purpose in this post.

Have you noticed how… sure some folks are about the consequences of our upcoming election?

On the one hand, we have the people who are convinced that the country will be destroyed if Obama continues in office.

On the other hand, we have the people who are convinced that the country will be destroyed if Romney becomes president.

At times I suspect that both of these groups have difficulty figuring out which part of their body goes in their pants.

Let’s be honest, really:  The chances of anything major happening in the next four years are pretty minimal.  Obama might get a chance to push the government a little further left, Romney might get a chance to push it a little to the right, but in either case, it’s not going to be some apocalyptic tide of destruction that washes forth from Washington leaving only desolation and destruction in its wake.  The system has an inertia all of its own, not to mention an opposing party that will do almost anything to block their opponents from furthering their agenda.  Still, for a lot of folks a loss in the election seems to equate with the end of the world.

I’ve been wondering where this attitude comes from, and I’ve concocted a theory that ties back into my oh-so-clever title for this post.

People are so certain, because in reality they’re so uncertain.

Let’s face it, the world is changing very quickly these days.  Hell, that’s part of the rationale for the name of this blog, after all.

As individuals, groups, parties, and nations, we’re so very unsure of where the world is headed, and that lack of surety causes many to cling to their favored ideology in the hopes that it can offer them the future they want, rather than the future they fear.

To those people I have only this to say: Rest assured, no matter what happens tomorrow, the world will spin on.