here’s a novel idea; approach politics somewhere between agnostic and gnostic (think; ‘alternative (a)gnostic’. or, perhaps an easier approach would be to read more Buddhism. and by reading more Buddhism, I am suggesting a practical solution as opposed to spiritual or mystical. divest/divorce yourself from investment in philosophies, dogmas, and the corresponding labels/allegiances (language), which are more evidence of) corruption, and not enlightenment/intellect. and therin lies the rub, Grasshopper (imagine me conflating Shakepeare and a 1970’s American TV series about a ‘mixed race’ Shaolin monk wandering the American west in the late 19th century). I realize it is your job to encourage debate (and to comment on the matters to be debate), but really? when you use words/phrases like “elite liberals” or attempt to distinguish between “civilization and culture”… it best, you’ll end up chasing your tail… or the other guy’s tail, producing the same result (exhaustion, or frustration in no knowing what do you when you catch it). if you see the world in terms of ‘sides’ (the proverbial “culture war”), you are compelled to pick a side. Trump, Clinton, Bush, Pence, Ryan, FDR, JFK, LBJ, McConnell… they’re threats to everyone… it’s the nature of the world we live in.
James Truslow Adams, in his book The Epic of America, which was written in 1931, stated that the American dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position." (-215)
At the same time, “Christine” refuses to treat sexism as a kind of catch-all motive for why Chubbuck pulled the trigger. What makes the movie such a discomfiting experience is that it seems to sympathize with its heroine, acknowledging her intelligence, integrity and work ethic, while remaining unsparingly honest about her very real shortcomings. The other men in the newsroom — the golden-boy anchor (Michael C. Hall) she loves, the ill-tempered boss (Tracy Letts) she keeps clashing with — may complicate her path to success, but in the end, Christine’s greatest obstacle may well be herself.