The Power of Now

There’s an old saying that “patience is a virtue.” Not anymore.

Previously in these pages, I wrote about how computer technology and social media have turned the US into Instant Gratification Nation. (See I Miss Anticipa-a-a-tion, Which Used to Keepin’ Me Waitin’ Like a Polaroid Picture, 18 July 2012.)

I’m still concerned that getting news, music, movies, and messages immediately with little effort on anyone’s part might be turning us into a nation of tantruming toddlers who want what we want when we want it. And we expect to get it.

I’m not taking that back or admitting I was wrong or anything (no way!). However, I can see now how this cultural transformation also has a positive side. It’s also helping to fast-track certain progressive social movements that I believe in. And that’s an incredibly encouraging development.

Call me a hypocrite, but when it comes to liberal politics, I’m all for the very traits I was criticizing in individuals. Hooray for impatience! Hooray for high expectations! Hooray for getting what we want…Now!

In fact, I can hear this chant in my head:

Question: What do we want?

Answer: First woman president, first Latino or Latina president, marriage equality, gun control, immigration reform.

Question: When do we want it?

Answer: Now. Now. NOW!

This is how I see it: All these issues have been back burnered or blocked for years, even decades. And now, suddenly, every one of them is front and center.

There are many reasons why: we have a President who wants to be a transformational figure and accomplish a center-progressive agenda; the younger generation tends to be more accepting of differences in backgrounds and beliefs and lifestyles; shifting demographics are giving minority voters greater power; and America generally moves in the direction of granting greater expansion and protection of rights.

I also believe that something else is at work here. I think this instasociety we live in is changing the way we measure time and progress. Societal restrictions and biases that seemed acceptable or were tolerated in the past just seem ludicrous to so many of us now, and we expect change, like everything else in our lives, to happen fast.

Let’s just focus on two areas where change is accelerating at a faster rate than anyone could have predicted: women and minorities in positions of political power, and same-sex marriage.

In the world of presidential politics, electing the first African-American president might have been an anomaly. Re-electing President Obama, however, showed that wasn’t the case.

And now, in 2013, three-and-a-half years before the next presidential election, Hillary Clinton is the de facto Democratic nominee. In fact, she’s considered such a shoe-in that no Democrat, not even the current Vice President, would challenge her. Clearly, the party power-mongers believe that the majority of the country is not just ready, but eager, to elect her and make history… again.

Similarly, many Republican politicos, who recognize that their party has fallen behind the times, believe that a Latino politician like Senator Marco Rubio might be the party’s savior. Wow.

When it comes to the issue of marriage equality, progress may be frustratingly slow, but the recent change in attitudes is remarkable. When George W. Bush ran for President for the first time in 2000, his “brain” (Karl Rove) used same-sex marriage as a wedge issue to drive conservatives in swing states to the polls. It’s one of the key reasons (other than the small matter of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore) that Bush won. A few years later, in 2003, same-sex marriage remained unpopular, with only 33 percent of Americans saying they supported it.

Today, a mere decade later, according to Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight blog, 51 percent of Americans say they approve of marriage equality. Ten states plus the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage and ten states recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. The Supreme Court might—might—overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the coming months.

These are monumental developments that would have seemed improbable, if not impossible, just a decade ago. And they’re due, in part, to our insistence that change occur now, now, NOW.

There’s an old saying that “patience is a virtue.” Not anymore.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.