The example that comes to mind is Cambodia, which constantly went back and forth from being a monarchy to being a republic in the decades between the 1960s and 1990s. Norodom Sihanouk, the famously long-reigning Cambodian ruler, was sometimes king and sometimes president at various times during the era.

I believe in Africa there has been a president or two who was a former king of some abolished tribal monarchy, but that might not "count" in the same way.

I think that's a fairly common perspective among Anglo conservatives of all sorts. in America, you see this with some of the more intelectual conservatives who are skeptical of Obama's father, who was of course very active in anti-colonialist politics in Kenya. They see Obama Sr. as a guy very much on the "wrong side of history," and a man who has probably tainted the President with beliefs that are basically anti-western and anti-civilization.

It's not necessarily a racist thing, but I think a lot of Anglo-American conservatives assume that the plague of bad government in places like Africa and the Middle East is in large part due to the imperial powers leaving too early, and not finishing the civilizing job they began. As opposed to, say, India, where they did, and would be viewed as more of a success story as a result. The whole neo-con "remake the Middle East" has a strong theme of imperial apologism inherent in it.

That's a very interesting question. I think the mainstream perspective is that the Soviet Union probably would have greatly moderated in the 1990s, and become a country sort of like China, with a Communist government that was no longer nearly as viciously totalitarian nor dogmatically Marxist — in other words, a sort of permanent perestroika / glasnost regime. I think Clinton would have been the president to usher in a formal era of fully normalized, peaceful relations, and declared the Cold War to be officially over, or something like that.

Under George W. Bush and Obama I imagine things would have gone more or less the same as they have in the real world, assuming Putin became head of the USSR. Which is to say, worsening relations and fear of a Russian reemergence as a troublemaking world power. I guess the Republicans would probably use this as a much bigger talking point than they do now, though. Soviet-Islamic relations would probably be viewed with more suspicion and paranoia, and who knows, maybe the whole War on Terror would be viewed through some sort of neo-Cold War paradigm.

It's a hard question to answer, of course, because so much really depends on what kind of people would be leading the USSR. I do think overall, however, that the world would be a very similar place. I've been reading more stuff from the 1980s recently and even the analysts who were assuming the USSR would survive for many decades to come were all generally of the opinion that the country would basically never be the same again thanks to Gorbachev.

I think it probably would. Canada was founded around the same time, and if it could survive, why not a third Anglo-American nation?

I imagine they would have kept slavery until the early 20th century, and then instituted some manner of apartheid system to legally inshrine a permanent racial hierarchy. They might have been super-eager participants in both world wars (due to what I assume would be strengthened British ties) or they might be strong isolationists. During the Cold War they would be anti-Communist, but also an unpopular and isolated from other western democracies, and would probably build their own nuclear weapon. I could see full US-CSA relations not formally resuming until the 1950s or so.

Cut off from the US, the CSA would probably have a significantly smaller population than the modern south and be fairly backwards and poor, with an economy kept overly reliant on agriculture and industry as a result of the prolonged presence of slavery and cheap black labour. Canada and the US would probably be much closer to each other than they even are now. US politics would be significantly more left-wing and European, and the imagined differences between Canada and the US would be far slighter due to the absence of a conservative south.

A very interesting thought experiment.

I think there are lots of examples. Women's suffrage was an effective protest movement. So was the drive for civil rights. The Tea Party is a pretty good modern example.

In all cases, however, what made these movements successful was that they had multiple wings; there was a "street marching" wing, but also a political wing, a media wing, a social wing, etc. I think a lot of today's professed protest movements are very lazy and unserious for the simple reason that they're not interested in engaging in activism on the required multiple levels. More often than not, today's protestors just want to complain, as opposed to actually do the hard work that's required to implement their agenda.

It's actually a weird "fashionable" shirt where the sleeves are auto-rolled. So I had no choice. Apologies to anyone who doesn't understand this obscure reference.

It was glorious.

It's really not a political movie at all. It's a movie about an old woman with dementia who happened to be a Conservative politician in happier times. That's the perspective the film is made from, and why it's so awful.

I guess a bit. But I think it's still too early to judge.

But then what would he have to complain about?

I am J.J. We used to cohabit the PVPforums back in the day, remember that? I also have vague memories of chatting with you on AIM for a while, before you were such a big shot. I don't really read any of your comics, but I'm interested in you as a person, and your opinions on various things. Truth be told, Formspring is really the main way I engage with you.

Oh god yes, all the time. I actually hate it when people say that, because it just makes me further depressed that this is the kind of cartooning I've chosen to do. A genre that everyone hates.

Well, I get a good deal from their hosting services. A day offline was a small price to pay. Literally!

I think a part-time Congress is a terrible idea. It just consolidates more power in the hands of the party leaders and the executive branch, and makes Congress into this kind of cameo appearance.

I think the non-con term idea is pretty good. Sometimes it requires a break before you know if you really want to continue or not.

I like Colbert a lot, but I think all the South Carolina / Super PAC stuff he's been doing has been very pointless. It's activism without any real message or purpose, and I don't think that really helps anyone.

Agree, to a point. I think he benefits from a moderate reputation more than he actively tries to learn that label for himself. Someone like Huntsman was very aggressively moderate. Romney has spent much of this campaign trying to prove he's "conservative enough" to the base, while simultaneously benefitting from the hardwired perceptions of others that he's really not.

I never want to underestimate the insane vanity and self-delusion of politicians, but a part of me thinks that's actually what Huntsman was doing with this run. I don't think he'd be any better of a candidate in 2016, when people like Christie and Rubio would likely run, but he'd definitely be in a much stronger place, brand-recognition wise.

I agree with most of the viewer comments I've seen posted on the site itself. I think all the steam and passion has run out of this yearly exercise, and they're just phoning it in now. Reciting a list of current events to a public domain folk song is a tired premise now, and all the magazine cut-outs in the world can't save it.

I think I always try to stay pessimistic. Then if something good happens, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

He seems like a fine young man. I wish he would speak out on politics more, though, so I could draw more cartoons about him. My last Bieber toon was by far my most popular toon of 2011.