pressing that legacy

You can tell we have got time wrong when government or at least political leaders start to obessess about legacy after less than a year in the job. The trouble a guess is the great mythological 'leaders' just prior to the end of the cod war, have set a very high standard. Or perhaps better they ahve shown to an ego what the job might lead to - how one might remember, ad leaders ears prick up. What is more they know that good marketing requires time and constant referal to the product (themselves)- so one needs tog et thinking legacy straight away (all the more so as our crop of young leaders are going to hang around to be in their own legacy, and not retired senile or dead).
but this would be meaningless if the media did not of course cooperate. legacy is the stuff of new print and easy cheap stories. Legacy needs not be investigate or revealed a sham - it is just there- the popular knowledge we all have about what someone did. To write the legacy before the time in government or to connive with writing of it makes good sense for journalist whose new cycles do not allows for proper research or anything- for journalist then who need not stories but easy dog tag mythology instead.
life is so much easier if we all know where we are going.
and yet of course it is always the problem with the mythological as fact. it has no predictive gumption. One cannot then simply predate or demand what will be- that that is the point. Balls up happens in places other that mythology. Wars happen and legacies are gutted or destroyed or strikes are lost.
And yet are the core of what is happening here is something that is not awful. All parties all government state their aims and their goals- of course they do it is what you do when you govern. The mere statement of where you want to go is fine enough.- indeed without such hope democracy is effectively meaningless. But a hope or dream for a possibility to come is no legacy- for one has acknowledge the difference in time between scheming and doing- One has allowed for that difference (the one where what values one have come more to the fore).
Once this important distinction is gone then one enters a strange dark kingdom- suspended between truths and fictions - a realm of pre-history, where journalist and politicians attempt to write do is write the initial draft of the history (and do it before the events have happened). Memories are being written before the action are done to fill them (the celebrity problem) - and in the knowledge that once these history are written they will to a degree (barring disasters) start to bend history in their way, start to warp what is actually occurring i their direction. The history repeats itself into the future. It might change then, but as it attempts to punch as history not hope, it has a power to demand the world listen to it as 'real'.. It does so even when events dispose of it or change it (although not is a way hat is useful- Bliar is hated so much as much as because he was writing his own history as for the war).
But the real trouble is that this pre-writing of history is not the job of politicians, nor government nor even selling government- and its presence wit the confusion of facts and fictions to come actually injures governing as they cloud issues and prevent real decisions being made (one wonders always what it looks like in the fantasy legacy). It plays then to the vanity of the trappings of power and not the reality- the myth of being PM,a myth that is currently governing us all at the moment - a vaccousness we might rue one day.