Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: From correspondence
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
My sorrow and sense of failure is for all the people not in the United States for whom we’ve been a beacon of democracy and the hope for something better. We’ve failed them.
Here’s where I’m angry enough to spit at the Naderites, and anyone else who practiced ineffectual politics on the bone-stupid grounds that ‘things have to get worse before they can get better’: Did it ever once cross your minds that the things that get worse include the lives of people around the globe? We were a constant referendum on and demonstration of the idea that liberty, equality, and government by the consent of the governed are not only possible, but work better than elitist kleptocracies.
Those weren’t just empty words. America really was a beacon of hope, and a constant encouragement to good guys everywhere.
If you were one of those Naderites who were out yapping about how they wanted to “vote as though it made a difference,” congratulations: You made a difference. I hope you feel all warm and fuzzy and self-actualized now, because in the reality-based world you’ve done grievous harm to the helpless, the oppressed, and every ideal you profess to stand for.
Don’t tell me I can’t blame you, because I can, and I do.
It’s not just you, either. I’m entirely out of patience with Americans whose whimpering plaint is that we Democrats brought this on ourselves because it hurt their feelings when we acted like we think they’re stupid.
To this I say: Oh, malarkey.
First response: Grow up. If they’re that big on self-esteem issues, let them go volunteer as helpers at their local elementary school, where it’ll do some good. It’s faintly nauseating to hear so many supposed adults whine.
Second: Bullshit. For the last ten or fifteen years, I’ve listened as Democrats, liberals, the French, and other groups have been treated to sneers, calumny, loutish bullying, and unashamed lies by the right. It’s been a terrible burden to the spirit, and has brought public discourse in America to hitherto unheard-of lows of infamy. Where was all this sensitivity, when that was going on? If they could bear years and years of hearing that thrown at others, with never a protest or reproof at its callous ugliness, they can surely bear up under a breath of implication that they’ve made a singularly disastrous decision.
Third, I say bullshit and malarkey again. They weren’t upset about the Democrats acting like we thought they were stupid before the election took place. It wasn’t an issue back then.
You know what’s really happening? They’re seeing our reactions, and they’re scared. It’s like that moment where someone tells you what they’ve done, and it’s disastrously wrong, a complete catastrophe; only they haven’t understood that until now, when they see you stagger and turn pale at the news. And as you’re standing there steadying yourself, feeling your heart pounding and a terrible weight descending on your shoulders … you realize that the other person is preemptively yelling at you. They still don’t quite know what’s happened, but they can tell they’ve screwed up big time, so they’re screaming that they certainly hope you aren’t going to pretend that this could somehow have been their fault, because …
They can tell we’re not just acting like we’ve lost an election. They know that politically, they haven’t been acting like responsible grownups. So now, their reaction is to raise and sharpen their voices, and say they certainly hope we aren’t going to pretend that this could somehow have been their fault …
Well, yes. It is. They’ve been stupid and self-indulgent and irresponsible. Not having to pay attention to what’s happening around you is the most expensive luxury there is; and they just went to the ballot box and wrote a blank check to cover it.
Now Bush has announced that he plans to privatize Social Security. They ought to be out standing in the middle of the street, screaming at the top of their lungs, because if that goes through a lot of them are suddenly going to be looking forward to an impoverished old age.
Beyond that, if Bush puts through more tax cuts and commits to more indiscriminate spending, the deficit’s going to go so high that it’ll break the bond market. Do they know what that’ll mean? Bonds help pay for their schools and streets, their water and power and sewage systems. An awful lot of them have bonds as a major component of their retirement savings. We’re looking at the possibility of truly ugly hard times.
But are they out in the street screaming? They are not. They’re hunkered down, nervously hoping that the destroying angel has passed them by, and this will be as bad as it gets. They won’t have to do anything. They won’t have to think about scary stuff. They can go back to dollhouse politics where you pretend that cloning, flag burning, and evolution are serious issues.
It can get much, much worse. It may well get so much worse that words like “inconvenient” will be retired in favor of words like “tragic” and “life-threatening.” Wake up now. Act now.
And for those of you who feel horribly let down by us: We’re sorry. Some of us know it and others don’t know it yet, but we messed up big time, and we’re terribly, terribly sorry.
Don’t stop believing in the ideals. Nothing about them made this outcome inevitable. They’re as good now as they ever were. When you have freedom, you have the freedom to screw up. It didn’t have to happen, but it did anyway. This is just a country. Freedom, democracy, equality under the law, and respect for the common man will go on, whether we go with them or not.
Tonight in my usual Sunday/Tuesday chat someone questions the 'legality' of a fact that a dear friend has nailed a flag upside down on a tree on his property (front yard). I allowed as it was a distress symbol (upside down flag) and they asked if it was legal.
I replied that freedom of expression was so far still legal and no one has a right to tell him how to fly the flag. I'm sure it will be illegal eventually if the Bushies get all their laws/regulations in.
Well, in one way it already is "tragic" and "life-threatening," in the sense that there's now no chance that events in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to be governed by the fantasies of a few in the White House. In another sense, as I wrote a couple of days ago in "On compromise," it will be "tragic" and "life-threatening" very soon, as the fools get their wish for the return of deaths from illegal abortions.
(My personal opinion regarding that issue is that if they can call us "baby-killers," we can call them "murderers." Since that is their intent.)
Can someone in the Making Light cosmos provide a hotlinked summary of what the rest of the world actually thinks about the results of this national election, organized in some way that will advance reasoned discussion on the topic? I, for one, find a certain incoherence in the international press, but I may be looking in the wrong places, or failing to perceive an obvious paradigm. The late-night TV gave a parody of such a response, with a series of cuts of people in exotic places, wearing exotic costumes, often accompanied by exotic animals, all doing spit-takes.
Frank, I take your point entirely, but let me gently remind you that we aren't going to argue about abortion here. Not this week, not this month. Later, maybe.
Paula, what I observe about flag burning and other acts of supposed desecration is that some years it's an issue, other years it isn't, but either way the flag's still there. A flag that can be destroyed by burning is a lesser flag than the one I salute.
Nader voters are so far down on my list of people to blame that they might as well not be on it at all. Bush voters are #1, in big red type.
Pretty far up there: Every idiot in Congress who voted for the use-of-force-in-Iraq resolution. Including the two I voted for last Tuesday.
JVP, you can do research as easily as I can. What I know is that the only people out there who appear to be wholeheartedly in favor of GWB are Tony Blair and Al Qaeda.
Outstanding, Teresa. I'm in full agreement on all points.
I need to do up a screed about how and why it isn't a mark of disrespect or contempt to say "I think you're wrong" and "I think I'm right". Nobody's entitled to feel that others all agree with them, and a basic part of maturity (heck, of childhood well before adolescence) should be learning to deal with people who see things differently and still get some things done.
And yes, passionately yes, about letting the world down. I grew up in the '70s and '80s with kids who'd been Vietnamese boat people, refugees from death squads of right and left in Central America, escapees from behind the Iron Curtain and from the post-colonial wars in Africa...their coming to America made sense. Right now, I'm not so sure it does. Oh, sure, we are for the moment still better in many ways than the pisspot tyrannies of the Third World. But so much of that is inertia. The rule of law has been explicitly repudiated at the top, and it's just a matter of time before it trickles on down....
One of the really moving experiences of my college years was hearing Dith Pran talk after a screening of The Killing Fields. I was at the time (mid-'80s) prone to a certain anti-American attitude. Pran's words did much to snap me out of it, reminding us all that the American ideal and experience was a key force in liberation struggles around the world, even when American practice fell short. We ought to love our potential as so many others love it, and when it failed to be real, make it so. I think of that now, and wonder what's to be done.
My personal blame list begins with Bush voters and with those who didn't vote. I still think Nader voters who don't believe in the doctrine of collapse and revolution owe the rest of us an apology for helping tip things in 2000, but they seem pretty much irrelevant to the 2004 situation. These weird sore winners really bug me a lot, and mystify me.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden:
Yes, I can do research. But I think that I do it badly when I am as angry and biased as I am in this area. I like to read the Jerusalem Post, for instance, in part because of its nice URL: JP.com. Also, of course, I did not mean for YOU to do the research, but someone who has genuinely spare time and real interest. I still have a stack of exams to grade, so that I can return them to my students in 12 hours, during which time there is also dinner, sleep, commuting, and other tasks.
I admit that I have no authority to assign homework to those who did not pay to take a class of mine.
The last time I did such homework was about 3 days ago. An online editor wrote to me and asked, provocatively, if I could find a prime number of 14 digits that satisfied the pattern of a Shakespearean Sonnet (ababcdcdefefgg). I did, he posted it, but he chose not to post the Spenserian Sonnet Prime that I devised, nor my proof that there are no Petrarchan Sonnet Primes.
I may have just undercut my argument that I have no spare time...
The sin of the "idiots in Congress" who voted for the use-of-force resolution is that they believed in the good faith of the President of the United States. They thought the game was still being played by the bipartisan rules in effect during previous Administrations. Maybe they were foolish, but they were my kind of foolish; they believed that there was a frame in which they and their partisan opponents were, at the end of the day, on the same side.
The sin of the Naderites who gave us Bush in 2000 was vanity, self-regard, preening perfectionism, and Teresa is entirely right to never forgive them. Sorry if that makes anyone uncomfortable.
No, wait, not sorry at all, because I just remembered that several of those "idiots in Congress" have taken as much work and pain and risk and sheer heartache as any Nader voter I know. And certainly as much as any number of blog-comment-section after-the-fact character assassins.
That utterly rocked.
More, that was liberating.
Has everyone here seen Patrick Farley's rant?
In part:
"Friends: don't despair. The Orcs who elected Bush their Savior from the Islamo-Fag Menace crave your despair like a junky craves heroin. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, and the yammering dipshits of Fox News are at this hour deep in their tribal gloatfest, pounding their drums and bellowing around the bonfire. Your despair is their sweet, sweet nectar -- don't give it to them. Deny the Neo-Medievalists the gift of your heartbreak. Yea verily, as the inevitable avalanche of shit rumbles down upon us all these next 4 years, get in touch with your inner Hunter Thompson, surf the insanity, become the Buddhist warrior who leaps into battle with a laughing heart. The Neo-Medievalists are a grim lot, and we won't be doing ourselves or the world any favors by sinking to their joyless depths.
Also.... after listening to right-wing hate radio these past 24 hours, I can tell you this for certain: behind their gloating, you can hear a palpable edge of terror in their voices. More on this in the next post...."
My only quibble with the outstandingly talented Patrick Farley (creater of Spiders and Apokemon) is that there's nothing whatsoever "medieval" about this particular gang; indeed it shows a total ignorance of what feudalism was all about to suppose otherwise. His insight that they crave our despair, on the other hand, is exactly right. Don't feed them.
I'd like to hear the folks complaining explain where they were every time "Massachusetts liberal" or similar slams were getting fired at those of us up here, and why they didn't complain about the tone of the debate then.
I don't expect to, but hey.
The sin of the "idiots in Congress" who voted for the use-of-force resolution is that they believed in the good faith of the President of the United States.
October 2002. Nineteen months into the Bush presidency, and after eight years of right-wing hardball against Clinton, how the hell could anyone with their eyes open have believed that the right was operating in good faith, or that Bush was trustworthy? You sure didn’t.
(And damn, there’s the entry I was looking for a few days back, and not finding.)
And yet, I find it a lot easier to forgive Johns Kerry and Edwards for believing in the system that hitherto existed, than to forgive the preening Naderites who bequeated us Bush in 2000.
Gosh, the contradiction! What could possibly account for it?
Here's a hint: I believe in people who work hard and try to play by the rules.
"I'd like to hear the folks complaining explain where they were every time 'Massachusetts liberal' or similar slams were getting fired at those of us up here, and why they didn't complain about the tone of the debate then."
Yeah.
Avram, I can encompass the idea that even after the attempted extra-Constitutional power grab of the Clinton years, and the first year of the Bush administration, they didn't believe Bush & Co. would lie as brazenly as they did at the start of the war.
"Things have to get worse before they get better" is an example of the post hoc fallacy.
The use of force always has to be an option.
There's also something to be said for continuing to be an example of honorable behavior even as one's opponents are revealing themselves to be completely rectocranially inverted. It fits with the idea I've seen recently about acting as more parliamentary opposition.
Is voting for a third-party candidate a violation of some set of rules I wasn’t aware of? Did nobody campaigning for Nader work hard?
I think the Nader’s supporters (those who actually campaigned for him) were working hard for something they believed in, in the naive hope (against all existing evidence) that it would work out. I can’t see blaming Naderites for being naive about overcoming the two-party system, and then excusing the naivete of professional politicians who fail to notice a decade’s worth of lies and rules-changing going on around them.
e-sheep.com appears to be down-- can someone post a URL for the Patrick Farley thing?
Josh, he posted it in his LiveJournal:
"For the last ten or fifteen years, I’ve listened as Democrats, liberals, the French, and other groups have been treated to sneers, calumny, loutish bullying, and unashamed lies by the right. It’s been a terrible burden to the spirit, and has brought public discourse in America to hitherto unheard-of lows of infamy."
Delurking to say thank you for articulating this. Yes, it has been, and remains, a "terrible burden to the spirit." I'm sick of it. I'm tired of playing nice, only to be subject to the sneering contempt and intellectual thuggishness of people who won't play by the rules.
What really makes me angry is the sense that half the country is being held hostage to the other half's willful stupidity.
Patrick Farley's LiveJournal:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pfarley/
And, DAMN, e-sheep is down!
I hope to hell that he's not having money trouble.
What a brilliant post!
JVP: This isn't the round-up of opinion you're wanting but Christopher Allbritton has some pungent observations on his Back-to-Iraq blog at http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000835.php.
To the short list of world leaders who are unambiguously delighted with the results of the US election, please add Prime Minister of Australia, the right honourable John W Howard, known variously as Bonsai (as in little bush) or Little W. He went on air saying how glad he was that someone he liked had won.
They weren’t upset about the Democrats acting like we thought they were stupid before the election took place. It wasn’t an issue back then.
Respectfully, yes, it was. It's been an issue for most of the past two decades, at a minimum. It just hasn't been talked about very much outside of groups of people who could reasonably be expected to share that resentment.
Some of us have fought it. But since we who live in the middle of it seem to be the only ones who acknowledge its existance, we've each been fighting it alone.
As one of the outsiders (Canadian), thanks very much for the post. It does feel better to know that there are so many people who are interested in turning this mess around. Up here, we're helpless.
What I would advise to the democrats out there, though, is to work to stop the shrill, screeching, complaining, knee-jerk criticism (of which Teresa's posts are not an example). I'm sure that it really helped to crystallize the right's vote -- and they tend to crystallize much more easily than the left, I'd say. Can you go into a bookstore, look in the politics section, and see anything but a wall of books proclaiming that Bush is a Bad Person? I'm on your side, and I'm sick of it.
I'm tired of hearing that Bush and co are evil geniuses, and then, in the next breath, that Bush is an idiot. I'm tired of hearing that this is the most corrupt, evil administration of all time -- even if it's true, I hear it so often that it's lost all meaning.
I'm not the one to know how the next four years' campaign should be run. But the message has to change, to something that isn't just a constant assertion that the other side is wrong. Being right isn't enough.
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall."
M@
I think Putin endorsed Bush as well.
Matthew Bin wrote: "Can you go into a bookstore, look in the politics section, and see anything but a wall of books proclaiming that Bush is a Bad Person?"
Amigo, where were you in the 1990s? Do you not remember the spate, plethora, and torrent of hate-filled anti-Clinton books, which are still being churned out by Regnery Press? Have you not noticed that Ann Clouter's books are up at the top of the best-sellers lists?
I have to agree with Jean OG here. I've been hearing "You think we're stupid," from right-wing, rural and religious folks for many years.
I suspect they've become so resentful that they feel entitled to some really outlandish insults toward the urban secular left.
But are they out in the street screaming? They are not. They’re hunkered down, nervously hoping that the destroying angel has passed them by, and this will be as bad as it gets.
And by the time they realize what they have done, it may well be too late to undo it.
Matthew, I just this afternoon browsed in the Politics section of a Barnes & Noble, up here in deep blue Hoboken, New Jersey, and saw a mixed pile of anti-Bush, anti-Kerry, and anti-Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) books.
'"You think we're stupid,"'
And now we know for sure.
SORRY! SORRY! That was unkind and entirely uncalled for. To show how bad I feel for writing that I will now go outside in my pajamas, walk around in the cold, and perhaps pick up some crap. Which I'd do anyway around this time, being a dog owner, but I'll treat it as a penance, OK?
"All you need is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." -- Mark Twain
Digby has some interesting thoughts on the "condescension" perception some of our Southern countrymen seem to carry around. The basic point is that it isn't anything new.
Jonathan Shaw:
Thank you.
When I see something like this, from Salon.com:
"Bush receives endorsement from Iran
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Oct. 20, 2004 | TEHRAN, Iran (AP) --
The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.
Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body."
I just think: but of course. Bush is killing lots of Iraqis. Isn't that what the head of Iran's security council would want?
Then I say -- whoops, there goes your anger and bias again.
*sigh* but how can any powerful political figure support Bush unless there's something in it for him/her?
Late Friday night I ran into J. Neil Schulman, "the author of two Prometheus award-winning novels, Alongside Night and The Rainbow Cadenza, short fiction, nonfiction, and screenwritings, including the CBS Twilight Zone episode 'Profile in Silver.'"
We were at an art show by Fantasy painter and Mythopoeic Society activist Bernie Zuber, editor of The Shire Post. Schulman was chatting with a makeup-artist-to-the-stars about an option on his theological comedy/ fantasy "Escape From Heaven."
"Neil," I said, knowing that he is member #4 of MLL (Members of the Libertarian Left). "What is the Libertarian position on the Presidential election?"
"Well," he said. "I voted for Bush."
A palpable silence fell across the packed gallery floor, as if some Red State cowboy had looked at a jar of salsa out on the range and seen "New York City."
"Why?" I asked.
"Because I like his stand on terrorism."
Steve Lamb, my last remaining ally on the Altadena Town Council, said: "Nixon. Reelected in 1972. Resigned in 1974. Be patient."
My feeling from the UK papers online was Blair wanted Kerry in. He never said so explicitly but he never endorsed Bush. Any UKer is welcome to expand/rebut.
My feeling from the UK papers online was Blair wanted Kerry in. He never said so explicitly but he never endorsed Bush. Any UKer is welcome to expand/rebut.
Fwiw, and not from the UK here, the sense from Canadian media was that Blair was dead silent on Bush and re-election -- and it would certainly have been better for Blair politically had Kerry won. In fact, from our media perspective -- and perhaps I'm reading selectively -- the only person who publicly endorsed Bush before the election was Putin.
Which is fairly interesting to me, Michelle. Putin is, of course, not even close to being a reformer. It's a pity, as a reformer is something Russia could really use right now, but Putin's not leaving office any time soon, so there you have it.
It's just that... well, I can't really think of a single thing Putin has to gain by Bush being in office. But then, I've had a similar attitude to Mr. Vos Post's, recently, so...
American expat in the UK here.
Blair was hedging his bets. On the one hand, he's perceived as supporting Bush (actually, he's considered Bush's poodle, and it'll be an issue in the election next year), so silence = support. On the other hand, his wife Cherie criticised Bush just before the election.
Ironically, his opponent Michael Howard was told by Karl Rove, "You can forget about meeting the president full stop. Don't bother coming." So Howard, the Conservative, is on the blacklist and the (somewhat) Socialist Blair is the new best friend. And they say there's no irony in modern politics.
(It still astonishes me that Howard made it to the top of the Tory party. We all thought his career was over when Jeremy Paxman, one of the UK's most aggressive news interviewers, asked him the same yes or no question fourteen times on live TV. After fourteen equivocations, Paxman then said, "I can see we're never going to get an answer here," and moved on. As will I, now that this digression is done.)
I wasn't one of those who thought things had to get worse before they got better, but I was one of those who thought they would get worse before they got better, and thought about how we could focus on making them get better even as they were getting worse.
I suspect I am right about the former, although I also hope I'm right in thinking that Bush's second term will not be as prolific as his first. It's entirely possible that the burning of Social Security will not appeal to Congress. It's also worth looking at the "curse of the second term" syndrome, and then looking at all the different scandals that Bush has brewing. Valerie Plame, Abu Ghraib, Al QaQaa, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Perle, OH MY!
Despite the fact that I allowed myself to be convinced of a Kerry win in the weeks running up to the election, I know now that I was reflecting my own preferences more than relying on the gut instincts which turned out to be correct in the first place. I guessed that it would be close, but go eventually to Bush because of the moral issues and because of the irrational "Bush makes me feel safe" syndrome, which I have personally come across and which never, ever makes sense, even to those who walk away without changing their minds. If there is a greater example of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALA" than those who believed Bush made them safer, I haven't met it.
So yes, we're going to have some trouble brewing. But 2006 is only two years away, and Bush will spend at least 60% of that time on holiday, not actually doing anything. From here on in, his policies will be of the kind that "Middle America" cannot help but notice. The economy is not looking pretty, the collapse of the dollar is looking to happen sooner rather than later, and when that happens I think we're rather more likely to see awakenings and shifts to a "reality based" worldview. It will, of course, be rather too late by then, but the silver lining will be the discrediting of the NeoCons and the Republican party for a long time.
Nobody wants another Great Depression, but if you must live in the country that votes for one, we all must work to make the best of it, and safeguard ourselves for the future following it.
abi: Paxman interviewing Bush. One can only dream...
Has Dubya, or Kerry for that matter, *ever* been interviewed in an agresseive manner on TV? Or were the handbags-at-ten-paces debates the only time they were asked anything not scripted. Oh, sorry, they *were* scripted.
And no, it's not much better where I come from.
The part of my brain that wants to blame and carry anger is taking a back seat, right now, to the part that wants to mitigate disaster.
Atrios posted, recently, that he doesn't think there's much we can do right now to avert the calamities you touch on in this post. He's pretty smart, with a Ph.D in Economics, so maybe he's right.
But, my less sophisticated, less-perspicacious mind still wants to come up with something to do that might blunt the impending trainwreck.
(Pasted in from elsewhere):
In 2005 there will 44 Democrats, 55 Republicans and James Jeffords (an independent) in the U.S. Senate. I'm wondering whether it might be possible to find five Republican Senators who:a) will join Democrats in resisting bills that privatize Social Security --
bills that authorize a reduction of 2% or more in all Social Security deductions for wage earners to invest on their own, and bills that establish a private Social Security trust fund as a preliminary to implementing the deduction reduction.
b) will join Democrats in resisting Neocon proposals to "simplify" the tax systemproposals that seek to implement a "flat tax," replace income tax with sales tax, or simply pass more lopsided tax cuts that force below $100,000/yr wage earners to make up the difference granted to above $100,000/yr earners.
c) will join Democrats in resisting the appointment of one or more Supreme Court justices who would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.Are these Republican Senators out there? Who are they? Once we identify the ones most likely to be receptive, perhaps we might start some letter-writing campaigns in their districts. And to accompany the list of Senators, we might provide cut-and- paste links to sound, reasoned explanations of why Bush's plans are really bad ones.
Feel free to knock this down with evidence of its impracticality -- or to email me some names of Senators you think might be likely candidates, if you think the idea has any merit. I'd like to assemble a list. It's the best thing I can think of to do, right now, with my disappointment and feelings of helplessness.
Did Nader voters actually have an effect on this year's elections? I was watching CNN.com's polls and although I didn't go state-by-state, I don't remember a state where Nader had enough votes to sway the election.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment. Last night my roommate was telling me of some friends of hers from Florida who are eligible to vote (we're both in Israel) but hadn't because they couldn't decide who to vote for. She couldn't understand why I didn't think this was something to be proud of.
"It was a choice between bad and worse to them." She said. She couldn't accept my insistence that they should have chosen the lesser of two evils. Which is strange, considering that Israelies have been holding their noses in the polling booth for about a decade.
Case in point.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041108/ap_on_en_mu/radio_host_apology
Teresa--
Both an enlightening and a depressing post, and one of the best rants I've ever read.
Thank you.
Jason wrote:
"It's just that... well, I can't really think of a single thing Putin has to gain by Bush being in office."
Well, call me simplistic, but it seems to me that Putin and the Bush administration show a common taste for authoritarian methods and a similar disdain for the rule-of-law, and both seem quite fond of teaching their select choice of muslims how to and to whom to obey.
It seemed pretty clear at the time of starting the operations in Iraq that Putin wouldn't insist too much on opposing it as long as the US looked away from Tchetchnia and other contreversial russian businesses.
Just my two eurocents.
Yaka.
PS: Oh, and don't forget to add Berlusconi to the list, as well as a couple of ex-USSR countries leaders who got shiny new toys and monies for their joining the effort of bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq...
Teresa said at 10.57pm:
"A flag that can be destroyed by burning is a lesser flag than the one I salute."
"Any flag worth a shit was woven from fire in the first place." - Michael Franti, in the song 'Satanic Reverses'
It seems the biggest explanatory message coming out of the election is that a significant, election-tipping block of voters made their decision based on their fear of terror and their evaluation of the moral values of the candidates.
The terror-fear was manufactured.
The moral evaluations are invalidated by their extremely narrow focus.
TNH said: "They’ve been stupid and self-indulgent and irresponsible." Indeed they have.
To quote my own blog:
"We are right. And that is our strength. That is what will help us grow. As we grow, our political strength increases. As our political strength increases, the political landscape will begin to change. Our task isn't to make the Bush-supporter down the street love the Dems - it is to make her see the truth about international exploitation, environmental degradation, the deceiving myths of the system's controllers."
I'm sorry but the US has never been a beacon of democracy to the rest of the world, except in its own mind. Is there something about being physically in the US that seeps into the blood, that fosters this myth of moral superiority?
And why do Democrats keep saying that "they" (Republican voters) say this, or "they" say that: the US are a nation. It's "we". Every US citizen is equally responsible for the state of the nation. You cannot hijack a country without the acquiescence of the populace. If the electorate truly believed that the election had been stolen, there would be millions marching on Washington, and revolutionary fervour to take up arms and overthrow the dictator.
I don't see them. Nope, it's easier to post to blogs and bleat about how its still a wonderful country, despite all the evidence to the contrary,than to take up arms and actually defend your freedom.
Teresa:
Not having to pay attention to what’s happening around you is the most expensive luxury there is; and they just went to the ballot box and wrote a blank check to cover it.
Wow. Um.
I... have a guilty feeling that this explains the result of this election, more than we might want to admit is true. Could it be that really, this came down to much of the country declaring, "I don't want to think about this anymore" and pulling the lever in defiance?
For a long time, now, a majority Americans have been personally unaffected by their government. Sure, tax rates go up or down a bit, and there are sometimes inconvenient forms to fill out, but on the whole, our political discourse has been more like choosing a sports team than anything else.
When asked to admit that this election is different, that our choice of a team could actively harm us, I don't think it's inconceivable that many of us just didn't want to believe it, and stuck with the home team to prove it to themselves.
Like the family facing an uncertain future who nonetheless goes for the bigger, more expensive car, it's possible that half of America has just engaged in some magical thinking that is going to really hurt down the road.
And while it's tempting to think that, when it does, we'll all wake up and realize that it's really our fault, and that this democracy thing really does mean that our choices impact on our future, it's likely going to take a massive effort to drive the point home so that it isn't drowned out by the right wing noise machine.
Going to be a long four years.
But the problem is, Bruce, that many of those refugees, were having to come here because their countries were wrecked by our foreign policy.
Which makes it an even more pathetically-naive faith in the shiningness" of the USA on their part.
The Hmong, whom we thrice betrayed - because what was using them as soldiers in a war that we started for our own vanity and socioeconomic issues, but a second betrayal, after the first betrayal of entering Vietnam, culminating in the fraud of Tonkin?
The Central Americans, who come here in the wake not merely of Reagan policy, but of Guatemala in the 1950s and Honduras again back at the turn of the last century, all those wars for bananas and sugar and yes, oil?
The Eastern Europeans, for whom the Cold War was our entering into the Great Game, taking Britain's place at the Risk board after the grande dame got tired, facing off against Holy Russia's rebellious kids, re-enacting in a play that goes on to this our the roles made popular by Kipling in Kim and scores of other stories, just as we reenacted the Opium Wars in Southeast Asia as the night wore on--
This is a kind of voluntary Babylonian Captivity, then, as if the survivors didn't realize that it was the same warlords' cities who had sacked their own, into whose lower economic strata they were straggling and struggling to be tolerated and rebuild.
Granted, all the *nice* Americans who welcomed them (and many of the bigoted ones who didn't) weren't aware of what was being done in their name in the 50s and 60s and 70s around the world - but what kind of an excuse is ignorance, when the information is there, and you choose to believe the happy narrative that we were only "Spreadin' Freedom" and not also spreading drugs, helotry, crony capitalism, satrapy, sexual slavery and all the other traditional goods of Empire either deliberately or as "military-industrial waste" across the world, from Okinawa to the Congo, in the name of "Fighting Communism"--
This is the problem when you study not Story, but the history-that-is-written-by-the-bystanders, the overarching narratives that come into focus are *not* neat stories of reversals and rescue, retribution and happy endings, with all the evil bottled up in the dragons.
I think that anyone who is sorry that Bush won has no reason to apologize for the result.
Check out these cartograms,especially the last one, for another view of Bush's "mandate".
Watching BBC world broadcasting live Allawi stating in a Castro-long speech how he plans to put Iraq under a hardcore military rule with integral curfew - in order to protect freedom and the Iraqi people.
I personally prefer my Tony Soprano sticking to fiction programs.
That's one more guy to add to the list of country rulers who are glad Bush won the election, and some more reasons for us to be sorry - and possibly apologectic - he did.
I promess I'll try to post something witty and lighhearted in the near future, I just kind of like the punch for it, right now.
JVP, you can do research as easily as I can. What I know is that the only people out there who appear to be wholeheartedly in favor of GWB are Tony Blair and Al Qaeda.
No, no, Teresa. Our guys are also happily lapping up what they perceive as a victory and validation. And the so-called Italian left is actually asking itself what did it wrong: it's a sort of conditioned reflex for them, so used they are to it. Oh, and I have heard somebody in total seriousness speculate that it was Rutelli and Fassino showing up at the Democratic Congress that hurt Kerry. Who, you would ask? Right. But there's still people here who say that "fear of the Communists" helped Bush.
Now, our guys are not really very important in the great scheme of things (though they are to us, alas). But the alarming thing is that they seem to have learned the lesson. While I was away, I have been informed, the opposition at the European Parliament to the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione (on the grounds that he said that homosexuality was a sin and single mothers weren't good mothers, and that family existed so that the husband could provide and protect the wife who could raise children) has been loudly denounced everywhere as "anti-Catholic" prejudice on the part of an "anti-religious" liberal Europe.
I anticipate this trick being used with great enthusiasm by right-wing groups all over Europe - and the growing xenophobic prejudice is only going to help.
Also, America might have been seen as a material paradise, especially around Eastern Europe, but I am sorry to have to disabuse you - a champion of democracy and, most of all, justice and equality it hasn't been perceived for a long, long time. To a lot of people here in Europe Bush's re-election was positively not a surprise: it just reinforced pre-existing prejudices about the USA as a strongly right-wing, rabidly imperialistic, agressively militaristic power. And mind you, this was true even during the Clinton presidency. Due to the nature of the US foreign policy, the tolerant, progressive, liberal America is from here largely invisible. (I know all about it, but mostly because I have access to books, printed media, and blogs. And people, of course). When you see an American flag here you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that those guys flying it are to the farthest right, which is part of the reason seeing the flags over there spooks us Europeans.
I have actually had people over here trying to comfort me by saying "Well, it's not as if Kerry was much better, was it?".
(I have actually had a much harder time explaining America to people in Europe than vice versa, because the Europeans think they know all about it already.)
Avram writes: "I can’t see blaming Naderites for being naive about overcoming the two-party system, and then excusing the naivete of professional politicians who fail to notice a decade’s worth of lies and rules-changing going on around them."
Here's the difference you appear to be unable to see.
(1) Believing that there's a limit to which a President of the United States would lie about war-and-peace issues has worked in the past.
(2) Believing that a left-wing third party would nudge the country in a liberal direction has never worked in the past.
"Worked in the past" versus "never worked in the past." Note the difference.
(Yes, the Republican Party platform of 1960 entailed 75% of the Socialist Party platform of 1920, but in the actual 1920s, the Socialist Party was mostly a waste of effort, drawing votes away from politicians who actually had a chance to do some small good amid the general awfulness of politics in the 1920s.)
The bravely anonymous "Republic of Palau" sneers:
"I'm sorry but the US has never been a beacon of democracy to the rest of the world, except in its own mind."
Marx and Engels disagreed with you. Like innumerable other Europeans, they followed the Civil War anxiously, knowing full well that the prospects of social reform movements worldwide were widely perceived as riding on whether the Union could prevail.
You don't have to think that America is in fact somehow metaphysically exceptional (it isn't) to note that people elsewhere in the world do in fact look to it for hope and inspiration. Non-Americans have said as much right here in this thread. Are you calling them liars? From the odious tone of the rest of your post, it would appear that you are.
Obviously, plenty of people worldwide are pretty cynical about modern America, and for good reason. But it's a long way from that to the assertion that "I'm sorry but the US has never been a beacon of democracy to the rest of the world, except in its own mind."
JVP - No one person can have any idea what "the rest of the world" thinks about anything. But you can make some informed guesses.
First off, while no other nation engages with the USA on a level playing field, most of them are so far downslope that they quite literally couldn't tell the difference btween Bush and Kerry. The more informed among them may have noticed that Edwards is a rabid protectionist, which wouldn't have recommended him to, for the sake of argument, Indian cotton growers.
In Western Europe and its outlyiers in the Pacific, many people feel desperately sorry for you (*all* of you - the crap isn't going to ask how you voted before it lands), but we question how much difference it would actually have made to us if Kerry had won. He was set up. What could he have done different in international affairs?
Obviously, there are special cases. Iraqi Kurds are generally pro-Bush, because they fear that if the US pulled out of Iraq they would be massacred in a pincer movement between the Sunni Arabs and some proxy for Turkey. They're probably right.
Likud supporters in Israel are no doubt pro-Bush. Anti-Likud Israelis are probably anti. And so on.
The number of bone headed anti-Americans who are offended by a Starbucks opening in their town or some loudmouth tourist who can't say "please" or "thank you" will be unaffected by anything you may say or do. You may continue to ignore them.
The small intellectual elite will be cheering you on all the way to 2006. Like you need it.
They’re hunkered down, nervously hoping that the destroying angel has passed them by, and this will be as bad as it gets. They won’t have to do anything. They won’t have to think about scary stuff. They can go back to dollhouse politics where you pretend that cloning, flag burning, and evolution are serious issues.
Oh yes. I know people for whom daily life is exhausting and overwhelming, and that is their excuse for not delving too deeply into the realities of the Bush administration. I have some sympathy for their exhaustion, but not to the point of excusing them.
I don't know what they'll do when it all comes crashing down around them; but since there are people who still insist that Nixon and Reagan were wonderful, wonderful men, I wouldn't count on Bush supporters ever admitting their mistake. Whatever happens, it won't be Bush's fault, and it certainly won't be theirs.
Feel free to knock this down with evidence of its impracticality -- or to email me some names of Senators you think might be likely candidates, if you think the idea has any merit. I'd like to assemble a list. It's the best thing I can think of to do, right now, with my disappointment and feelings of helplessness.
Chafee would be the obvious choice, as he's already been making noises about leaving the party a la Jeffords. Snowe and Collins would be my next choices. After that, I don't know. I would probably research Gregg and Sununu to see if they were likely possibilities (I seem to recall that Sununu, at least, has shown some evidence of not being a Bush lickspittle).
Outside New England, the best bets would be Republicans who have been around a long time. Warner has acted like a grownup a number of times in recent memory (and failed to in others). Lugar would be worth a look.
It definitely makes sense for us to reach out and try to find five moderate Republican senators that we can build coalitions with. But it isn't simple. They won't always be the same five, depending on the issue at hand. With some issues such as civil liberties or the recent fight over media consolidation, the natural coalition is the extreme left and right together against the middle.
The other factor, which I'm afraid will make things very difficult, is the way the Republican leadership has been abusing the legislative process. Measures they want passed are crammed into a budget reconciliation bill that does not allow for amendment or adequate debate. Democrats are excluded from the House-Senate conference committee, and the final bills contain new measures not approved by either chamber.
The typical liberal inclination is to try to find a way to work things out. Maybe, if we compromise just a little bit, we can find a way to participate in the governing process and make things better. Yeah, right. The Democrats are an opposition party now, and we need to learn how to work like one. We're going to lose a lot of battles. The best we can do is use each loss as an opportunity to shine a light on Republican corruption.
Outstanding rant! You give me hope.
However, the current situation mysteriously reminds me of C.M. Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons."
A possible tactic:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/blue_state_to_reds/
I live in Egypt. People here are used to the incumbent winning because he counts the votes. They don't expect elections to be free and fair. Many asked me how in the heck I could even hope for Kerry winning. When an American colleague and I were hovering over CNN on her computer at work on Nov. 3 and we finally discovered that Kerry would lose because the votes just weren't there, one Egyptian said only half in jest, "Our way is so much easier. There is no controversy because we know the result in advance." As for the shining city on a hill thing -- two things. One, people in the Middle East are angry at the U.S. and have been for many years. Two, they continue to be angry at the U.S. because they expect better from it. They expect better from it because it does indeed represent something better. They respect the U.S. for being a good place to live, for having clean and organized cities, for having productive and conscientious citizens. They hate its foreign policy and try to find reasons for it including international conspiracies, but still, I would say that people do indeed expect a lot from the U.S. and that does tell you something. If people just thought the US was a horrible country from which you could not expect anything good, they would not consistently be disappointed by it when it behaves badly.
Feel free to knock this down with evidence of its impracticality -- or to email me some names of Senators you think might be likely candidates, if you think the idea has any merit. I'd like to assemble a list. It's the best thing I can think of to do, right now, with my disappointment and feelings of helplessness.Chafee would be the obvious choice, as he's already been making noises about leaving the party a la Jeffords. Snowe and Collins would be my next choices. After that, I don't know. I would probably research Gregg and Sununu to see if they were likely possibilities
Also, I re-read this and are you addressing people who voted Nader in this election, or last time? Because I thought that Nader was not really that much of a factor this time.
Michelle said:
I believe that the conservatives are already sharpening their knives for PA's Arlen Specter.
And this, after a very nasty primary where Specter was nearly defeated by archconservative Pat Toomey. Moderate Republicans are a vanishing species, and it's their own party that's hunting them to extinction.
All week, I've been hearing about morals, morals, morals. I haven't heard a thing about ethics. Guess which I'd rather have in my government?
Speaking as a single UKer, here's my two [sub-unit of currency of choice].
Whilst it may be true that the US acts as a moral/political exemplar to the rest of the world, I think whatever importance this may have is secondary to the indisputable fact that the US is currently the only global superpower. With only about 5% of the world's population it constitutes a quarter of the world's economy and has a military budget greater than that of the next 8 largest spenders combined. Thus, whoever controls the US is well on the way to shaping the rest of the world in a decisive manner: militarily, economically and therefore politically.
From my point of view, a Kerry win would have been a return to the status quo in American foreign policy: still with a lot of problems but at least vaguely rational/realist. Given that in the UK Blair is slavishly following Bush, and that his main political rivals (Gordon Brown within the Labour Party, Michael Howard from the Conservatives) would have been even more pro-American in their foreign policy, the election in the US essentially determines our foreign policy for the next four years. Our only hope now is a hung parliament in the next general election and the Liberal Democrats extracting a rejection of Bush as their price for a coalition.
This is a wonderful post. Wonderful. Burbleburble.
I'm tired of playing nice, too. I was commenting on the people who voted for Bush on "Moral Issues" even though they were against the war and like that (fortunately less numerous than early exit polls had indicated), and I said that I hate those people. One of my friends said that she was uncomfortable with that kind of talk and I more or less said tough shit. I do hate them.
That's not going to be a useful conversational position if I'm trying to persuade them to vote like something other than bigoted sshls - um, to vote in a more progressive way next time. But it's how I feel. And why shouldn't I? They hate ME, and I didn't just vote to deny them a fundamental right.
I'm not a Christian. I'm allowed to hate people and gloat when they die if I damn well want. And even the Bible says there's a time for hate. It's now; it's not the next four years, but right now it's just fine.
Avram: Matthew, I just this afternoon browsed in the Politics section of a Barnes & Noble, up here in deep blue Hoboken, New Jersey, and saw a mixed pile of anti-Bush, anti-Kerry, and anti-Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) books.
WHAT!??!?!?! You live in Hoboken, where I live too, and I had to go to Worldcon to meet you? And even there we never noticed? That's a little bizarre, don't you think?
And that's a terrible B&N, btw.
Nader was still monkeying around in certain states. He certainly didn't help, even if he wasn't necessarily the linch-pin that swung things this time.
As for "Beacon of Democracy" status, especially in the literal sense, I rather remember watching the students in Tianamen Square erecting a large styrafoam "Goddess of Democracy" with a suspicious resemblance to a certain beacon-carrying woman prominently displayed in the New York harbor.
Whether that beacon blazes as brightly as it might? Well, Bush and Ashcroft are hardly poster children for the "Come to America" vibe, but that sort of goes without saying.
"Reality-based language, fraud, folly, truth, history, and knitting"
Where's the knitting?
More knitting, please.
Hi, Patrick,
You say:
(1) Believing that there's a limit to which a President of the United States would lie about war-and-peace issues has worked in the past.
It has worked, but not always.
Fulbright has been quoted (I've read it, but I can't source it at the moment) that it just didn't occur to him that LBJ might lie to him about Vietnam.
You also say:
(2) Believing that a left-wing third party would nudge the country in a liberal direction has never worked in the past.
It worked for the populists in 1896. Large chunks of their program were adopted over twenty years.
Anyway, give up on the Nader bashing. There weren't four million Nader voters out there. Possibly there's a state or two somewhere that could've been tipped by Nader. Darned if I know.
I do know this: I wouldn't feel too comfortable defending a president who lost the popular vote by four million squeaking out an electoral college victory if his supporters went into the streets. I'd do it, if it came down to it--there wouldn't be a choice--but it's a losing proposition, and after the 2000 'publican riots in Florida, I don't doubt they'd do it.
I also know something else: Over the next four hellish years, you and I and everyone we know will need all the friends we can get. Stop with the blame game already.
Finally, I reject the idea of "the worse, the better". I don't reject the idea that sometimes you have to make unpleasant choices. Sometimes you can't avoid short-term losses for long-term gains.
That's just reality-based common sense.
Life got more unpleasant for blacks during the civil rights movement. It got better later. Life got more unpleasant for those who vigorously protested the Vietnam War. It got better later.
In neither case would this have happened had they not been willing to accept tactical losses to gain strategic goals. (Some people may not have foreseen the losses. Thank goodness for that.)
Teresa wrote:
It’s not just you, either. I’m entirely out of patience with Americans whose whimpering plaint is that we Democrats brought this on ourselves because it hurt their feelings when we acted like we think they’re stupid.
Serious question, not meant to inflame: who are you talking about? Can you point me to an example of this? Because I've been making a fair attempt to follow both sides in the noosphere, and all I'm seeing are the extremes: people celebrating Bush's "landslide" and taunting the Democrats (I'm amazed no one's brought up Hannity's twisted "therapy session" Friday -- am I the only one who heard it?), and people bemoaning the death of hope and the end of the City on the Hill. There's a few liberals of sterner stuff who are already talking about what to do next time, too. But I haven't seen any examples of anyone whimpering.
FWIW, I did vote for Kerry, and the few friends of mine who weren't, I did my best to persuade. I disagreed with a lot of what he said, but I'd decided during the State of the Union address in January that I could not vote for Bush. Subsequent months brought out further examples of immoral acts in the Bush administration. I never really trusted that Kerry would be effective in the office, but he seemed intelligent and sane, and his post-Vietnam record did convince me that he'd do nothing further to promote human rights violations and torture. That was enough of an improvement for me.
He lost. I'm not whimpering. I'm not grieving. I've identified the reason he lost (among many) that I'm most concerned about, and giving serious thought to a plan of action to address that reason.
Meanwhile, I think Matthew Bin is really onto something.
"Hatred will never be conquered by hatred -- it will only be conquered by non-hatred; that is the law eternal."
- Buddha (in the Dhammapada)
Jon Sobel asks: Where's the knitting?
Right now, it's on Open Thread 31.
I believe that the conservatives are already sharpening their knives for PA's Arlen Specter.
Yes, but he's already rolled over and shown his belly on the judicial appointments issue. I wouldn't hope for anything from him (and if he promised something, I wouldn't believe it).
This weekend at BloggerCon, I spoke with Chris Nolan, who suggests that people interested in an independent judiciary, and particularly in preserving Roe v. Wade, should send hefty checks to Arlen Spector's campaign fund, which needs the help after this year's brusing races.
I'm not sure I agree with her argument, but there's good sense in it. It's worth your thought.
I see Dan Blum commented on this matter while I was previewing. When I raised exactly this point with Chris, her reply was that Spector had been engaging in CYA, not rolling over.
That's a judgement call. Josh Marshall disagrees. He has followed up on this in subsequent posts--one just a few minutes ago.
You can find links to news stories and Spector's statement in Josh's and Chris's pages and make up your own mind. I'll say this, though--bashing Spector as a wuss isn't a wise move just now.
I'd be willing to believe it was just CYA if it were coming from someone other than Specter. Remember Clarence Thomas?
Hi, Dan,
I sure do. Do you remember Robert Bork and Jeff Sessions?
The freepers are already saying that Spector is planning to bork Bush's nominations. They remember.
If you can't support him (I'm not sending him any cash--I've got other politicians to give to and limited resources), at least don't beat on him from the left while the freepers beat from the right. What do you plan to gain from it? Are you hoping to put him out of office in 2010? Do you think that'll help anything right now? Do you have a plan, or an urge?
Hi, Dan,
I sure do. Do you remember Robert Bork and Jeff Sessions?
The freepers are already saying that Spector is planning to bork Bush's nominations. They remember.
If you can't support him (I'm not sending him any cash--I've got other politicians to give to and limited resources), at least don't beat on him from the left while the freepers beat from the right. What do you plan to gain from it? Are you hoping to put him out of office in 2010? Do you think that'll help anything right now? Do you have a plan, or an urge?
I'm mad, too, brother, but I want to win. We have to win.
I didn't a damn thing except say that he is probably not one of the best Republican Senators to try to convince to help defeat Bush' program. And I said he has proven to be unreliable on such things in the past, which he has (it's not just the Thomas confirmation). If that's "beating on him," what exactly am I allowed to say?
Hi, Dan,
I'd leave out comments like "if he promised something, I wouldn't believe it" and "he's already rolled over and shown his belly". Those constitute beating, in my book.
I registered Green when I was 18 years old. I worked as a poll watcher for the greens in 2000, and I voted for Nader in that election. My reason for doing so was that I had hoped support for the greens would move the Dems left. Patrick, as you say, a left 3rd party may never have moved the Dems leftward, but I believe that Dubya moved the Republicans to the right in reaction to his father's loss to Clinton. Republicans had split and moved right, to the cost of the white house, and it did indeed move the party rightward to recapture their votes. It is a valid strategy.
That said, I voted for Kerry, and gave the man money this time around. I'm not sure if that redeems me in Teresa's eyes or not. Perhaps I'm a flip-flopper. But the 2004 election was in a gravely different context from the 2000 election. And, for the record, I've never believed "It has to get worse before it gets better."
The Democrats gave Bush the authority to wage war, and I don't believe, as Patrick does, that they did this in good faith. I believe they did it out of cowardice because they were terrified of being branded unpatriotic, and I believe they were caught up in the same Republican bloodlust that said someone, anyone, had to pay for 9/11. That talk of only authorizing Bush to pressure the UN, not to actually make war on Iraq was mushmouthed bullshit.
To look at the catastrophe of this election, and rail on the Naderites of 2000 is merely kicking the dog. Go ahead and hate us, but when you're done, put your house in order so that we can someday turn this nightmare around. I will vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, but I sure wish they would act like an opposition party.
Why did Kerry give a gracious speech encouraging bipartisanship? Everyone knows that Bush will trample on the Democrats and give us nothing for the next four years. It's time to fight them on every single thing, and to start telling the truth. We have nothing left to lose at this point.
As a green party member who crossed party lines to support Kerry with my vote and my money, I would encourage Democrats to start acting like they really believe that greens are merely left wing Democrats and start working with them. If your leadership put half the effort into working with greens as they have into working with Republicans, you'd have more suppport.
As for 2004, I simply don't understand why anyone would support Nader. The man failed to change with the times. The world changed after 9/11, and his inability to address the crisis our country is in identifies him as an incompetent leader. I would not continue to support him, but in 2000 things looked much different.
Quoth Kevin Murphy:
As for "Beacon of Democracy" status, especially in the literal sense, I rather remember watching the students in Tianamen Square erecting a large styrafoam "Goddess of Democracy" with a suspicious resemblance to a certain beacon-carrying woman prominently displayed in the New York harbor.
What, the one the Dreaded French gave us? Anyone ever propose giving it back in the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" hysteria, or was her genuine Frenchness overlooked while potatoes Julienne and Mr French's toast got Bowdlerized?
On a more serious note, I would point out that the US was not a beacon of freedom and democracy to the people who chose its most symbolic and important structures to destroy. Based on those choices, the US is a beacon of capitalism and militarism. I'm not saying they were right even in that limited context, but just that they see America differently than we Americans do.
The lesson Naderites are slowly learning is that the US election process is polarizing. Without a condorcet-style voting process, all elections come down to two primary candidates. And any vote for a third-party candidate is ultimately wasted.
If people want to break the two party system, the only answer is to somehow get the two current parties to change teh system such that third parties would be allowed a fair chance to compete.
While I know of no logical argument against condorcet voting, the fact that the two main parties are in power would naturally result in them ignoring any change that would reduce their monopoly.
Until then, you really have to vote for one of the two main parties.
Lenny, according to this site, the top 10 most liberal Republicans in the 108th Congress were
RHODE I R CHAFEE
MAINE R SNOWE
MAINE R COLLINS
PENNSYL R SPECTER
OHIO R VOINOVICH
OHIO R DEWINE
OREGON R SMITH, GORD
MINNESO R COLEMAN
INDIANA R LUGAR
VIRGINI R WARNER
A few weeks ago, I went back to my home town in Connecticut for a few days. (I live in California now.) I was struck by the opinions of my family and friends there on the upcoming election: Everyone I talked to had nothing but contempt for Bush; and yet, not one had a good word for Kerry. The most frequent comment I heard was a wish for more details on what Kerry would do if elected. Almost all of them voted for him, I'm certain, but reluctantly and as the best of bad alternatives.
I was saddened but unsurprised by the election results.
I hope that next time, my family has a candidate that they can vote for with enthusiasm.
JVP, you might check out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3981527.stm
for reactions of newspapers around the world.
I'd leave out comments like "if he promised something, I wouldn't believe it" and "he's already rolled over and shown his belly". Those constitute beating, in my book.
On the second one, I think that's a pretty accurate description, if you look at his statements. If it is CYA, and he doesn't mean it, then he's resorted to simple lying, since the statements are pretty clear.
On the first one, well, if he does deliver on something I'll acknowledge that, but until then, his pattern is what I go by.
Finally, I think the attitude that we have to treat anyone who might possibly vote our way, if he feels like it, with kid gloves is exactly the wrong attitude to take.
Greg London wrote:
If people want to break the two party system, the only answer is to somehow get the two current parties to change teh system such that third parties would be allowed a fair chance to compete.
This is one reason I would have been perversely gratified by a Kerry electoral win and a Bush popular win. If both parties had been burned by the electoral college in concurrent elections, there'd have been a much better chance that they'd consider working together to do something about it. As it is? Pshaw.
Of course the best possible improvement to our election system would be instant runoff voting, a la Australia and the Hugos. That still doesn't have a chance, alas. But to have Maine and Nebraska-style proportional electors catch on across the country would be a fine start as well. It's a brilliant compromise, if only everybody would agree to use it together.
Hmm. I need to write a long thoughtful essay about the significance of America in my corner of the world. If I ever get around to do it.
But I found this site endlessly endearing and very, very funny.
No, Ashcroft et al aren't exactly a "come to the US" advertisement. But-- I'm a Canadian citizen and I've been living in the US for much of the past decade. This is the tipping point. Here's where I must decide to either go back to Canada or become a US citizen and actually take part in this democracy thing.
So help me, I'm seriously considering the latter. I feel like I would be letting someone down if I ran off without a fight.
Thank you, Emily. That's really good to hear.
Of course, I'm still considering moving to Canada. Too bad my romance with that lovely man from Halifax didn't work out.
Like Sean, I voted Green in 2000, and in 2004 voted for Kerry and gave the Dems money. I would never vote for Nader again.
However, one of my reactions to the Bush victory was, "Well, maybe people will stop complaining about Nader already." But some of you still seem to hold a grudge over 2000. Dare I say, get over it? Isn't 2004 bad enough?
I could go on and on about why voting for Nader in 2000 was not a crime against humanity. I decided not to rehash that. I'll just say, we have a common enemy. And it's not Nader.
Comments on Grieving process: