Props, kudos, and big shout out to John Kerry for sacrificing one principle in favor of another. America needed a decisive election, and Kerry backed down from last night’s “win at all costs” stance (which he wisely had his running mate project as if on his behalf) and allowed that feeling of decisiveness to begin to take hold.
The “anybody but Bush” camp made a serious mistake early on: they failed to understand why half the country (just OVER half the country, in point of fact) still supported President Bush. This practice of despising the incumbent was carried to a fatal extreme. After all, if you can’t believe anybody would still vote for Bush, how can you hope to convince them NOT to?
The Bush campaign understood all too well what THEY were up against, and they played on that very masterfully.
I can see why folks would vote against Bush. I can even see why they’d vote for Kerry. I understand those arguments, and I sympathize with them to an extent just SHORT of the extent where I’d actually VOTE for them.
The thing Bush has going for him that so few American Presidents have had is the willingness to make decisions that are extremely unpopular.
Argue all you want about WHY they’re unpopular (just not HERE, please… see below). The fact that he sticks to his principles and does things that alienate him from half the electorate and many of the World’s leaders is something that a lot of mature voters actually LIKE. In Kerry those voters saw more of the Capitol Hill compromising that has been the hallmark of every presidency since Nixon (including Reagan and GB senior). Clinton had a great “do what we have to at all costs” streak in him, but when his party got punished in Congress in 1994, pressure from his own party had him backing away from the things he really wanted to accomplish. Personally, I’m glad he did, because I disagreed pretty strongly with most of it, but I understood then and now the necessity of doing unpopular things on principle.
Maybe I’m projecting my own open-mindedness on others with similar party leanings, because I think that most of those who voted for Bush understood why people didn’t like him. I could be wrong. I’m not trying to foster a discussion of issues, here, and I’m certainly not trying to start a flame war. I’m concerned, as Kerry said he was in his concessionary call to President Bush, over the division in the nation today. Part of the problem is that a large number of us not only DON’T understand other points of view, we act as if we don’t WANT to.
I’ve said it before — be nice to each other. Seek to understand why your fellows, your neighbors, and even your enemies think the way they do. Only then will you be able to affect any sort of change.
I voted Kerry, but just becaue I’m anti-bush.
you said:
they failed to understand why half the country (just OVER half the country, in point of fact) still supported President Bush.
Yup, that’s me. Except that I genuinely WANT to know why people still support Bush, can you fill me in? I simply don’t understand it.
you know, i’m open minded and agreeable…but i also would like to know *why* so many people voted for Bush. I think it’s because a lot of people view him as an American Hero, and he’s pretty much said that he’d rather have soldiers die than us everyday citizens. people feel protected and safe with Bush. but many do not see that he has made them more unsafe than ever. i’m scared of what will happen to us. don’t fear terrorist. fear your president (while supporting him and being unified….)
i should modify what i’ve said. i’ll still support my country and the troops and try to support the president blah blah blah. really i am going to. honest. it won’t be easy though.
You might start by reading this, and related materials: http://www.princeton.edu/~amoroz/2004/09/bush-doctrine.html
It’s a subset of an excellent article to which I no longer have the full text. The upshot, however, is that the American “doctrines” on foreign policy and war (Monroe Doctrine, Truman Doctrine, and now Bush Doctrine) evolve in reaction to the changing nature of the threats to this country.
Forget my attempt to summarize. Read it yourself and see if you can wrap your head around it. For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, fearing World War III, it’s a real eye-opener. The Cold War WAS World War III, and this is World War IV.
hey thanks, i’ll check that out.
The full text is only available for $4.95
heh.
The wallstreet journal has a large excerpt for free though, I’m gonna read it.
Why people voted for Bush
Of all the posting to Howard’s post, I have found yours the most refreshing and sincere, even though it was very short. Thanks for the post.
Re: Why people voted for Bush
heh, my pleasure.
Reading the article he linked me to, I think it’s all coming down to fear.
If the article is to be believed, the cold war was WW3, and the terrorism war is WW4. I guess that if you can buy that *cough*bullshit*cough* , you might want a warhawk like bush back in office for another four years.
I’m of the opinion that the administration managed to instill quite a bit of fear in the american public, and painted Kerry as unable to defend the country. Well, it seems to have worked.
Well said, Howard.
Well said.
The fact that he sticks to his principles and does things that alienate him from half the electorate and many of the World’s leaders is something that a lot of mature voters actually LIKE.
That’s the first statement I’ve seen that’s based on information I’ve perceived that I can begin to understand, I think.
“He’s a god-fearing man” (which is the largest argument I’ve really seen put forth _for_ him) is not something I’ve observed of his character.
I’m honestly frightened. :/ Which I suppose is another large reason a lot of people voted for him–they’re frightened by the terrorists. I’m frightened by Bush.
Mr. Tayler, your thread on ‘thinking small’was a virtual godsend to those who belive in life beyond the polls. Tipping the balance in a battleground state is pretty much the most any one of us can hope to accompish in the presidential race. As a liberal from central Massachusetts, I only wish I had as much an axe to grind as someone with your leanings has in conservative Utah.
All the same, I’m not happy to see one of my favorite webcartoonists feel compelled to move to Canada because of unpardonable legislation in his home state, the opposition and appeal of which bound to fare poorly in the face of ‘four more years’.
Rather than be constructive in any way, I’ll just say that there’s a difference between an unpopular decision and an unwise one.
I’ve seen you much less constructive than this. Thanks for holding back. 🙂
Anything for you, Howard!
“The thing Bush has going for him that so few American Presidents have had is the willingness to make decisions that are extremely unpopular.”
To a large degree, this is why I gritted my teeth and voted for him. That combined with the fact that he makes no bones about his beliefs and he’s consistent about them. Personaqlly, I prefer my officials to have some sort of ‘moral compass’, even if that compass doesn’t point in a direction I like…
Personaqlly, I prefer my officials to have some sort of ‘moral compass’, even if that compass doesn’t point in a direction I like…
Whereas that’s a large part of what makes me very, very afraid.
i fail to see the point in having a “moral compass” if that morality isn’t pointing in a direction that you believe in. it scares me that there are people who actually voted for Bush because he believes in God. I believe in God, very deeply in fact. at least i can say that my actions try to support this belief, and i am confident enough in my faith to not be all gung ho about a theocracy.
The thing is, though, that he’s really not especially consistent in his beliefs (outside of “I like power”, so far as I can tell). I mean, just take a look at a few of his 2000 campaign pledges, for cryin’ out loud. If Kerry had won and performed an about-face like that, Republicans would be screaming “flip-flop” until their lungs burst.
I’m glad Kerry conceded when he did, even if I wish he’d won. (As is evidenced by my post predating his concession by a whopping 2 hours or something like that.)
I got a little heat from my friends who liked Kerry for making that call until Kerry made the same call.
Ah well. It restored a little dignity to the process and I think will help the lefty side of things. By attempting to keep it from turning into a partisan slew of lawsuits, Kerry is being very gentlemanly about it, and hopefully that will let the democrats form some bipartisan support and goodwill so when they really need to get something done (or not done, like an unneccessary constitutional amendment getting stopped) they’ll have a shot.
I would agree with this. If he had pushed for a longer, bitter fight in counting, or claiming fraud, or stolen election like last time, it would have seriously hurt his parties chances next election. The last thing the democrats need is to weaken their chances to take back seats in the house or senate.
Nobody likes a sore loser, which hurt them this time, and would have hurt them a lot more next time.
Of course, by being a sore loser, he might have advanced the cause of several third parties, which IMHO would have been a good thing.
The “anybody but Bush” camp made a serious mistake early on: they failed to understand why half the country (just OVER half the country, in point of fact) still supported President Bush.
Very, very true. The “anbody but Bush” camp probably helped the president more than they hurt him.
Just goes to show that negativity and lack of understanding will hurt you and whatever cause you’re trying to advance.
And it very much worried me that a few Democrats were citing Andrew Jackson as a good president. He was popular, sure, and gave the people what they wanted, but nowadays we pretty much all agree that kicking native people off their land is wrong. Just as something can be unpopular and right, something popular doesn’t mean it’s right as well.
Considering that nearly every world power (besides Poland!) relentlessly panned Bush, you would imagine that he was doing something wrong. And yet it’s good that he kept on doing it?
That’s just deluded. If you have to vote for Bush because he’s a warmonger, fine. If you have to vote for him because he’s a homophobe, fine. But don’t vote for him because he makes his stupid mind up and then won’t change it.
*coughs*
*Restrains himself, and allows others who aren’t prove to violent fits of vulgarity to speak*
“Besides Poland…”
1980 is on the phone. They want their joke back. 😉
Seriously, if you’re going to make accusations of delusion, and then sling terms like “warmonger” and “homophobe” around, you’re not making any effort at all to understand his position, nor his supporters positions on the relevant issues.
Interestingly, Poland was one of the first victims of a policy of appeasement by the predecessor to the United Nations and by the other nations of Europe. They know first-hand that if you pretend a problem will go away without a fight, the fight may come to you.
See my comment above for links to a discussion of the current conflict, cast in a pretty dramatic light.
1980? That joke isn’t even a month old, man. It’s still so good.
Re: Homophobia – Bush has outright stated his opposition to civil unions for homosexuals and equal civil rights. To what end? Because allowing gays and lesbians to marry or unite leads to the end of the American family? The American family fell apart long ago. No – it’s simple hatred of homosexuality. There’s nothing else to explain it. Whether it’s motivated by religion or simply a societal more, it’s still reprehensible discrimination.
Re: Warmongering – While I agree that terrorism needs to be stopped (which is the content of your link above, if I understand it correctly), I fail to understand how attacking Iraq was in service of that goal. Although the administration desperately tried to link Al Qaeda and Iraq, there wasn’t anything at all between the two. Also, the whole WMD excuse has fallen through ridiculously. So, what seperates Iraq from, say, North Korea, or Iran, or any of the other terrible states we could be dealing with. There are two possibilities as I see it, both of which lead me to my idea that he’s a warmonger – either he’s completing his father’s war or he’s doing it for the oil.
And, incidentally, if this “Bush doctrine” is supposed to be in light of defeating terrorists, I fail to see how unprovoked military action will do that.
Even further on the “Bush doctrine” – what happens when a country has hidden nukes before we descend upon them in all our glory? Maybe a few thousand troops die in a blast, or worse, they get to the United States with it and take half a city. It has to happen eventually, and the more countries that we invade and occupy, the more countries will want to do this pre-emptively rather than after they get invaded.
Realistically, appeasement is the way to go. To make enemies of the world in a time when 20 dedicated men can kill 5000 isn’t intelligent, so it doesn’t surprise me Bush came up with this doctrine.
I think you miss my point about Poland. “Polack” jokes went out of style 25 years ago. They originated when Polish immigrants were the low-end of the urban totem pole in the 1940s through 1960s, and are no longer colloquially significant. Then again, maybe you weren’t trying to make a Polack joke.
To the rest of your arguments, all I can say is that it STILL sounds like you’re making less effort to understand your opponents, and more effort to discredit them. This is why your team lost the game, dude. KNOW THY ENEMY. If you attribute Bush’s actions to malice, stupidity, bigotry, and hatred then you’ll fail to understand him AND his supporters. And if you paint his supporters with that same broad brush you’ll continue to be divisive in a country that is in need of unity right now.
You’re not going to change anybody’s mind in here, at least not on the hardcore political issues. You CAN change people’s opinion of you, and learn and grow and respect them in return. As I’ve stressed over and over, THAT’S the path we all need to be on, regardless of our political leanings.
–Howard
Howard, it isn’t a Polack joke. It is a Bush joke. It is very specifically a “Don’t forget Poland” joke. I especially like the fact that Poland announced their intentions to pull out of Iraq right after Bush mentioned them in the debate.
Oh, well, there you go then. I focused much less on soundbites (I don’t watch broadcast television at all) and more on print during the campaign, so I missed that gag altogether.
Thanks for the correction, and I apologize for assuming there was racist humor where there was none.
Actually, I read the transcripts of the debates instead of watching them. I had to go back over the first one to check it out after being very confused about all of the Polack jokes popping up on the web all of a sudden in reference to Bush. (Meaning I was wondering the same thing at the time they hit)
Admittedly, the war issue is arguable. It could’ve been handled better (and still could be), but in some (weird) sense, the right thing was done. So that’s not the real issue I’m concerned about.
But, give me one good, honorable reason that a person would want homosexuals to not have civil unions and/or be represented in hate crime legislation and/or be protected under anti-discrimination law.
There are other issues – Bush’s terrible stance on science and science funding, the overall incredibly moralistic nature of the administration, and complete lack of respect for other nations, but the homosexuality stuff really pisses me off. It’s bigotry at its worst, and I don’t care if you never believe me, because I’ll still know it’s true.
I don’t care if you never believe me, because I’ll still know it’s true.
It cracks me up how much you sound like Bush when you say that.
Eh. That’s just another way of saying “I am so firm in my belief that on this one point, further discussion is pointless.”
I have a few beliefs like that. Most folks do. Not many people are able to tactfully talk about those beliefs when they are contested.
“You CAN change people’s opinion of you, and learn and grow and respect them in return. As I’ve stressed over and over, THAT’S the path we all need to be on, regardless of our political leanings.”
Very well put, I completely agree. I may have to paraphrase that later, because I haven’t been able to express that nearly so succintly yet when discussing this with others.
State Sponsored Gay Civil Unions
Bush came out in favor of gay civil unions just before the election. Bush did have a moment of clarity during the election. Whether he aggressively persues this is another matter.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136712,00.html
Re: State Sponsored Gay Civil Unions
Moment of clarity my ass. You do not rail against homosexuals for months and then suddenly change your mind. You just say “oh, I don’t think we need an amendment, let the states decide” because states overwhelmingly want civil unions to not happen. Bush loses nothing (because, I mean, who are the hardcore homophobics going to vote for? Kerry?) and he gains a little respect from people who can’t see through transparent political maneuvering.
Re: State Sponsored Gay Civil Unions
Good point. Because he is passing this onto the states, means he doesn’t have to do diddly. But he can now come off as being in favor of gay civil unions. Brilliant.
The simple fact is that the major world powers that panned Bush did so because he shut down their sweetheart deals in Iraq. In essence, saying that we should have appeased France, Germany, and Russia is saying that we should put their interests before our own. I want no part of a President who would do that.
Our own interests in oil, or something else?
I mean, honestly – what threat did Iraq pose to the United States outside of hurting our feelings with their impotent hatred? Declaring war on Iraq was not a defensive action – it was an offensive one, and in that case, I sure as hell want the rest of the world agreeing that our offensive actions are right, lest they decide we’ve become a threat to them.
If the war was about oil, we wouldn’t have $2/gallon gasoline.
Whether or not Iraq was sponsoring Al-Qaeda, it is incontrovertible that it was sponsoring terrorism. Payments to the families of suicide bombers were not only documented, but bragged about. A terrorist leader wanted for a long time int eh Achille Lauro hijacking was harbored. That’s just the stuff we know about. It’s clear Saddam was sympathetic to, and a state sponsor of, terrorism, and as such, needed to be stopped.
While I don’t doubt that that’s true, I am curious – were these suicide bombers attacking any citizens or servicemen of the United States?
If not, then I would say that it wasn’t our issue. Of course, I wouldn’t vehemently disagree with someone who wanted to attack Iraq on those grounds, but it would be nice to hear those reasons announced at some point by, oh, for example, the commander-in-chief.
Instead, we get rhetoric about the EVILS of the sand people and so on and so forth.
But, realistically, the more I read about Bush’s foreign policy w.r.t. terrorism, the less I think the concept itself was flawed. Still, the execution, the rest of his foreign policy, and his domestic policy are all terrible in my eyes.
You didn’t hear anything about these payments. Do you want to know why? Because if they had brought it up, the reason for those payments would have come to light. And the government (both sides) don’t want that to happen.
Why was he making the payments? They started in response to a new Israeli policy that stated: if you detonated a suicide bomb in Israel or against Israeli forces/settlements then the homes of your family members would be destroyed.
When Israel enforced this policy and demolished the home occupied by the family of a suicide bomber, Saddam gave that family approx. 10k USD to rebuild or resettle. How terrible of him.
There are much better reasons than that to pan him. Buying votes in the UN, violating UN resolutions when he failed to get a mandate, denouncing security council members as ‘irrelevant’ and ‘old Europe’. That kind of arrogance doesn’t impress anyone. And then there was the whole missing WMD debacle. Crying wolf every time an unexpected weather station was discovered just made him look silly.
And speaking as a citizen of a minor world power, we panned him because of the way the US ambassador started making vague threats like some kind of cartoon supervillain when we told him we wanted the UN to back military action in Iraq before contributing war material, logistical support or personnel.
While I agree with you on most points, the “buying votes in the UN” is a new one to me. Care to elaborate or point me to an official source?
Well, after a quick search, I fount this article:
‘For some of the countries, such as Angola, Guinea and Cameroon — poor African nations whose concerns drew little attention before they landed seats on the council — there is the possibility that supporting Washington’s drive for a new U.N. resolution authorizing war may reap benefits down the line.
“For a long time now, we have been asking for help to rebuild our country after years of war,” said Angolan Ambassador Ismael Gaspar Martins. “No one is tying the request to support on Iraq but it is all happening at the same time.”‘
‘”The order from the White House was to use ‘all diplomatic means necessary,”‘ another U.S. diplomat said. “And that really means everything.”‘
‘”They actually told us: ‘any country that doesn’t go along with us will be paying a very heavy price,”‘ said one Mexican diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity.’
Another good article on the pre-war situation is here.
Mind you, none of this is proof that the US government tried to bribe other UN member nations into voting for the resolution. But it is common knowledge that the tactics of the US diplomatic team got very, very ugly…
Gotta agree with here, what’s that first bit about?
What UN resolution did he violate? Saddam was the one who violated resolutions, including repeated, willful violations of the resolution adopted at the end of the first Gulf War upon which the cease fire was conditioned.
Buying votes in the UN? What about the open bribery in the Oil for Food program, which has been shown to have gone all the way up to Kofi Annan? If that’s not buying votes, I don’t know what is.
The WMD “debacle” is 20-20 hindsight. Everyone, including Saddam, believed he had them – until they found out otherwise the hard way. We went based on the best intelligence we had, which is all we could do. The alternative was to wait until he’d actually used one – and I, for one, would have held Bush criminal responsible if he had.
It was obvious that the UN would not back military action even before France openly came out and said they would veto any resolution calling for it in any form. We now know why they did that: not only to protect ELF Aquitaine’s lucrative below-market oil contract with Iraq, but because they benefited massively from Saddam’s oil-for-food bribes. France was demanding a veto over US foreign policy. Nobody gets that. Period.
What UN resolution did he violate? Saddam was the one who violated resolutions, including repeated, willful violations of the resolution adopted at the end of the first Gulf War upon which the cease fire was conditioned.
Buying votes in the UN? What about the open bribery in the Oil for Food program, which has been shown to have gone all the way up to Kofi Annan? If that’s not buying votes, I don’t know what is.
Are you saying that if a genocidal military dictator does it, the leader of your country should be allowed to do it too?
The WMD “debacle” is 20-20 hindsight. Everyone, including Saddam, believed he had them – until they found out otherwise the hard way. We went based on the best intelligence we had, which is all we could do.
Some of that ‘best intelligence’ came from a 10-year old student research thesis. The CIA was doing its job that day, yes indeed. And yet Bush completely disregarded the evidence of UN inspectors who’d been on the ground looking for weapons for years.
It was obvious that the UN would not back military action even before France openly came out and said they would veto any resolution calling for it in any form. We now know why they did that: not only to protect ELF Aquitaine’s lucrative below-market oil contract with Iraq, but because they benefited massively from Saddam’s oil-for-food bribes.
Are you suggesting Saddam had enough money to bribe the UN security council, and the governments it represents? Even America never managed that. I think it’s more likely they didn’t want to set a precedent for invading a sovereign nation when there was insufficient evidence of any wrongdoing, weren’t keen on investing the money, material and lives it would take, and less than thrilled at being pushed around by the US.
France was demanding a veto over US foreign policy. Nobody gets that. Period.
If you try and push your foreign policy on the UN security council, you should accept their rejection gracefully instead of throwing a hissy fit.
Indeed…
Props to Kerry…
I just wanna see if he does actually work with, and try and get along with, the Senate…
Although I was waiting for “I will go back to the Senate, and stay my cource”…
At which i’d have fallen over in a fit laughing… Can ya guess why?
Ah well… He showed class today. I’ll hope for tomorrow, and pray for the day after that…
I personally voted for Badnarik (LP) for a few reasons.
1) Bush scares the absolute CRAP out of me. He’s stated, repeatedly, that he feels he has a mandate from God, which is not something I want to see in a country with separation of Church and State. (God != democracy. God == autocrat) I’ve also watched Bush personally put things into place to destroy the economy. (Ask if you want specific examples – not the right place for it)
2) I knew my vote wasn’t going to make enough difference to turn Texas over to Kerry, whereas it could make a difference to point out that third parties are necessary. (last number I saw had Badnarik at 376,000 votes, which was more than the other two ‘main’ third parties combined) It also assists in keeping the Libertarian Party on the ballot as an option, in many locations.
3) Kerry scares me only in that he was busy claiming he’d pull us right out of Iraq. We started something, we need to finish it. “Not Finishing” has been the call sign for the US Government for the past 50 years. (Well, that and “Watch us be incompetent”, which is related)
Unfortunately, there wasn’t much to vote on in my local elections. Out of the 60 some-odd positions, only 20 or so had anyone running against them. I may run for assistant DA or something next year against a “no contest” person just so I can gather votes, and if elected, I’ll do my best to not do anything. (Especially not do a lot of harm)
I REALLY want a “None of the above is acceptable” section added to EVERY ballot, for every position, no matter how small. I’m guessing we’d see a lot of main party candidates gone completely, empty positions, and people scrambling to find someone who actually has a brain 🙂 (Really, who would die without a political constable position for two years. I mean, we have no fewer than six different police forces that have authority over the area I live in – and I don’t live in a city at all!)
The far right is actually trying to promote the belief that our founding fathers never intended a separation of church and state. Ludicrous, I know (the first words of the first Ammendment say “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” kind of hard to miss), but they’re making at least enough progress that I heard somebody espouse this view on NPR today.
Also, Kerry never said he’d pull us right out of Iraq, he was repeatedly saying we now find ourselves in quite a mess. To fix it, he argued, we had to finish what we started, by restoring peace and helping Iraq become a self sufficient democracy, and to do that, he argued, we need more international support. Whether his approach was a good one or not is of course arguable (as any politics are), but he did not intend to simply “pull us right out of Iraq.”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Technically, you can’t work “seperation of church and state” from that. It says that Congress will make no law that prevents people from worshipping as they please; it says that there shall not be an official state religion. It does not say that the state must be seperated from religion.
I don’t disagree with much of the idea of seperation of church and state, but the thing that a lot of non-religious types don’t understand is how we religious types see the rapidly increasing seperation. Things like no prayer in schools, legalizing homosexual marriage, sex education in schools etc, point, in the “fear big brother” part of our minds, to the inevitable “you must have sex with multiple partners daily and smoke a lot of crack or you’re not american and you’re going to jail”. Or, even worse, the the case of Daniel in the Lion’s Den.
I exaggerate for affect, obviously. But we see it as heading down that road, thanks to Hollywood, those d**n dirty apetheists, etc, and that is why there is so much interest in a president that has some professed moral values, particularly ones that he seems to stick to.
This is, I think, part of what Howard is saying. Try to see things from the perspective of your opponent, no matter how crazy he is. Knowing thy enemy means having an understanding of his madness. I recommend LE Modesitt’s The Parafaith War for a science-fiction look at this topic. The main character is a Eco-tech, and the Boogeymen are the Revenants of the Prophet. Very interesting read.
A very telling note, for me, is that the main character constantly says, “how can someone believe in a god with no proof whatsoever?” That is a completely foreign concept to me. I would ask “how can someone see the beauty and harmony of the universe and need more proof of God’s love?” Reading this book gave me some limited insight into how the other half lives.
You don’t see funding religious organizations and programs as “respecting an establishment of religion”??
As I understand it, prayer is not illegal in schools, it just can’t be organized or favored by the school administration or staff because it’s up to the students to choose what religious beliefs they hold and practice, and a publically funded school shouldn’t get involved with that — either promoting or preventing/discouraging it.
And on the subject of gay marriage, I quote a friend from the other day … “Just because gay marriage might be legal doesn’t mean you have to have one!” ;-p But seriously, homosexuals have been persecuted for years, first for being “promiscuous”, now for wanting to marry. If the irony of that escapes you, don’t bother to keep reading. =) The point isn’t how promiscuous they may or may not be, or whether they should be allowed to marry, but simply that they are clearly being persecuted for who they are, not for what they do. They are just consenting adults living their life as they see fit, in a way that interferes with nobody else’s life. But they are still a politically acceptable target for bigotry, and so we’re hearing all the same arguments that were trotted out in support of bans on interracial marriage now being reused on a different group of people who are easy to victimize. But it really has nothing to do with them, and everything to do with us. Theyr’e not going to destroy marriage. That happened decades ago, and as you see, it’s the states most in support of banning gay marriage that have the highest divorce rates. No, this isn’t about that at all.
Is this about anything other than hatred of something different from one’s self? I’d love to believe that, but I can’t figure out what else it could be. (I know this is a hot topic, and I apologize if I’ve offended, but I’d love to see some civil discourse on this topic, I don’t understand “the other side” well enough and would genuinely like to fix that.)
And regarding sex education, it’s not like people are talking about teaching kids their favorite pick up lines and positions, this is simply educating people about how the body works. Treating it as such a taboo that can’t be discussed results in legions of uninformed youths thinking they just got pregnant from kissing or worse, thinking they’re safe because they showered immediately afterwards (or something, whatever). I speak from experience on this, I had crap for “sex ed”, and there are things I didn’t learn even about myself until I was 20, let alone what I didn’t know about the opposite sex. That contraceptives are usually covered in sex ed (I’m assuming this is the source of the controversy?) is merely the application of real world experience and medical knowledge: we have seen time and again, in this country and around the world, that explaining safe sex and stressing the importance of it will drastically reduce pregnancy, abortion, and STD rates. Abstinence is of course preferable, but an abstinence only approach does not solve the problem. People will still succumb to the temptations of their hormones at times, and when they do the results will be more drastic, long lasting, and expensive (for them, and society as a whole).
*gasp for breath*
Okay, sorry for getting long winded on that. I need to go get sleep now, but I hope my views haven’t offended, I’m just hoping we can help each other see things from another perspective.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Technically, you can’t work “separation of church and state” from that. It says that Congress will make no law that prevents people from worshiping as they please; it says that there shall not be an official state religion. It does not say that the state must be separated from religion.
Here we must disagree. Any religion receiving support or aid from the state is a de facto state based religion. What do I mean by this? Let’s say that Bush were to create a program to distribute the food-stamp program through the Catholic Church. On the surface this makes sense, they already know who would need these services and would be able to eliminate government bureaucracy that exists to do the same job the church is already doing. Here is the problem, what if the person who needs these services is a Hindu, or an Atheist for that matter. Could they reasonably expect the same access to service a Christian would receive? Would they expect it?
Of course there is a much simpler argument against Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives. The Government can’t discriminate. If the Catholic Church is allowed to serve as a proxy and handle government services, all (and I do mean all) religions would have to be included for the programs to be fair and legal. Think about that and then answer this question.
As a good Christan do you really want your government subsidizing The Church of Satan?
How about the radical Islam sects (that have no rights for women)?
How about Southern Baptists (same reason)?
State Bank.
>Here we must disagree. Any religion receiving support or aid from the state
>is a de facto state based religion. What do I mean by this?
Hmm. If a business receives money from the government, does that make it a de-facto state based business?
>Let’s say that Bush were to create a program to distribute the food-stamp
>program through the Catholic Church.
It would be better to reduce taxes for those who contribute to any charity food-stamp type program. Bush’s plan is a little on the odd side, and it makes much more sense to privatize it by cutting the government out entirely rather than privatizing it by routing the money through the government to private organizations.
Example: The federal gas tax was meant for building the interstates. They’re built now. The government now collects these taxes then hands them out to the states. The problem is that they start handing them out only to states who implement their agenda. It’d be a lot simpler and not violate the state rights if the states collected them directly instead. You’d have the same problem with the federal government funding private charity organizations. Only ones who follow federal policy, however crazy it might be, will get the money.
Prediction!
I predict that George Dubya Bush will…
1) Act as if he received 98.8% of the vote, rather than acknowledging that the country was truly divided, and working on what ticked off 48+% of the country, and
2) Push as hard as he can to demolish the Constitution before he heads out of office, specifically the First, Second, Fourth, Sixth, Tenth, Twelfth, and possibly the Twentieth amendments. (Ten is almost gone anyway, so it might not be worth listing)
Re: Prediction!
Oh – note.
Kerry conceding aside – we won’t know for SURE what the results are for about two weeks.
BW
Here’s the full text of the article I spoke of. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/A11802017_1.pdf
Note that this article DOES criticize Bush in his execution of his own doctrine. Whether or not you support Bush, whether or not you agree with our foreign policy, it’s a worthwhile read.
–Howard
Thanks once again for your few words of sanity on a subject on which I’ve seen very little sanity expressed by anyone.
“Part of the problem is that a large number of us not only DON’T understand other points of view, we act as if we don’t WANT to.”
I think a large part of it is that everyone’s political convictions on the issues that mattered in this election are based on assumptions. Different assumptions in each case. But–having picked their personal set of assumptions–nobody was willing to listen to information that challenged them.
The scariest thing I read on the subject of elections recently has nothing directly to do with Bush, Kerry, Nader, Badnarik or the rest. It was an article in New Yorker magazine about a month ago about how voters make up their minds on issues.
The gist of the article was that almost nobody makes up their minds based on issues, let alone the real facts underlying the issues. Instead, because we are all inundated with data and don’t really have time to evaluate all the information we’d need to look at, we all use (God knows I do) proxies to shortcut the decisionmaking process. Proxies can be things like the opinion of our favorite columnist, an authority figure. Or it can be information like party affiliation or indicia of a candidate’s character. It can even be information that has nothing to do with any of the issues…
Why does this scare me? Because we’re making up our minds about more and more serious issues on less and less (or even no) information–and then defending those decisions as though they are Absolute Truth. And that scares me more than the thought of any of the candidantes in the White House.
Why does this scare me? Because we’re making up our minds about more and more serious issues on less and less (or even no) information…
Herein lies the chief weakness of Democracy. True democracy doesn’t scale. True democracy, where everyone votes on every issue, is a disaster waiting to happen. It’s not the tyranny of the majority, it’s the tyranny of the uninformed.
We’re actually pretty well-off in the U.S. Most of what we vote for is representatives, and it’s their JOB to be informed. Some do it better than others, some are agenda-driven while others are more truly representative, and obviously the system has flaws, but it beats the heck out of pure democracy for exactly the reason you’ve outlined.
I pride myself in understanding the issues on both sides, and yet I managed not to catch a reference to the debate earlier in this thread. Still, I was able to select the issues that mattered most to me, identify the candidate that I believe best supported them, and vote appropriately. That’s the most anybody can ask of the average voter.
“Still, I was able to select the issues that mattered most to me, identify the candidate that I believe best supported them, and vote appropriately.”
Do the most important issues to you ever cause you to vote across party lines, or are they pretty clearly in line with one party? (Just curious.)
“… That’s the most anybody can ask of the average voter.”
I agree. However, I have little confidence that I succeeded in doing so, or that most Americans did. Even keeping casual tabs on what is being said in the mass media takes more time than many are willing or able to give, and that goes double if one does not presume that the mass media is giving the entire story and attempts to digest a broader information base.
I just want to say that when I voted, I was bloody well informed about it. I spent every wek since July reading FactCheck.org. I read the front articles of the New York Times and the BBC World News. I’m already a natural NPR junkie, listening to it for a minimum of an hour everyday. I read many opinion columns. Then, about two months ago, I worried that maybe I wasn’t getting all sides. After all, the BBC and the NY Times might be biased the same way on some things. So for the last 6 weeks, I’ve read the top three articles on FoxNews.com every day (although usually one of those is a useless celebrity feature.) And for the last year I’ve been reading opinion columns by George Will because he was recommended to me by a Libertarian friend of mine, and the Weekly Standard so I would know why the so-called neo-conservatives think the way they do.
I read the 9/11 commission report cover to cover (free on .pdf online), and I read the entire Democrats Party Platform and the Republican Party Platform (those just hurt, frankly). I watched all 4 debates at the risk to my own sanity (I usually listen on the radio, which is better, but realized that I was coming away with completely different impressions from people who watched it on TV, so I thought I’d try it their way this time. I can see where it would make a difference, but I’m going back to radio after this), and listened to both party conventions on the radio because the TV wasn’t showing most of it.
I also spent a lot of time on the candidate websites, critiquing aspects of their plans for the future of our country.
After all of this, I am slammed down by conservatives at my workplace who don’t even know who their own federal representatives are. Also, when I bring up facts contrary to their worldview, they refuse to believe me and direct me to “prove it,” as if I can whip up instant documentation while we’re standing around the (proverbial) water cooler. Grrr…. I spend so much time correcting my liberal knee-jerking relatives who think that Cheney is completely evil and unethical (and were shocked to find out that he has directed his Haliburton stock option profits to be given to charity) that I would like to get a little consideration and benefit of the doubt from my conservative acquaintances.
Now, Howard, I know that this is exactly what you’ve been urging. I just wanted to point out that it’s not just the “anybody but Bush” camp who is guilty of it. (And get some stuff off my chest, I must admit.)
And in a post-note, since I live in California and had no influence on the presidential election, I voted for Leonard Peltier. As you point out, the important things were our local reps and local initiatives. Apparently CA and I aren’t in agreement about most things, but what can you do?
“After all of this, I am slammed down by conservatives at my workplace who don’t even know who their own federal representatives are.”
The kind of ad hominem faux debate I was referring to in my comment (and that I believe Howard was talking about in his post) is just as ugly and damaging when conservatives do it than when liberals do it.
“As you point out, the important things were our local reps and local initiatives. Apparently CA and I aren’t in agreement about most things, but what can you do?”
At least you were doing something constructive, instead of just complaining.
There was an article awhile back about the Bush/Kerry supporters were and how different they see the world. The differences were amazing, and more scary than the actual division itself. I think one of the main reasons I voted against Bush was the growing trend of unification of Church and State, and perhaps the using of the constitution to specifically limit rights, to enunciate them in clear terms, rather than define the scope of freedom that does exist. I’m a bit vague there, but I really mean that the Constitution should be used to protect the people, not hurt them.
They need to term marriage and civil union as legally different entities. All marriages are civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages. I think that’s one thing in the entire mess.
I guess my real problem with the Bush path, besides his foreign policy, was the trend of limiting choice and freedom, rather than pushing it forward. I understand his reasoning behind most of it, sadly, but that it could actually work in 11 states. . . beyond my full will to grok.
An honest question.
I’ll have to ask you this since I honestly don’t know anyone who actually voted for Bush around here.
Were WMDs found in Iraq following our 2003 invasion?
Was Saddam at least partially responsible for 9/11?
These questions were ask in a poll about 2 weeks before the election. Of those who said they were Likely or Very Likely to vote for Bush, 70% answered yes to those questions. Unfortunately these questions were not included in exit polling yesterday. I would have liked to know how the answers would have come out.
Re: An honest question.
One of the things that amuses me about this whole topic is the assumption that people are any smarter about politics and what happened in Iraq than they are about anything else.
These are the same people who want their computer repaired today, but then don’t pick it up until next week; the people who download all kinds of pr0n but then need us to clean it out before their wife sees it; the people who you sniker behind your hands and make jokes about the shorted interface between the chair and the keyboard; the people who don’t change their oil and then want warranty repair done on their car … and I’ll bet I do the same kinds of things with regards my gas bill or my phone service or something else that I can’t be bothered to look more into.
By and large, people only pay enough attention to get by, to try to avoid the things that make them change or learn or grow.
Re: An honest question.
I never said either side was smarter.
On the contrary, If I believed those two things were true I could easily see justification for the Iraq debacle. Were I to believe those things and follow logically from those beliefs, I suppose I could see myself voting to re-elect Bush. But the fact is, the answer to both questions is No.
I think what that poll really tells us is that there is a failure of communication in this country. Somehow a large portion of the population never recieved the information (from the 9/11 commission and the subsequent Intelligence Reports) that these beliefs were not true.
In part the President and his team are responcible for this. Even after the 9/11 commission report was released (finding no credible link between Iraq and 9/11) and the Inspectors testified before congress that Saddam did not have any WMD’s at the time of the US Invasion, the Bush camp still alluded in speech after speech and statement after statement that the WMDs did exist and that the link between Iraq and 9/11 did exist. After you hear it enough times from someone who should be credible, you start to believe it.
These systematic lies by the Bush administration are one of the things I find so evil about them.
Re: An honest question.
Were WMDs found in Iraq following our 2003 invasion?
As defined, no, but all the infrastructure was found to have been in place for the creation of chemical and biological weapons. I know, I know, this falls far short of what was billed as the reason for going to war in Iraq, but consider this: an industrial infrastructure *is* a weapon of mass destruction in the right hands. Saddam, as has pointed out, was already harboring and sponsoring terrorists. The action we took was pre-emptive.
Was Saddam at least partially responsible for 9/11?
That would be a stretch. Was the Soviet Union at least partially responsible for 9/11? After all, they invaded Afghanistan, and it was in that battlefield that Bin Laden got much of his field experience. Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and threat of invasion to Saudi Arabia also shaped the area, and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia (by invitation) further alienated Bin Laden from his family.
So it’s all connected, but none of those things merit invasion in and of themselves. Iraq WAS a state sponsor of terrorism, however, and that was (in my opinion) reason enough to go in. Especially under the Bush Doctrine.
Today neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are state sponsors of terrorism.
I guess the real question you’re asking is “how well am I informed compared to the average American voter?” VERY well, thank you.
–Howard
Re: An honest question.
Saddam, as [info]jmaynard has pointed out, was already harboring and sponsoring terrorists. The action we took was pre-emptive.
Um. Who? Not bin Laden, as far as I know — Saddam, like the House of Saud and many other Islamic governments, publicly considered the modern radical Islamist movement as potentially destabilizing to their power-bases. They didn’t want their nation to end up, like, say, Iran.
And before you start, Iran’s Shi’ite. The Shi’ites, mind you, tend to dislike Sunnis, of whom bin Laden belongs to.
I mean, mind you, I’m not saying that he didn’t sponsor terrorists. I just want to know which terrorists you’re talking about.
Re: An honest question.
Were WMDs found…
No they weren’t, that’s part of the problem. Because everybody does know that he did have them (that’s why we always had inspectors going there). Many of those types of weapons could not be simply destroyed, that would cause bigger problems. Others he was required to have a signoff on destruction, which he never had. Problem is, all those are gone now. What did happen to them? And no, saying that there *were* wmd’s is not some fabrication, it was a known entity before, and part of the basis of the sanctions.
Don’t forget he had the infrastructure to restart a program, when things became available again. Including those much discussed ‘Alqaaqaa’ munitions. Don’t forget they weren’t just any explosives, but a special kind normally used for detonation of nuclear devices.
>Was Saddam at least partially responsible for 9/11?
Not 9/11, but terrorism yes. A lot of the campaign fud was focused on this. The Kerry camp would assert the fact that he didnt’ support 9/11 directly, and therefore bush was ‘lying’. Problem is, Bush didn’t say that. They assert, as the 9/11 commission confirmed, that Saddam supported terrorism. And that is a good reason (among others).
Re: An honest question.
The only way in which Saddam materially supported terrorism that I’m aware of is cutting checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. While they are terrorists, they are not the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists that are a threat to America. They are a threat to Israel, still very dangerous, but a totally different category.
Other than that, according to the 9/11 Commission, he talked with the bad terrorists occasionally, but denied them space for training camps and generally didn’t have too much to do with them.
What other involvement with terrorists am I missing in all this?
What’s that, a voice of calm reason the day after the election?! Howard, I may disagree with your politics (vehemently, by the sound of it), but I very much respect you and your attitude towards it all, and hope others will follow your example and reach out a friendly hand across our current political divide.
We should all be concerned over the division in our country today. It was there before the 2000 elections, grew worse with the controversy associated with that election, and then grew far worse with the controversy over the war in Iraq. It’s a problem bigger than either candidate, and unlikely to be solved by a single person, which is all the more reason we all need to work on it from now until at least the next presidential election.
It makes me really wish McCain had agreed to be Kerry’s running mate. That could have done wonders for bridging that divide, I think. But I can understand McCain still has strong potential for the presidency himself, and would never be in his party’s favor quite the same way again if he did something like that.
But I do have to take issue with one detail that you and others in the media have brought up. I grew really sick of people harping on Kerry for not conceding the election “already”, for dragging it out and being unprofessional, etc. I know, you said the exact opposite in congratulating him for conceding, but it implied (as others have stated outright) that he *should* have conceded by then if not long before. But after Gore’s premature concession in 2000, the Democratic party was left feeling cheated and disenfranchised, and they certainly didn’t want to make that same mistake twice. He didn’t talk about winning “at all costs”, he talked about waiting it out to ensure that “every vote counts, and every vote is counted” (yeah, I’m tired of hearing that too, sorry), and after the last time that’s perfectly understandable. And also, polls didn’t close in Alaska until what, 00:30EST? His concession speech was at 14:00EST. He barely waited half a day, that’s nothing. And technically the remaining uncounted votes could have still changed the results in his favor, it was just highly improbable.
Anyway, sorry for the minirant on that. I agree he did the right thing at, well, around the right time. I just got sick of the insinuations that he was doing democracy an injustice by holding out hope for half a day (paraphrasing others, not you, on that part).
I don’t think Kerry conceded too soon. My point (made rather subtly) is that he wisely allowed EDWARDS to get out there and say “We’ve waited four years for this change, we can wait another day.” His campaign managers and others came out talking about aggressive recounts, or at least suggesting their possibility. This was masterful politicking on Kerry’s part because:
a) If the count was such on Wednesday that it was pretty clear no recount would help, Kerry could concede without having to eat words of his own.
b) The apparent reversal of his campaign’s position (I say APPARENT — it’s likely this was a scenario they were all prepared for) positions Kerry as a peacemaker.
Do I sound cynical? You betcha. But don’t think for a minute that I don’t similarly analyze the spin coming from the Republican party.
Local politics are so much more fun, because their practicioners tend to be so unpracticed in the fine art of spinning stuff. Listening to the Governor-elect and the lame-duck Governor of Utah on the radio made that clear — I could hear STRAIGHT THROUGH them. They might as well have said what was REALLY on their minds.
Ahh, okay, fair enough.
“I could hear STRAIGHT THROUGH them. They might as well have said what was REALLY on their minds.”
Whoa, you better warn them they won’t make it anywhere in politics without being far better at deceptive diversionary tacticts! 😉
Local Politics
Another fun thing about local politics, is they much more directly influence your life.
Plus you are much more likely to get a 3rd party candidate who often runs with more of a willingness to listen.
Howard, I have great respect for you, as I’ve told you before. You’re always very sensible and think things through before you write. I suppose I should’ve just stayed away from your journal around the time of the election though, as I must say it will take some time getting over that you voted for Bush. 😛
I just keep wondering whether americans really understand how much of an impact this election had all over the world. I’m in Sweden and when I met my friends at college this morning, the first thing we did was join in shared sorrow and anger, but mostly confusion – why, oh WHY? HOW could you vote for someone like Bush!?!
Anti-american sentiments are growing here, and I mean no disrespect when I say you have it coming. The US has ever been very protectionist, not caring particularly what people think of them. But if this goes on, the world IS going to react. You may vote for the leader that you think will do best, you have that right. Don’t expect us to understand or like it. And when the most powerful nation in the world chooses its leader, people regardless of where they live will have opinions.
My own stance can effectively be summed up in this: the very thought of four more years with Bush at the helm nauseates me. I am afraid. Very, very afraid.
And finally one of my favourite Sinfest strips. I look at it whenever I think of Bush; it makes me smile, even though it’s true in a bad way.
We don’t expect Europeans to like our choices. American politics have been decidedly non-European since the beginning. Early American Presidents and the Founding Fathers counseled AGAINST the “foreign entanglements” (their wording, not mine) that drew the nations of Europe into war after war after war with each other in the 15th through 20th centuries.
The U.S. would not have changed that policy had it not been apparent that the stuff happening in Europe in the 20th century was going to spill over onto us ANYWAY. We ended up fighting World War III (the Cold War) as an outgrowth of that, and many nations in Europe were there on the front lines with us.
If you’re suggesting, however, that the U.S. is attempting to build some kind of trans-atlantic empire in this War on Terror, and that the nations of Europe are going to find themselves actively at war against the U.S. over it, I think you don’t understand Americans at all. That brings me to my original post: seek to understand us. Know thy enemy — if only because you may find out that you have common goals, and shouldn’t be feeling enmity at all.
–Howard
I’m speaking as a Muslim, right now, living in a nation that your government considers as a ‘terrorist hub in South-East Asia’.
I think we’re at the stage where we don’t understand Americans at all. In a way, yeah, it feels like a betrayal, because we perceive American action aggravating terrorism in our backyards, and every time we see our country-men and regional fellows killed because of anti-American terrorism, we wonder if America could have done something to stem the tide.
Mind you, I don’t think it’s rational. Give me a month or so for rationality to reassert itself.
But how can we ask the rest of the world to “know” us when we make no attempt to know them, and are proud of our ignorance?
You say “WE” as if I’m speaking for America. I’m not. I’ve traveled abroad, I have numerous European and African friends, and I feel keenly their distrust of American politics. I’m aware that many americans do not, and I do not speak for them. I speak for myself.
*I* am asking Europeans for reciprocal understanding, and I believe I have the right to.
Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks Howard. It was folks like you that made all the hard work of folks like me worth while. It was a hard and bitter fight and in the end I think it was one worth fighting, no matter what side you were on. Keep up the good work and consider me an even more avid reader than before! 🙂
(Point me to the purchasable goods. ;))
Why Bush?
Howard, I have continue to read the comments to your post on Kerry, and many express fear concerning Bush being in the President, yet express confusion concerning the US choice of President. I have been traveling throughout Europe and have seen some of the concerns with the US. But I believe that fear is what many of your readers aren’t understanding. For the first time in this generation, the US is feeling fear, a real fear that stalks us in our homes. A fear from an unknown menace that we don’t understand.
Americans crave a predictable world. 90% of incumbents retain office, they do not like change no matter how much they talk about it. Over half of America choose Bush because he is predictable, his behavior is predictable, even though the behavior might not be perfect.
People on this thread act and comment as if Bush is the one who has brought this fear into the world and into their lives. That somehow, his actions have caused the hate, the anger, and the violence that is spreading. That somehow the anti-American sentiment is centered around the actions of one President. Were the plans for 9/11 developed because a few months before Bush had been elected and put into place objective policies. This is hardly the case. Bush reflects the fears and resolve of the American people. America feels violated, and it is afraid for the first time. It will do anything to remove this fear and restore its sense of peace and safety, even if that is unattainable. If a country or people do not realize this new America, an America that is motivated by this one fact, then there will not be any understanding.
52% picked Bush, that is more than half, 48% didn’t pick Bush…which doesn’t mean that Mr. Kerry had 48% of the country behind him, nor that he represented 48%. It is possible that he represented a extremely small section. 10 people in a room. 5 agree on something and the other 5 each agree on their own idea, separate from the others. Bush has not divided the US, but instead has galvanized the US to have more than half the population agree on someone for the first time in almost 20 years.
Re: Why Bush?
I can’t speak for the rest of the liberals and other Democrats in this thread, but I can speak for myself. And I can say that your understanding does not match mine, and that your idea of what “America is motivated by” is not an accurate picture of my motivations nor those of virtually all of my friends and acquaintances.
I’m not, at present, fearful of terrorism. I’m bothered by it, yes, and I think we as a country need to have a serious plan to deal with it, but insofar as we have reasonable security measures in place, it doesn’t scare me.
What scares me is the possibility of what this country will do in reaction to terrorism. I am very afraid that, to quote your words, “[America] will do anything to remove this fear and restore its sense of peace and safety”. I am afraid of what that “anything” means, and what I see it meaning already. I am afraid of things that remove personal liberties in the name of a “safety” that they do not actually provide — things like the “no-fly list” being an egregious example, but there are many more. I am afraid of military actions that destroy our goodwill around the world and deplete our government finances (which are sorely needed for effective security measures) and kill innocent people without significantly improving our safety.
And that fear is something that I believe the Bush administration is wholly responsible for.
Re: Why Bush?
I think you accurately lay out some good points. Here is the point I am attempting to explain. It is difficult right now for liberals and democrates to speak for each other because they are many many issues that they are concerned about. These would include Free to Choose, Protecting the environment, health care, insurance, elderly care, Social Security, Governnment oppression, military aggression, immigration, civil rights, loss of privacy. There are many issues, but this covers many that concern many Americans, and I place myself on this list….BUT….when it comes to Republicans, there lies the difference, they can speak for each other, then can nail down a few key points that defined the campaign, is beginning to define their party and will possibly define the new government.
And I believe that they are mostly motivated by Fear…there are many issues, but they have a few key ones that were the focus, and it is this FOCUS that caused the democrates to lose.
The democrates did not give Kerry time to define himself in the primary process before he was rolled out as THE Candidate to beat Bush…He never developed nor found his focus…and became reactionary to the whims of the Bush campaign heavy weights.
The Republicans on the other hand focused on a few key things are their followers were aware of a few key things…Terrorists had removed our safety and Gays were attacking our values. I don’t mean the Republicans were homophobic as some have claimed in these threads, but that they were scared and afraid of being forced to adopt values they disagreed with…these two things motivated them to come out and vote in record numbers.
The request by Howard was for an understanding of the enemy. Right now I’m trying to figure out both groups and appreciate you letting me take a few moments to express them.
Re: Why Bush?
Oh, one more thing: Your claim that “Bush has … galvanized the US to have more than half the population agree on someone for the first time in almost 20 years” is false. Something like a third of the eligible voters, at most, voted for Bush.
Moreover, the argument that you’re using about how that 48% might not really all be behind Kerry seems like one that makes equally much sense when applied to Bush’s 52% — remember that virtually all of those 48% did, in fact, vote for Kerry. I don’t think the argument makes sense in either case, really, for all that I suspect some Bush voters voted for him solely because of his stand on gay-marriage or abortion issues.
(I do admit to a bit of curiousity of what you mean by “first time in almost 20 years” — we’ve certainly had less-closely-disputed elections in those years, haven’t we? Or am I misremembering?)
Re: Why Bush?
Sorry, I agree, I should have said half of those that voted agreed on someone for the first time in nearly 20 years. But on the 48% I still stand. 48% didn’t vote for an idea, nor a value, nor a position. They were united in the desire against something, but not for something and this is a subtle but important difference.
I would also agree with your statement about many voting for him on gay-marriage and on abortion. The other point is that there was something about the Bush stance, position, or values that caused more people to vote for him than any other president in the history of the country. The high turnout gave Bush more votes than anyone before.
Here is an example…10 people in a room, all with different opinions…each opinion is worth the same as anyone elses…but then five people in the room decide to agree on something, an idea, position, or value, which they attempt to impose on the rest of the group…now, those five all agree on a single thing, but the other five don’t automatically agree on something different, they just agree to disagree with the first five. That means half the group believes in one thing, while the other five still believe in thier individual ideas, but have to come together to oppose the first five. This is not exactly a consensus, but simply a reaction to defend themselves from the voting block. That is my opinion of what has happened…you know in a way, you could claim that Bush hasn’t divided the country, but brought it together, but that arguement only works if my example holds up…before there were 10 different opinions but now are only 6, five all agreeing on one, and five still having different ones.
I apologize for the length of my response….I have been traveling throughout Europe without Internet access and have been thinking about this for awhile. Thanks for you patience.