#8179: DarkSyde — 11/03  at  06:05 AM
We did what we could my friend. Fear is a visceral motive.

#8180: smijer — 11/03  at  06:25 AM
Hard words, but well spoken. But don't forget that there were 55 million of us who voiced a plea for a better future. We 55 million have a lot of work to do.

#8181: Stephen Brophy — 11/03  at  06:27 AM
My heartfelt comiserations to you and all of the Americans who voted with you. It may be of some small consolation to you to know that the immense positive impact that American scientists and academics have had on my life and on the world as a whole serves as an important counterbalance to the misdeeds of one man, even if he is the President.

My chief regret is that I really thought that there were more of you out there.

#8182: — 11/03  at  07:21 AM
Powerful, memorable words.

Some weeks back, the Age ran a simple, powerful Michael Leunig cartoon about the Australian election, esssential two quotes.

"The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice."
Mahatma Ghandi

"The things that will destroy us are: terrorism, greenies and higher interest rates."
John Howard

Prime Minister Lying rodent was reelected here.. Rupert Murdock must be pleased...

#8183: — 11/03  at  07:23 AM
Well said, PZ.

Worse yet, our D governor in IN was defeated by Mitch Daniels. As an environmental scientist for the state gov't, I'm heartsick, and now, worried about my job (really, whether my agency, Env Mgmt, will survive).

#8184: — 11/03  at  07:29 AM
As if the actual results of the voting weren't bad enough, what really worries me is this revelation of a sudden surge in the importance of "moral values" in the electorate. What exactly does that mean? Bush's "moral values" are reprehensible, and certainly he has no more claim to moral righteousness than does Charlie Manson. So what does it mean? Why do so many associate Bush with "morality?" I truly believe that "moral values" is code for the right's yearning for Christian theocracy in this country, and I fear that the rest of us may not be able to stop it.

#8185: — 11/03  at  07:41 AM
I've never watched an American election as closely as this one. The outcome is truly horrifying.
I share your pessimism that, under a renewed Bush administration, America will sink even lower. This is sad news, not for just for American citizens, but for people all over the world.
Will this translate into an exodus of scientists to Canada and Europe?

#8186: mark duigon — 11/03  at  07:54 AM
It was a sad day for critical thinking. Ultimately, I think the problem was that too many people accepted lies and misinformation--from blantant lies about Kerry's character (he got one of his purple hearts by shooting himself in the foot)to often more subtle lies (scientific studies show adult stem cells hold just as much, and perhaps more, promise for health benefits as embryonic stem cells). We've reelected a president who claims to make use of the best science, but his actions have shown him to reject science in favor of ideology and fantasy.

#8187: anthony — 11/03  at  08:16 AM
You know it's people like you that make this election so much more tragic for someone like me in Australia.
Chin up we've got 4 centuries of progress behind us.

#8188: — 11/03  at  08:18 AM
It is a victory for stupidity. It took us down. It can take us out.

Bush won the wingnut vote. And it's huge. No wingnuts. No Bush.

Don't forget all the anti-gay marriage amendments. Wingnut gunk.

Ohio's motto: With God, all things are possible. Sad.

Don't know how you deprogram wingnuts. Pharyngula type things may have some effect, but...

#8189: — 11/03  at  08:47 AM
Perhaps we should pause for a moment, and reflect that Bob Flynn, a man
whose scientific ignorance is matched only by his certainty that he knows
everything worth knowing, had a better grasp on the dynamics of
this election than the rest of us. Even in the unlikely case that Ohio
ends up in Kerry's column (and that seems like a pretty forlorn hope
right now), the fact is that a clear majority of Americans think this
current disaster is a triump of leadership.

It may be that we thought too well of our fellow Americans, but that
shouldn't have blinded us so completely.

#8190: PZ Myers — 11/03  at  08:50 AM
I don't think it will in the future. We now have the measure of the electorate, and it consists largely of very gullible people.

#8191: — 11/03  at  08:58 AM
I am reminded of Joel Garreau's Nine Nations of North America that came out a couple of decades ago. If one looks at the state by state results, there are 2:1 margins in most of the red states, but only slight margins in the blue states. What this reflects here in the Northwest is that the cultural zone of Portland and Seattle overwhelms the rest of the states. CA is the same way, and no doubt NY, MN and IL have similar issues. Apparently the only place there are significant percentages of rural Democrats is in the Northeast. Canada has similar rural vs urban strain.

Is it really possible to achieve cooperative democracy in a nation as large and diverse as the US when the rural areas and the urban areas have such strong differences of values?

Should there be a united states of america? Has our grand experiment in democracy run its course?

All the open Senate seats in the South has made the problem worse, but will the contests in 2 years give us any reason to hope for better when the likes of Bunning can get elected.

What is clear is that with Daschle gone we have an opportunity to place a fighter from a safe state in leadership of Senate Democrats. The actions and deeds of Republicans need to be repeatedly put under the glare of scrutiny so citizens at least have an opportunity to judge and vote based on facts.

Faith based politics have been a disaster for Ireland and Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan and ... you name it. Is democracy strong enough to overcome the promises of religion. I have my doubts.

#8192: — 11/03  at  09:03 AM
The anti-gay marriage amendments were central to Karl Rove's strategy. Fear and bigotry are the basis for domestic and foreign policy in this administration. Like an alcoholic that should know better by now, a bit more than half of the voters chose another fix. We have not hit bottom as a nation yet and the damage this government can do in the next four years pains me greatly.

Perhaps it is what we need in order to make the choice so stark that our relatives, friends and neighbors can wake up and see the emperor has no clothes.

#8193: — 11/03  at  09:47 AM
It seems to me that the only way to enrich the American culture with traditional liberal values is to do a lot of extensive education-type campaigns. You cannot reasonably expect that you will be able to outlegislate your opponents (or out-elect them) against the intuitions of the electorate without doing this kind of cultural programming first. Even if you were to succeed, the stability of the system would decrease, and your chances of losing power would increase.

Calling the American public weak, cowardly, naive, and stupid is not a good first step in this regard. So stop it, please. It isn't helping anything.

#8194: Andrew — 11/03  at  09:51 AM
We have a moral obligation to reject the Republican party as illegitimate even if Bush is ultimately awarded Ohio. They have no right to govern. They have not won a debate of ideas in the democratic martketplace. They have smuggled in public policy on the backs of millions and millions of bigots. That's not deliberation or compromise; it's not democracy, it's fascism.

#8195: wrightwt — 11/03  at  10:29 AM
I'm extremely frustrated and disappointed by the fact that so many of my fellow citizens have, for some reason or other, found Bush to be the better choice in this election. That's particularly worrying for me when I consider how happy and comfortable I am with where I live. I simply cannot fathom the mind that doesn't find Bush to be morally and intellectually defective, as well as an utter failure as a human being and a leader. My values are clearly way out of line with those of many of my fellow citizens, and I have no idea what sort of future I might have in this country.

However, I think much of this is my own fault. More accurately, it's the fault of people like me who, while perhaps industrious when it comes to our professions and various pursuits, have grown lazy when it comes to getting involved with government. For too long now, I've simply assumed that the business of governing this land would be taken care of by others who would look out for my interests. I'd simply have to vote for, and perhaps occasionally speak to my friends/family about, the right candidates. I don't mean this in a naive way having to do with some pathetic notion that good always triumphs over bad, and that some special "American quality" would keep this country in good shape, no matter what. Rather, I simply assumed that enough good people would appear on the ballots and enough of my fellow citizens could be trusted to make good choices. In other words, I uncritically accepted as true many overly optimistic assessments of my fellow Americans. The last two presidential elections have shaken me from that dogmatic slumber.

It's time for those truly bothered by the country's hard right turn to get deeply involved in their government. The attitudes of people in my generation (I'm 33) towards politics have to radically change. This is all anecdotal, of course, but while many are involved in campaigns, I suspect that there is a deeply-ingrained distrust of all things political in many of us. I suppose that stems in large part from the influence of Watergate, Vietnam, etc on our teachers and parents. If things are going to improve, "everyday citizens" are going to have to start spending a lot of time and energy trying to actively change things by their own effort, instead of simply finding someone else to support to do the job and writing off politics as some sort of "lesser" activity. That means running for office, speaking out in public forums, etc.

A lot of this will also involve saying some deeply unpopular things, and those who are looking to make a change had better toughen up for the fight. Also, if you want to make a difference, it's going to be desperately important to be a helluva lot smarter and cunning than the other guy. It's not enough just to beat the nutters on the facts, although that is necessary. The cunning part is important, because we're dealing with a lot of deeply irrational people here. Figuring out how to capitalize on that irrationality in order to undermine the right-wing theocracy that's developing will be vital.

I have no idea yet what I'm going to do to contribute to all this. I certainly don't want to just have a knee-jerk reaction here. But I know I have to do something. No more sitting smugly in my ivory tower (or dank office) with my adoration of rationality and tolerance. Hopefully, the best thing that comes out of this abomination is a lot of angry (but still reasonable) people who decide to finally think carefully and critically about what's important to them, and who go on to put their money (and entire person) where those values are. I suppose that often gets said in these sorts of circumstances, but the situation is starting to look dire enough that people may really be prompted to act now.

#8196: — 11/03  at  10:36 AM
Ugggghhhhh...the only positve feeling I can muster is the provincial retort "don't blame me, I'm from Minnesota". This victor scares me a lot more than even 'ol Ron did when Minnesota was the only state to carry Mondale in 84. We on the left have LOTS of work to do in the next election in two years to try to win back at least some legislative power.

#8197: — 11/03  at  10:40 AM
Kerry has conceded.

Sigh.

Can I have a day of shuddering disbelief before I start working again?

#8198: — 11/03  at  10:56 AM
Why all the long faces? We had very high voter turn-out, 59% (it was only 49%, when Clinton won big in '96).

I will be analyzing the predictions made on this blog, shortly. Preliminary results: it don't look good

#8199: — 11/03  at  10:57 AM
Welcome to Germany 1933...

#8200: — 11/03  at  11:02 AM
Here's a dilemma. I'm a British citizen who has lived in the US for 12 years, and has an American wife. Two possible options for me are:

1. Become a US citizen (while retaining British citizenship too) and get a chance to vote next time*

or

2. Stay a resident alien and not be able to vote next time

(1) has the advantage of giving me the opportunity to vote, but has the psychological disadvantage of seeming too much like an endorsement. (2) has the opposite set of pros and cons. Suggestions?

(*before any armchair immigration lawyers pipe up, although in theory a new US citizen has to swear allegiance to the US and no other country, in practice it still means dual citizenship is permitted. You don't have to surrender your foreign passport or anything....)

#8201: — 11/03  at  11:08 AM
The "moral values" that apparently mattered to Bush voters? Loud protestations of evangelical piety are enough, it seems, to count as moral for that bunch. How the War in Iraq exemplifies the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is utterly mysterious to me. Should it turn out, despite all appearances to the contrary, that God exists and is just, what, when brought at last into His presence, would these people say?

#8202: PZ Myers — 11/03  at  11:15 AM
"oops"?

#8203: PZ Myers — 11/03  at  11:16 AM
Andy: get the citizenship. We clearly need the vote. It's not an endorsement if you're doing it to help vote the scumsuckers out of office.