PZ Myers. 2004 Nov 03. Disappointed and in error. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/disappointed_and_in_error/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Disappointed and in error
I was wrong. So wrong.
I haven't entirely given up—there's still a thin and unlikely hope that Ohio will come up in Kerry's favor—but it doesn't matter. This election shouldn't have been close. I woke up to election day confident and optimistic, because we Americans are ultimately sensible, open-minded, and forward-thinking, and of course we would make the right choice.
Ah, but I was wrong.
We are cowards. Fear was the trump card this time, and the Republican party played it well. They rattled the cages and warned us of terror, terror, terror, and told us the solution was to pay a toll of a few (but too many!) of our sons, a few (again, too many) of our liberties, and a lot of our money, and bomb the hell out of someone else. The Democrats ran a principled patriot against a jingoistic, xenophobic smirk, and the smirk won.
We are fools. We elected Bunning and Coburn to the Senate—people mentally unfit and dangerously deranged, but comfortably extreme in their ideology. The Republican candidate was a man who is arguably one of the worst presidents ever, with a dismal record of incompetence and failure, and a majority voted for him. Eleven states ran referendums to acknowledge the rights of gay couples, all eleven defeated by the ranks of the narrow-minded. The Democrats ran a tolerant pluralist against a religious poseur, and superficial, self-righteous faith won.
We are monsters. An unjustified, futile war…doesn't matter. Abu Ghraib…doesn't matter. Tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians…don't matter. Prisoners tortured and held without trial at Guantanamo Bay…doesn't matter. Throwing away two centuries worth of the world's respect for our enlightened principles…doesn't matter. A president who laughs at executions and mocks the sacrifices of our soldiers…doesn't matter. The Democratic candidated dared to say that our reputation in the community of nations mattered, and the arrogant bully won.
I fear for the future. The Republican party has established a solid base in America's strengths: fear, ignorance, and swagger. The Democrats failed to win by opposing those ugly values; will they, too, resort to pandering to them in the next election? Will the lesson they learn be that progressive ideals must be sacrificed to make political gains?
I worry about my kids, and the children of those folks in Red State America who think safety lies in blithely handing a blank check to ideologues. How much of their blood will have to be spilled in self-destructive wars? How great a burden of debt will they have to bear, in order to guarantee that today's wealthy are sufficiently comfortable? When the Supreme Court is loaded with mullahs of the religious right, what liberties will be lost to them?
I've watched this administration with increasing disgust and disbelief these past four years. No matter how this election is resolved, the most dreadful realization it has brought to me is that my country hasn't hit bottom yet.
I was wrong to think better of America. And there will be worse to come.
- We did what we could my friend. Fear is a visceral motive.
- 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.
-
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.#: Posted by Stephen Brophy on 11/03 at 06:27 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...#: Posted by on 11/03 at 07:21 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).#: Posted by on 11/03 at 07:23 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.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 07:29 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?#: Posted by on 11/03 at 07:41 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.
#: Posted by mark duigon on 11/03 at 07:54 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. -
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...#: Posted by on 11/03 at 08:18 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.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 08:47 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.
-
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.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 08:58 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.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 09:03 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.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 09:47 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.
-
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. -
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.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 10:36 AM
-
Kerry has conceded.
Sigh.
Can I have a day of shuddering disbelief before I start working again?#: Posted by on 11/03 at 10:40 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
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 10:56 AM -
Welcome to Germany 1933...
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 10:57 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....)#: Posted by on 11/03 at 11:02 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?
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 11:08 AM
- "oops"?
- 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.
- Bob - why the long faces? Because the high voter turnout (a good thing) showed that tens of millions of people are ruled byt he 4Gs - Guns, Gays, God, and 1/Guts (I figured I could get away with a little math here). That, in case you missed it, is not seen as a good thing here. This wasn't some wager about the turnout and results, it was about the future direction of the country. And now we know - as I said on my blog, four years ago Bush is what we got; this time he's what we want.
-
On behalf of the few sane Oklahomans, I would like to apologize for the fact that Coburn will be influencing federal law. While the idea that this state is populated by uneducated hicks in grossly inaccurate, many of its citizens are moral retards. About 70%, apparently.
It's not all bad. The Bush administration is only going to get worse, and a lot of people are going to stay angry. I suspect that the Republicans will have a much harder time of it next election.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 11:24 AM - For the reciprocally retarded, the 4th G is "goofballs".
-
Les, I was actually thinking of fear, but I kinda like your version too
-
i've just decided for myself to not get that citizenship. what would be the point? no candidates run in this country i could live with having voted for, and evidently, voting doesn't matter nearly as much here as scare tactics, intimidation, tactical lawsuits, and skulduggery in the electioneering process do.
i'm trying to keep from sinking into near-suicidal depression at having had my prediction proven true, because it's hard for me to not see this as the death of american democracy. the fish head has rotted through; there's nothing left but for the rot to spread downwards, now -- it's only a matter of time.
personally, i wouldn't be very happy at having to swear a citizenship oath knowing fully well that i didn't mean most of its language, and that even the people i was swearing it for knew i didn't mean it -- the perjury might be officially accepted, but it'd still nag my conscience. publically, i'm not sure i'd be able to confess to my friends abroad that i'd taken an american passport; the embarrassment and shame would be acute. privately, i don't want to do anything to even vaguely or theoretically put my citizenship in a stable, democratic EU member nation at risk -- who knows how soon i might yet need it?
and here i thought, for over six years, that this country wouldn't be too bad to live in. story of my life, being wrong about every single thing i ever thought was a turn for the better... (somebody keep me away from any alcohol for the time being, please?)#: Posted by on 11/03 at 12:41 PM -
On the bright side, I'm happy to have my prediction of the lawyers taking over the election proven wrong. I may not like the result, but at least we know the winner one way or another.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 12:47 PM
-
Fear is a trump card played by the Republicans? Your kidding right? Scaring senior citizens by claiming that they'll lose Social Security isn't playing that trump card? Scaring young adults or their parents by making up lies about a draft isn't playing that trump card? Scaring working poor by telling them they'll have no health care coverage isn't playing that trump card?
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 12:48 PM
-
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.
Nor will they ever, in your mind, since you obviously simply disregard events with which you do not agree. They won that debate. Your refusal to accept it does not illegitimize their victory.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 12:50 PM - Rich, "A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism". Thiose bumper stickers were all over the plavce. That's fear mongering. The converse by the way along with the assertions by the Bush supporters would be that we won't have a terrorist attack now becuase they're 'scared'.
-
Rich: "Republicans" (the Bush variant, at least) have drained the treasury, producing deep deficits, and have strained the military with a foreign war we're having trouble maintaining. It isn't a lie to point out that deficits are putting long-term social safety nets at risk, or that the Bush military has been exploring the draft option.
It's not scaring working poor to tell them they won't have health care; many of them already lack it. You did know that large numbers of the workforce are completely lacking any health care, right?
Fear was the constant message of the Republican party in this campaign. Polls start to slip? Raise the terror alert level! Want to distract everyone from Kerry? Tell 'em the terrorists want to smuggle in nukes! -
You guys ain't sounding as gracious as Senator Kerry is, this moment, as he offers his concession speech to President Bush.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 01:09 PM
- That's because he's a politician. We're just people.
- Bob: why the HELL should we be gracious? It's going to be four more years of non-stop attacks on all the things I love and hold dear. Gracious, my ass!
-
Ain't you lost something before, Rana? Haven't you learned good manners? Politicians have manners, but people don't?Jeez, you guys are a trip.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 01:21 PM
-
Bob, this isn't about being a good sport after a lovely game of tennis. This is about seeing people like yourself standing up for state-sponsored torture, pre-emptive warfare, loyalty oaths, the rape of the environment, the rejection of science, the favoring of the wealthy and the corporate over the average citizen, the rejection of morals other than those defined by a narrow, bigoted interpretation of the Bible, the destruction of the separation of church and state, and the enshrinement of "morality" that declares some citizens to be less than others. For me to smile and to say, good fight, guys, is for me to betray everything I fought for and will continue to fight for. It would also be to admit that you and your ilk have won. You haven't. This is only one of many battles. So I repeat: gracious, my ass!
Besides, as Miss Manners has made clear on many occasions, shunning and rebuking one's enemies is perfectly good manners. -
No, Andy, don't bother taking out US citizenship. One new voter, or 100,000 new voters won't make a difference. US political culture cannot be changed by importing progressives. Think Malthus: the indigenous culture will always reproduce itself at a geometric rate, while imported resources can at best increase only arithmetically. The only solution is to change the indigenous culture from the bottom up. The US has to open up to the world, become less smug and inward-looking. As long as Americans grow up with one hand over their hearts, worshipping the state and its symbols, free thought will not flourish. (The problem with the Pledge of Allegiance isn't that it contains the words "under God"; the problem is the Pledge of Allegiance.) At the same time, political progressives have to do a better job of connecting with the everyday concerns of average families. Sure, John Kerry would have promoted stem-cell research, but his presidency would have been little more than playing soothing music to the passengers on the Titanic. Anyway, I can't be very enthusiastic about someone who gets his kicks from killing animals for sport and then boasts about his sickness to show he's a real man.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 01:39 PM
-
Everybody has, or can have manners. But amongst friends it is considered good manners to be honest, which is what we are doing here. If I were making a speech in Kerry's position I too would be good mannered.
Or I might use Cheney's version of good manners and tell Bush to go fu... oh, never mind. -
"good manners" would be for a president who gets into office on a margin within the margin of error, to realize he doesn't have a mandate, and to walk very softly indeed so as to not further antagonize that one-half of his constituency who did not want him in office.
republicans do not do good manners. at very least, the ones that get into power have shown no inclination towards such.
and that's the last word i will utter on american politics, probably for as long as i remain in this country. i no longer think it would be wise or safe for a non-citizen like myself to comment on the topic.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 01:41 PM -
That New Zealand post-doc is looking good right now....
#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 11/03 at 02:01 PM
- You better not. Do you really want to surrender the South to the rednecks in pickups with the rebel flag flying from the radio antenna? We all need to represent for the civilized elements of American society, and put these paleolithic religious fanatics in their place. Someplace quiet where they can indulge in their backward little beliefs in peace, but don't get to use them to dictate foreign and domestic policy.
-
Myers,
Who do ya think would win a schoolyard rumble: the Paleolithic religious fanatics or the Paleozoic pea-brained midgets?
Rana,
How you gonna find a nice boyfriend, with all that inner angst?
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 02:13 PM -
8 years ought to be enough time for the chickens to come home to roost.
Unfortunately many will suffer to prove that to be true.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 02:15 PM -
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
If you extrapolate (oooh, there's that word again) from the exit polls on cnn, over 1,500,000 gays voted for Bush (at a rate of 1:3). That rate was 1:2 in the south. Hopefully a statistical oddity, but also rather disturbing.
Also, let me be the first to make the disturbing prophecy that at some point a school district in the US will add creationism to their curriculum, and that the US Supreme Court will NOT shoot it down.
Finally, I was looking for some evidence that Thune was a creationist (he is), and found this: http://www.grandrivermuseum.org/index.htm
How can a place that has a Creationist Museum be so privileged to host the 2005 Smithsonian Travelling Exhibit?
For fucks sake. Hey Paul, this is only a hop, skip, and a jump (well, ok 8 hours) away from you. In the plains states, an 8 hour drive is SHORT!#: Posted by on 11/03 at 02:17 PM -
"It’s not scaring working poor to tell them they won’t have health care; many of them already lack it."
Yes it is. In addition to scaring them, it's also misleading them, because what they lack, usually by choice, is heatlh INSURANCE, not health CARE.
"It isn’t a lie to point out that deficits are putting long-term social safety nets at risk, or that the Bush military has been exploring the draft option."
The military explores lots of things. Good for them. The draft, however, has about as much a chance of returing as the earth does of crashing into the moon.
The social safety nets are not in any danger in the forseeable future, unless you view future revenue collection in static terms, which is a mistake made on the left and the right.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 02:18 PM -
Bob,
"Who do ya think would win a schoolyard rumble: the Paleolithic religious fanatics or the Paleozoic pea-brained midgets?"
Are you suggesting a split within the Republican party?!
DD - I suspect that you're only partly right - I think this will play out in the economy over the next 20 years, so the results may never be conclusively assignable to Bush. I suspect that something could go sufficiently wrong in Iraq to make finger-pointing somewhat easier however. Sadly. - Ken - Why do we have a selective service board? We don't have a moon impact board. Do we?
-
PaulH,
Heh, good one!
Maybe, you can spread some mirth to the dejected, bearded-logothete, who runs this blog
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 02:23 PM -
So, Bob, you can't address any of my real concerns, so you resort to those old canards of "She's angry, she must need to get laid" and "If a woman wants a man she has to be a doormat"? (Both would be a big surprise to my boyfriend, btw.)
Pitiful. And oh so typical of your sort. -
Ken,
People choose to go without health insurance instead of choosing to go without food and shelter. Been there done that. People do not choose to go without health insurance/care instead of buying golf club memberships. And, children have no choice in the matter at all.
Why should health insurance be tied to one's job instead of to one's citizenship?#: Posted by on 11/03 at 02:24 PM -
Uh-Oh, I have perturbed the lovely Rana,
So, Bob, you can’t address any of my real concerns,..
Umm, you mean, this unhinged rant, er, expression of these "concerns":
..state-sponsored torture, pre-emptive warfare, loyalty oaths, the rape of the environment, the rejection of science, the favoring of the wealthy and the corporate over the average citizen,
You've never taken a loyalty oath in your life! Rape of the environment? Puh-leeze, way too extreme, Rana.
so you resort to those old canards of “She’s angry, she must need to get laid”
Well, I hadn't really thought about that, but, Yeah!
and “If a woman wants a man she has to be a doormat”? (Both would be a big surprise to my boyfriend, btw.)
Well, I'm 6'1 and 195 -- How big is he?
Pitiful. And oh so typical of your sort.
I ain't that typical, toots
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 02:35 PM - You seem pretty perturbed yourself, Bob.
-
A problem with Selective Service? More like cowardice in the face of a real threat. It's not global adventurism when your country is attacked by radical militants. You are either naive or a coward if you think we can go back to the pre-9/11 world. And guess what, it takes money to fund a war. Money to rebuild a military gutted by Clinton. Money to aid our true allies. If you don't like the fact that the real majority has spoken, don't let the door hit you in the rear. Gutless. That defines the left in the face of the terror threat.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 02:43 PM
-
Not like the right, which fearlessly withdrew troops from Afghanistan to wage war against Hussein because he really, really didn't like us. Bush can repeat as many times as he likes that the world is safer without Hussein, but the fact is we don't know because we haven't got a clue what the long-range fallout will be. In the meantime we spend a billion dollars a week on that war, while dozens of safety issues we have at home go short of cash.
The sad fact is that a majority of the electorate thought that waging war against Iraq made us safer from terrorists who had precious little to do with Iraq. But they're all A-rabs, right, so we should just kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. -
This was the best summary of the election I've read thus far. Many people around the world gave Americans the benefit of the doubt about the Bush years, thinking that they'd been duped into a Bush presidency by the intricacies of their electoral system.
It seems that America liked what it got, since Bush's lead grew as a result of his policies. It is time to retire the notion that the events of the past four years were contrary to the will of the American people. -
No need for self flagellation.
What's happening in America is both unbelievable and insidious. The Republicans are operating on a plane that defies gravity. You show them Military Generals explaining that monumental strategic and tactical errors have been made in the war on terror, and it begets dull stares like bovines contemplating a pocket watch. Then they'll poll and tell you that they trust Dubya more than Kerry to defend them against terrorists, and go to the polls in droves to vote against gays getting married while Iraq turns into a theater of deadly absurdities.
The Republican propaganda machine has essentially removed half of the American electorate from the realm of cogent, rational political discourse.
Something as simple as stating the need to re-educate and re-introduce the concept of Liberalism (as something other than a cuss word) back into the American vocabulary (in theory we should all consider ourselves Liberals) kinda tells the whole story about a major, long-term propaganda success story.#: Posted by Ghost Dansing on 11/03 at 03:03 PM -
For some reason, I'm reminded of the movie 'Ship of Fools'. Passengers on a ship returning to Germany around 1935 are politely discussing the regime change to brown shirts in Germany. Some are concerned, but a very nice, well-mannered Jewish salesman calms them with "Oh, come on, can it be as bad as all that? What are they going to do, kill us all?"
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 03:05 PM
-
DD,
The situation you describe is rare. The substantial percentage of people without health insurance are healthy and don't choose to purchase it. The main reason they do that is because they can add, which really comes in handy when deciding whether or not to pay for more expensive insurance as opposed to the less expensive method of paying as you go. Those that can't can still get health care.
"Why should health insurance be tied to one’s job instead of to one’s citizenship?"
Because a job allows you to PAY for healthcare, while citizenship does no such thing.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 03:11 PM -
PaulH: Registration of men aged 18 to 26 with Selective Service Board was reinstituted by a law authored by a Democratically controlled House and Senate and signed by a Democratic President in 1980. As for why they didn't see fit to create a Moon Impact Board at the same time you'd have to as the Democrats.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 03:15 PM
-
I was very motivated because I want a president who doesn't hamstring the EPA, ignore the NAS, and put Scalias on the SCOTUS. But look at that. I was reactive, and voting against something, more than for something.
I think the outcome, and the last 10 years of American politics with the exception of Clinton (who was an exceptional politician), indicate that the conservatives have built a very strong message. The Kerryites (like me) mostly voted against Bush, the Bushies voted for Bush. Whether you agree with the message, the conservative message is clear and strong. It's grounded in basic ideals about values, money, freedom, security. They are well-defined and coherent. They have institutions to form their messgae and plans, and discipline at getting the message out. The Democrats just offer a gumbo of technocratic adjustments. The adjustments may be good ones, but there's no grand vision. Hell, I went to Kerry's website and read about his positions, and I greatly prefer them to Bush, but if someone asked me what Kerry's vision for the country is I could barely tell you. I could easily tell you Bush's vision. And that's something that people can be for. On Tuesday I was surprised (and upset) to find how many people came out in favor of that message.
A minor point is that a smart conservative I regularly discuss things with, gives me several examples which cause him to feel that too many Dems are arrogant and condescending. The Begalas, Hillarys, etc., give him the impression that they think they know better than him, want to micromanage him, and will use regulation and judges to enforce an unpopular, top-down system. Whether it's right or not, it's a perception that might not be uncommon.
I want to see, over the next few years, Dems think about what their basic values are, and shape a strong vision of America which will inspire people. And I want them to create think tanks and PR organs to make that vision known to people. If Dems in 2008 try to run again on a grab bag of fixes and improvements, in a reactionary way, the GOP machine will roll over them by millions of votes again.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 03:19 PM -
Slight topic change:
However depressing it is, I'm trying to find a silver lining to the 2004 outcome.
Is there one "positive" that can come from the Republican victory in 2004?
Well, not positive, in the sense that it will be good for our country in the next four years. But, there may be some prospective advantages to not having Kerry (and the Democratic Party) being elected this year.
Unfortunately, this "silver lining" happens to be equally as depressing as having Bush be our president for the next four years...
Within the next four years, it is likely that the United States will be the victim of a massive terrorist attack by al Qaeda - on our own soil. This attack - like 9/11/01 - will unfortunately be of equal magnitude, or worse, will be equally unprecedented.
Prior to last night, each candidate admitted that further attacks on American soil were likely inevitable.
Now, imagine a scenario where John Kerry would have won the election. What would happen if in late 2005, an al Qaeda terrorist kills 25,000 people in a major U.S. city? It doesn't take much imagination to realize the great extent of the damage that would be suffered by the Democratic party. More importantly however, is the damage that would be done to "democracy" itself.
A great majority of the country would automatically (and maybe rightfully) throw all blame on John Kerry and the Democrats - after all, since 9/11 (with Bush as president), our country had been "safe" from terrorism. Technically the blame would (must) fall on the president (Kerry), just as Bush should (must) live up to mistakes made during his first four years.
However, the blame would not fall solely on the back of Mr. Kerry himself. Instead, Americans would forever remember the "mistake" they made when opting out of voting for the tough Texan, the Hawk, the conservative, the God-fearing man who promised us that he would continue to make our country safe.
Americans would remember that it was change that brought this disaster about. It was fighting for human rights that brought this disaster about. It was doing the right thing that brought this disaster about.
A terrorist attack under Kerry's supervision would have been a setback from which the democracy of this country may have never recovered.
If "safety" become more important than The Bill of Rights, then we are doomed.
Americans would learn that it is okay to sacrifice one another's civil liberties in exchange for the country's safety.
But, the fact is that George W. Bush will not make us any safer. At least not any safer than John Kerry would have by the late months of 2005.
The point is, that when this attack comes - and unfortunately it will - I would much rather have it under the watch of George W. Bush, so he can personally feel the consequences of his failings in the war on terrorism. So, people will realize that it is NOT worth voting in a man because of his religious ideologies, it is NOT worth voting in a man who will take from the poor and give to the rich, it is NOT worth voting for a man who is has repeatedly lied to the American people, it is NOT worth voting for a man who has pushed away our greatest allies - just in exchange for a peace that he simply cannot provide.
Hopefully, in the next four years, America will learn that it is important to vote for one's personal beliefs, but it is utterly imperative that we vote for promoting the greater good of the country as a whole.
America, we can never be afraid to fight for the ideals of a great democracy.
Unfortunately, we may just have to learn the hard way.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 03:25 PM - Rich, That's interesting history. But given that the chances of a draft are smaller than being hit by a moon, why has Bush asked that the SSB report to him as ready to be activated in March 2005, rather than ready to be disbanded?
-
Ken: You are wrong. The people most seriously affected by the lack of public health care are working mothers. They do not lack health insurance because they don't need it, because they and their families do.
And please, everyone, Bob Flynn is a mindless shit-stirrer with no serious contributions to make here. Please, please ignore him. -
One bit of excellent news in the results--Damfool Keyes was soundly trounced.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 03:40 PM
-
Steve, I simply cannot understand the people who say that sort of thing.
The Begalas, Hillarys, etc., give him the impression that they think they know better than him, want to micromanage him, and will use regulation and judges to enforce an unpopular, top-down system.
The Clintons and Begalas are opinionated but civil, and try to actually discuss policy. Does he have any appreciation of what the O'Reillys and Malkins and Coulters and Hannitys and Limbaughs and Savages and on and on sound like to us? They are his fellow travelers. They are his voice. And until the conservatives stand up and tell that ilk to shut up, I have no respect for any who dare to accuse liberals of being overbearing. - Mark - good point! What do you think the chances of Obama standing for president in 2008 are? Right now I think the Republicans have got things sown up until at least 2012 so long as Rudy Gulliani decides to run (whatever positive aura Bush has, Rudy has in spades). But it's not clear to me even then that a Kenyan-American can win. Of course that's some time away, but there's a lot of ground to cover. And aside from him I don't see any obvious names in the future - Edwards could perhaps do it if he got a more aggressive vice-president than he was, but Hilary certainly would struggle, and after that I start to run out of 'brand name politicians'!
-
Gutless. That defines the left in the face of the terror threat.
You sure sound pretty brave Sabot for a civilian sitting safe and sound in the rear. How about putting your money where your mouth is and show some guts instead of hiding behind the bravery of others...enlist and volunteer for combat. -
I don't think your respect is the point. The point is that a bright and informed conservative I know gets that sense from liberals, and it turns him off, and I can see why he thinks that. I was talking about possible reasons why 3 million more people voted for Bush yesterday, not why we're really better.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 03:50 PM
-
In any case, I think the general message failure I talked about is fundamentally important.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 03:52 PM
-
Something as simple as stating the need to re-educate and re-introduce the concept of Liberalism (as something other than a cuss word) back into the American vocabulary (in theory we should all consider ourselves Liberals) kinda tells the whole story about a major, long-term propaganda success story.
I agree.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 03:56 PM -
Kos talks partly about the problem:
It wasn't the war or the economy that killed us. It was the notion of "values".
Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, yet Kerry was bad because he had "Massachusetts values" or other such nonesense.
We need to retake the language. We need to reframe the notion of "value".
That's why Obama's speech below is so brilliant. He speaks of God in a way that not just fails to offend this atheist, but inspires me. It's faith used for the purpose of living a good life, rather than faith wielded as a weapon against a whole class of people.
The wedges: gays, abortion, and guns.
Democrats have abandoned guns as an issue, and over the next three or four cycles it will prove an increasingly ineffective wedge. The NRA won. Good for them.
That leaves the two "faith based" wedges -- gays and abortion. And with great skill, the Republicans have equated those two issues with the word "value".
That's going to have to change.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 04:04 PM -
Obama shouldn't run in 2008. He is in a safe seat and still young. I'd like to see him work his way up to a senate leader before he runs for president or vice president.
I think the message of this election is that the Democrats need a progressive candidate from the heartland. The Democrats need a candidate that whom rural voters fell understands them.
Of course an issue is who do the Republicans put forth in 2008? The top contenders, McCain, Guilianni, do not satisfy the theocrats. I bet Jeb and Ashcroft will run for the nomination.#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 11/03 at 04:08 PM -
PZ, Working mothers with small children are almost always young, and represent one of the healthiest demographics in the history of the world. While I'm in favor of a lot of "free" health services, it needs to be means tested to guard against the incentives working against the original goal.
Steve, your conversative friend decribed the dilemna rather nicely. Whether it's choice in healthcare, housing, etc., "liberals"- or whatever someone chooses to label them-consistently try to limit freedom of economic choice and the ability to self govern through the ballot box.
DarkSyde,
Sabot has been banned, but speaking as his former college roommate, I can assure you he put his money where is mouth is and is currently on active duty, helping to ensure our nation's continued freedom.
Anyone, what are the rules of this forum?#: Posted by on 11/03 at 04:08 PM -
Then Sabot's immature Ken. There are many of us who read and comment on this board who've not only served our country but gone to war for her. From WW2 to Iraq. I know of at least one guy who's in a wheel chair from an NVA mortor who votes democratic and reads this Blog every day. I know of a lady struggling with a bewildering hodgepodge of auto-immune like systems she's suffered ever since Desert Storm who probably read his comment.
There are many other vets here as well who voted for Kerry. These are his brothers and sisters in arms, many of whom took an oath and fought for his right to live free before you he was born. He just called those distinguished men and women 'gutless' simply because they voted for another candidate in a Presidential Election. He owes them an apology. If he's willing to do that I might be able to help him rejoin the board. -
No, that is not the healthiest demographics. It is one of the greatest at-risk cohorts. Have you ever heard of the phrase, "infant mortality"? Have you ever taken a walk through a 19th century graveyard? Because that's what you and your kind would return us to.
What planet are you from? You want to pretend that providing health care to the poor limits your economic choice...but what about the deficit? Tax cuts to the rich and giveaways to Big Pharma? It is utterly ridiculous that "conservatives" whine about helping those who need it most, while ladling out the gravy to those who don't and bankrupting the economy.
And what are you talking about, "Sabot has been banned"? No one has been banned here. -
I would like to announce some really good news from my area. In the race for GA's 12th congressional district, the highly conservative republican lap dog, Max Burns, was defeated by the very liberal John Barrow. As a lawyer he took on big buisness and won. As a city councilman, he routinely was the lone dissenter when the policies were not liberal enough. Barrow will probably be one of the most liberal white representatives in congress.
http://www.barrowforcongress.com/issues.html
It was a close race, and the new Republican power structure in Georgia will try to redistrict him out of a seat by next election. But for at least the next two years I have a voice in congress.#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 11/03 at 04:34 PM - It's one of the greatest oddities that the GOP has some managed to convince people that providing health care to poor and disabled Americans would somehow result in their own haelth care being 'rationed. As if HMO's weren't already rationing it, or as if it wasn't already rationed by their own pocketbooks. Health Care policies for those of us who are fortunate enough to be covered won't suddenly disintegrate into dust simply because the poor and handicapped are offered basic health care.
-
While I was away it seems that PZ has done a fine job of clarifying for Ken my position on healthcare and insurance. Thanks. As I understand your position, children should work for their healthcare, or have the good sense to born into better funded families.
You want means testing Ken ... How about means testing mortgage deductions which started as a universal good to help bring families into the middle class and has turned into a subisdy of McMansions for the well to do.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 04:53 PM -
Seeing the link about Thune's creationist ties made me think about something else. Where can we find a listing of creationist politicians. I had to dig and search to find out the real dirt on state school board and judicial candidates, but it seems there should already be some list out there to help us avoid the Kansas-school-board type of freaks who voted to include Protestant Christian Creationism in the science curriculum.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 04:53 PM
-
All of the above was addressed to Ken (not PZ as it may imply) ...
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 04:55 PM
-
I have seen a few posts here and elsewhere today suggesting that Republicans are for Bush and Democrats are against Bush. I dont know where this comes from. Where I live it is quite common to hear everyone and their mother editorialize about how evil liberals are. Liberals will take down the dams, liberals wont let us cut every tree we can find, liberals wont let our children lead prayer at school assemblies, liberals want to let gay people live next door, liberals dont like loud trucks, liberals want to let the native Americans govern their reservation, liberals ....
People, they are voting against liberals, not for Bush. The only thing they know about Bush is that he hates liberals and listens to Jesus, so he is one of them, one way or the other (but probably not both ways). Most of the rednecks I know only go to church so their wives will let them watch football in peace the rest of the day.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 05:03 PM - It's pretty fightening that the world continues to kill each other over who's bronze aged fairy tale is the 'truth'. The wife and I have a back up plan to move to Sweden-Amsterdam area if things get really bad. China is a possibility also.
-
DS,
The only foreign language I speak well is Canadian English ... but then I have relatives there,and years of being around motorcyles has made my metric conversion ability pretty good, so that could help
. I think it is even colder in Winnipeg than it is in Minnesota though. My wife the former Californian may object, but she is pretty tough.
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 05:17 PM -
It is true that the republican media machine of hate has been successful in demonizing "liberalism." However, the concepts of liberalism are pretty much safe. Polls indicate that a strong majority of Americans do support "liberal" policies over "conservative" policies. The problem is that the conservatives have been able to convince the people that shit tastes good when it is sold as a candy.
We should be careful in judging the outcome of gay marriage votes. Bans on civil unions would not have recieved the same support. From what I've read, Americans associate the word "marriage" with sex, and thus see a vote against gay marriage as a vote against two men having sex with one another. For whatever reason, the same emotional connection is not made with "civil union."
That is why states like mine have to hide bans on civil unions behind bans of gay marriage. We voted to ban gay marriage, but the amendment had a rider on it which also banned civil unions, partner benifits, etc. I am confident that state judges will throw it out as violationing the established amendment process. (If there is one thing judges like to do, is toss things out on procedure.)#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 11/03 at 05:18 PM -
steve,
With all due respect, abortion is not a faith wedge/issue/concept/etc. It's a medical decision. Just because Republicans wish to ignore reality, the crucial fact remains: the risk of death from a term pregnancy is 1: 10,000, while the risk of death from a 1st trimester abx is 1:263,000. Medical decisions should be made by the patient, in consulation with her physician, and they need to be based on facts. They shouldn't be made by Republicans (or any other type of politician, for that matter) and they shouldn't be based on value judgements. -
It’s pretty fightening that the world continues to kill each other over who’s bronze aged fairy tale is the ‘truth’.
What's more frightening is that it is the same damn fairy tale.#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 11/03 at 05:23 PM -
Reed,
I wish I could agree with you, but I really believe that the scare tactic used is the implication that these people will be allowed to lead normal lives as anybody's next door neighboor. They can handle other cultures (which is how they look at gay people ... and Volvo drivers) as long as they are kept somewhere else, like big cities.
Many people feel comfortable expressing very basic group bigotry like this, even though they would not apply it to someone they know personally. (Dick and Lynne accept their gay daughther, but it is not right to talk about it in public). Republicans shamelessly pander to these fears and insecurities and throw in the possibility of eternal salvation to close the deal.
All we got is facts and common sense.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 05:29 PM -
Donkey,
The republicans did play to the fears of voters. But we should be careful to not project our views onto the people who voted against gay marriage. We see little to no difference between "marriage" and "civil unions." For whatever reason, a large proportion of Americans do see a difference. One poll I saw last night had less then 30% of Americans supporting no legal recognition of homosexual couple. About 35% of Americans support civil unions but not "marriage."
Remember when it was controvercial that Vermont had "civil unions?" Now it appears that for many states, even ones that voted against gay marriage, "civil unions" is the compromise position. That is a great sign.
We should be very careful in interpreting these "marriage" referendums as a referendum against legal rights for gay couples.#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 11/03 at 05:39 PM -
Y'all go ahead and feel bad about your surroundings. I just looked at the newspaper here, and this county voted 82% for Bush. Fuck, I knew it was bad, but really.....
#: Posted by on 11/03 at 06:09 PM
-
Even though I do not have a right to vote in this country, I have tremendous respect for the personal freedoms available to individuals here. I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that these might be on the decline. Correct me if I am wrong here.
This might be anecdotal, but a colleague of mine who voted for President Bush told me today that he doesn't consider the Democrats to stand for anything. I went on to ask him what his ideal world would be and his reply was that a world where there is no discord and everyone thinks alike and believes in the same thing.
He is religious and even though he accepts my not believing in his religion, his ideal world is still one where I think like him.
I am guessing that he is not alone in the way he thinks. I am not sure of what kind of numbers of people like him make up Bush supporters but thinking about it, this thinking seems directly anti-thetical to the core ideas of this country's foundation. -
So how do we beat them at their own game? We need the quick, easy language that takes an immensely complex issue and boils it down to a short sentence. "Republicans want to: a) give your money to private corporations b) destroy public schools c) eat your babies" (well, maybe only Cheney and Rove want the latter)
We've tried these messages; and they don't catch. Somewhere out there there's a way to describe (or caricature) the Republican adjenda in a way that will resonate.
Thought number two: It's time to let your favorite potential Dem <a ref="http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/6/12/204129/368"> candidate </a> know that you're there for them. We need to start building organizations now. We need regular, in depth policy and strategy conversations, in private, in public, in print. We need to start cementing in people's (not just democrats) minds the issues that will belong to us next time out. (Just a note, my link above in no way constitutes an endorsement of his list. Some on there I think would be disastrous. Two intriguing ones to me are Bill Richarson and my very own Russ Feingold)
Thought number three: It's time to start the revival of the labor union. These are large, powerful groups built around people's economic interests; they work hard at educating their members and communities. Make supporting unions and buying union goods a moral issue. A values issue, if you will. Maybe it's just me, but I think the decline of the union has had a terrible effect on this country.
Finally, we have to have a voice in the restructuring of the Democratic Party leadership. Write your personal democrats, and if you have none, write someone else's. Let them know what you think. For that matter, write your republicans.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 06:42 PM -
Nick Kristof thinks the problem is the Dems are trying to sell
technocratic issues to people like me, instead of values to large groups. He mentions the perception of liberal arrogance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html?hp#: Posted by on 11/03 at 07:01 PM -
Good god. What a sack of reasons for being disillusioned
Dubya's re-election has given us.
From the possibility that this smirking mope may get us into a war with Iran by 2009 to the wacky hijinks he's liable to pull with the Supreme Court if - or rather,
when - a justice either retires or dies (and keep in mind
that the latter possibility has just gone up exponentially with Rehnquist's illness), this election has all the makings of being the other shoe dropping just as the Dred Scott case was back in 1857.
Although I'm lucky enough to live in a Blue state that also managed to thrash one of Dubya's more unintentionally comical fellow travellers (Alan [expletive] Keyes went
down in Illinois like the political Titanic that he is), I'm not laughing. The malaise I feel right now is about as pleasant as the one I felt during the USSC decision that got Bush "elected" in 2000 or the one I felt when I found out about Stephen Jay Gould's death, and the worst thing about it is that the reality of it all hasn't really sunk in yet. When it does, I intend to have a bottle of strong drink in my hand.#: Posted by on 11/03 at 07:06 PM - A lot of the folks around here voted for Bush I'm told because they percieve Bush to be more friendly to NASA (doubtful) and the defense-aerospace business (Likely true).
-
Take a deep breath now, and look at the bigger picture. History, as I noted in Another Place, is a river that cuts its own channels. This undercurrent has been eroding the banks of liberal democracy for the past 40 years or more. While the Right has been proclaiming the Life and Times of Liberal Democracy and the implied death of it, since the 1970s, we ought to realise that the Left has done its own to contribute to that demise.
So here we are and another secular democracy suffers from the motion of this current. It is sad, particularly for those institutions of enlightenment such as the NIH, educational institutions, and so on, but it is the inevitable outcome of militarising and corporatising that democracy after the second world war.
And the same undercurrents affect Europe, Asia, Russia, Africa and South America. A few nations will try to retain liberal democracy, and in the end fail, because enlightened democratic principles are contrary to the vested interests of most societies.
The only difference here is that it is the largest English-speaking nation that has suffered, but in case you all failed to notice, Russia has removed state-level democracy, racism is on the rise in Europe, genocide is being allowed to go unpunished or prevented, and generally this is not the Age of Reason any more.
What to do? Ho