I agree with Liaps: this is not the end of the world. However, it may be the end of my interest in politics. Politics, for me, has been an excercise in impotence all along.
Though I failed to vote in the 2000 election, as a Florida voter it does not escape me that my vote would never have counted anyway -- I'm not on the Supreme Court. It was these events, which I perceived as an affront to America's very self-governing system, that made me interested in politics.
When thousands of Americans died in September 2001, I struggled to understand the sudden outpouring of goodwill for Now-Actually-President Bush, who didn't seem to be doing all that much to me, and who I at least partly blamed for our nation's greatest defense failure.
When Bush geared up for war in Iraq, it was clear to me that he did so maliciously. I became convinced that the administration's evidence for WMD was at best mistaken, and at worst forged. I took part in all these different demonstrations and marches and sit-ins and pow-wows. I tried to convince anyone that would listen that war was not the answer, that weapons might not exist, that Iraq posed no threat. Nobody listened to me and my liberal rantings. On invasion day, it was all for nothing.
And now, this. Anyone who bothered to educate themselves on the subject would have known that Bush does not belong in the White House. He's made mistake after mistake, made our lives and our lifestyles less and less secure, and turned us further against each other. Voting for Kerry should have been a no-brainer. But instead, the majority of Americans voted for "more of the same."
It's obvious to me that this election had nothing to do with policies or track records or moral strength. It was all spin, and Republicans have Democrats powerfully outspun. I'm disappointed that so many are so easily fooled. I shouldn't be surprised, but I expected more. What an idiot I've been.
I think I was happier four years ago. Today I feel demoralized and defeated, and I think all the thought and interest that I put into this election was a total waste. But why should I have ever cared? So the courts decided the 2000 election -- it was just Coke vs. Pepsi anyway. So some buildings fell in New York -- hell, I've never even been to New York. So some brown people and some white kids died in the desert thousands of miles away. That has nothing to do with me.
So there it is. I'm not interested in politics anymore, and it's a load off my back. Keep turning, world. Keep burning, bed. Nuke the polar ice caps and exile the homosexuals. I'm totally okay with that.
I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic toward the end there. (Although with Andrew, you never know.)
Dude - have you really never been to NY?? You should come visit while I (and it) am still here. If seeing me isn't enticement enough, I live in Chelsea - plenty of homosexuals to exile!!
I understand the inclination to go back to dismissing all things "politics." Selfishly, I hope you decide against that course of action. Because I like reading and hearing your opinion. [Here's where we embrace; and so begins our future of fighting evil together. If they don't ship us off to Fire Island when they see us embrace.]
It's just all so heartbreaking.
I would like to visit NY though.
Ugh... I should stop reading blogs for a few days. I'm tired of Republicans who think they were entirely vindicated with a massive mandate, ingnoring the fact that they won a near-sweep of offices with a narrow majority of support.
And I'm equally tired of progressives who have decided that 2000 was rigged and 2004 can only be explained by the theory that the millions of Bush voters were stupid, ignorant, blind and deaf.
In democracy, other people often win. If you want to take your bat and your ball and go home, that's fine. But if everyone who feels that way follows your lead, the conservatives really will have that mandate next time around.
Or, to paraphrase Shakespeare: What does it matter how a man falls down? When the fall is all that's left, it matters very much.
But if everyone who feels that way follows your lead, the conservatives really will have that mandate next time around.
What's the difference? As long as Bush thinks he has a mandate, he'll act like he does. If this year's efforts amounted to nothing, why should any other year be any different? If elections had anything to do with policy, Bush wouldn't have been reelected. So if elections really are just about public perception, why on earth should I care?
And I'm equally tired of progressives who have decided that 2000 was rigged and 2004 can only be explained by the theory that the millions of Bush voters were stupid, ignorant, blind and deaf.
What can I say? 2000 was totally rigged, and I completely believe that millions of Bush voters were ignorant (or at least gullible). What am I supposed to think? If millions of people add 2 + 2, and it comes out 5, am I supposed to see the other side of the facts? Is there any way that "failure in Iraq" and "failure to protect us here" and "economic failure" and "foreign policy failure" adds up to "re-elect Bush"? I don't think so.
I really do want to be able to believe that democracy is a good thing. But I can't help but notice that the majority of people are ignorant. Democracy fails when this is the case. I think this year democracy failed.
Look, if the Bush administration has convinced a majority of people that invading Iraq was a good idea, so be it. They're not saying 2+2=5 - they're saying butter rum is best flavor of ice cream. That may be ridiculous; I hardly know anyone who can even stomach butter run ice cream, but that doesn't make it an illegitimate opinion.
There are genuinely a lot of people - people with good intentions who don't want to kill everyone brown or gay or Jewish - who really believe that abortion should be banned to protect lives, that religion should be part of public education and that the government can be trusted with vast police powers with little judicial or public scrutiny.
Having a good idea is only half the battle - selling it is the other half. Andrew, you should understand as well as anyone that Betamax was superior to VHS - so much so that it's almost hard to argue - but the masses were convinced to adopt VHS, so it won. Had Sony or Kerry been better at convincing people they were better and could make others' lives better, that would have prevailed.
If the root of the problem is that Republicans outspin Democrats, then support efforts to cut through the spin and/or beef up the Democrats' abilities.
The Bush Administration may be doing everything in its power to strangle it, but there is an important and legitimate role in this country for loyal opposition.
Also, remember that political trends like this are cyclical. As the extreme Republicans muscle out moderate Republicans and pretty much all Democrats, their positions will move further to the right. Eventually, they'll alienate enough moderates and the Democrats will find a messenger who connects with the public (i.e. Bill Clinton), and the Republicans will be reminded what it felt like to be on the losing end of the 1994 midterms.
More opponents speaking out speeds up that cycle.
More opponents walking away slows it down.
but the masses were convinced to adopt VHS, so it won.
Supposedly because porn was available on VHS.
Hmm, your home-video analogy wins me over.
Ahh... I thought it might.
By the by, I've heard (and believe) that many of the technological advances on the Internet - streaming video, file formats, etc. - were driven by the porn industry and never would have flourished otherwise.
I'm not sold by the Betamax argument, since it basically points out that if people had been less ignorant they would have made the right choice. I'm sure the information about both machines was out there, and maybe the information campaign was inadequate, but ultimately people have to choose to be informed consumers.
There's a big difference between spin and misinformation. The sheer number of people who STILL don't realize that Saddam and al Qaeda were not linked, or that we still haven't found a single WMD, is astounding. A big part of the Tom Daschle defeat was because the opposition somehow managed to portray him as "celebrating abortion" (was there a parade I missed?), but this is a man who is pro-life, has repeatedly said he is pro-life, and who co-sponsored the partial-birth abortion ban. What else is he supposed to do in the face of deliberate attempts to misinform voters?
I don't think the ice cream analogy really applies either, given that we don't all have to eat the same kind of ice cream but we do all have to have the same President. If we didn't, I'd be taking nominations for the position of President of Kimberlistan right now.
I nominate myself. Baby, I could govern you like nobody ever has before! (Sorry, James).
Well, Berl, I agree with some of that... it's incredibly frustrating to me how many people have been convinced of things that are patently incorrect, i.e. the WMD in Iraq question.
Maybe it's just a defense mechanism, but I choose to believe that 5 million people didn't vote based on being stupid or duped. I think a large portion of them genuinely believe the county will be better off under President Bush. That's a scary thought to many of us, but I reiterate my main argument for how this happened: John Kerry was just a bad candidate.
He might have been a great president, but that's not entirely the point. I know lots and lots of people who voted for Kerry - I don't think I know a single person who was excited about it. The vast majority, in fact, were making a vote for ABB - Anyone But Bush.
Clearly Bush was disliked enough that ABB generated millions of votes, but not quite enough. In the final analysis, I don't think Kerry ever really stood for the things that many of Bush-opposing friends wanted.
On issues like abortion and gay marriage, he was either personally or politically compelled to avoid taking a powerfully progressive stance. Instead, he expressed wishy-washy personal opposition but said he opposed having government involved in banning it. A reasonable, nuanced stance? Sure. One that's going to energize or excite progressive voters? Hardly.
He had a similar problem on defense: you can say all day that Iraq was a bad idea based on incorrect (and possibly DELIBERATELY incorrect) information, but that ship has sailed. I followed this race awfully closely, and never heard him say with any clarity what he would do about the situation as it exists today.
I'm not saying Kerry would've won if he was more stridently liberal, but I am saying that it's hard for me to believe that Bush duped millions of stupid or easily-misled voters - because the alternative wasn't really that compelling in his own right.
To oversimplify it, ask this: is there any doubt that Bill Clinton would've won if he could've run again? I don't think so. He was masterful at conencting with voters and giving them reasons to vote for him, rather than just voting against his opponent. I've got to believe that somewhere in the Democratic Party, there's at least one other person capable of that.
Maybe it's just a defense mechanism, but I choose to believe that 5 million people didn't vote based on being stupid or duped. I think a large portion of them genuinely believe the county will be better off under President Bush.
And I say they believed that because they were duped. The GOP knows how to manipulate the news media really, really well. Just look at the whole idiotic Swift Boats mess. It makes me sick just thinking about it.
And yeah, John Kerry is no Bill Clinton, but who is? We at Furdell.com liked Dean, but I'm well aware that had he been the candidate, they would have latched onto his "temper" or his silly yell at that one rally or what have you. And if anyone else had been the candidate, they would have latched onto who-knows-what, and it would've worked great. Instead of complaining about how the candidate was too wishy-washy, you'd be complaining about how he was too liberal to attract moderate voters, for example.
I mean really -- in a choice between a man who has demonstrated himself unworthy of the office, and a man who doesn't take strong enough positions, people would actually choose the former? Do you believe that informed people sat down and reasoned, "well, I know Bush has done everything wrong, and that he's damaged the country almost beyond repair in a wide variety of aspects, but I'm just not excited about Kerry. Guess I'll go with the fucking most awful president of my lifetime." That is not the reasoning process of a sane person.
Do you believe that informed people sat down and reasoned, "well, I know Bush has done everything wrong, and that he's damaged the country almost beyond repair in a wide variety of aspects, but I'm just not excited about Kerry. Guess I'll go with the fucking most awful president of my lifetime."
No, I don't believe that. I believe that lots and lots of people believe Bush has done many things right. As I said before, a lot of well-meaning people voted on a lot of values-based issues - they genuinely believe that pro-choice leaders who resist putting religion in public life are dangerous to the very foundation of the nation.
We disagree with those people, and that's fine, and I'm uncomfortable with the 11 states voting to ban same-sex marriage because it sets a dangerous precedent for letting the majority repress the minority. But it's not because those people are evil.
The fact that progressives insist on portraying conservative middle America that way does no good (and probably a lot of harm) to the progressive cause. Opposing your opponents is good and productive - demonizing them is neither.
As for the last part of your question, I don't think a lot of people voted for Bush because they weren't excited about Kerry. I think a lot of people voted for no one because they weren't excited about Kerry.
Can we get back to the real issue, which, if I'm not mistaken, was electing me president of Kimberlistan so I can quit this awful awful job already??? Many thanks.
The fact that progressives insist on portraying conservative middle America that way does no good (and probably a lot of harm) to the progressive cause. Opposing your opponents is good and productive - demonizing them is neither.
I'm not demonizing anyone -- I'm just being honest. I think people who don't make a lot of money, and most people who do make a lot of money, were voting against all their best interests when they voted for Bush. Therefore I think those people were fooled into doing so, and therefore I think those people are fools. I don't care if they know what I think or how they feel about it -- I'm going to keep thinking it, progressive cause be damned. I'm not one to spin my beliefs.
I think people ... were voting against all their best interests when they voted for Bush.
You may be right, but I have to believe that even under the worst circumstances, the system works better when we don't try and tell other people what's in their best interest.
Don't mistake any of my arguments for being supportive of President Bush's re-election. I'm just frustrated with how many smart, thoughtful people who can make real contributions (and Andrew) are taking the position that losing is an excuse to give up.
I'm just frustrated with how many smart, thoughtful people who can make real contributions (and Andrew) are taking the position that losing is an excuse to give up.
I want to just let this drop, but you keep wording things in ways that subtly offend me.
This time it's your use of the word "excuse." I never wanted to give up on politics. I was kind of into it. It's not like I was searching for some reason to become disaffected. This just happened, and now I feel this way, and there's nothing much to be done about it.
In other words, why don't you throw some of that understanding for the Red States in the direction of us angry Blue Voters?
I'm only subtly offending you? I'm usually much more effective at blatantly offending people by this point.
I guess my only real point is that there is something to be done about it. I have no idea exactly what it is, mind you, but somehow resignation doesn't seem like the best or only choice.
Then again, maybe it is. What the hell do I know.
Fuck it; it's Friday afternoon after a long election season and I'm so tired I can barely hold my coffee.
OK, I officially rescind everything I've said in this thread after reading this story.
The Texas Board of Education has used its clout as the nation's second-largest buyer of textbooks to get major publishers to change references to "married partners" to "husbands and wives" to leave no doubt that only heterosexual marriage is acceptable.
The revolution is coming, I suppose. Game on.
I wish I thought Pinz was right all along, but really the last comment rings true - at least to me. I grew up in the South and the vast majority of people there will definitely vote against their economic interests and do want desperately to control how others live their lives. And if their own lives (economics, etc) get worse? Well, that'll just make heaven so much sweeter.
The culture war really is on; the lunatics have taken over the asylum. It's so bad that I'm not even angry or depressed anymore. Just kind of numb. Ever see Cabaret? We're in the middle of the second act.
Okay, I'll stop blathering and go back to lurking. Nice blog btw. Keep up the good work.