[2004.11.20 - 06:00 P.M.] Genetic Schmenetic
Over at AmericaBlog, John-in-DC is unleashing some righteous fury at the Washington Post for agreeing to distribute a magazine insert attacking homosexuals. From the sound of it, there's some pretty egregious stuff in there, and I hope the Post doesn't try to duck responsibility for this lapse in judgement by hiding behind some "advertising neutrality" policy. That aside, I would like to take issue with this paragraph in John's post:
In [the supplement] you learn things like the fact that sexual orientation isn't genetic. Why? Because if it were genetic it would have to be passed by gay parents who don't have kids! Putting aside a number of holes in that theory, there's the more general scientific point about recessive genes. My point is that this filth isn't even scientifically correct, and the Post is publishing it. I didn't realize the Post had no problems publishing junk science targeting minority groups. Huh.
Excuse me, but have we actually found the gene that causes homosexuality? Because if we did, I must have missed that news story.
I happen to be quite skeptical of the notion that complex behaviors such as sexual preference can be reduced to genetics. I imagine there are some biological factors that make one more or less prone to homosexuality -- possibly something related to hormonal balance? -- but I doubt that those factors function in any strictly deterministic fashion. From what I have read on the subject and from my own personal experience, I have come to believe that the constellation of personality traits that make up our sexual being can, more often than not, be traced back to "imprinting" experiences during early development and adolescence. Random life events coinciding with periods of psychological vulnerability can and do influence what "look" we're attracted to, what turns us on and what doesn't, what fetishes we get stuck with, and, yes, our homo- or hetero- orientation. It's not a simple matter of a protein here and another protein there in our genetic makeup.
Whether you agree with that take or not, here's my point: I think it is cowardly and ultimately damaging to defend gay rights using the rationale that homosexuality is genetic, rather than a choice. When you make that case, you're tacitly admitting that gayness is a pathological state of some kind. You're saying that, yes, it's undesirable, but it's not their fault, so we should extend them our sympathies (and their rights) out of the kindness of our "normal" hearts.
This is nonsense. It shouldn't matter whether homosexuality is genetic, developmental, or a completely arbitrary "lifestyle choice". Gay rights should be defended because homosexuality is a behavior which poses no threat to me, to you, or to society at large. Gay rights should be defended because these people are human beings who aren't doing anything wrong. I think that, once people really understand and accept that, they'll stop worrying about what "causes" homosexuality.
|
John W. Snow
P.S. Don't forget, as a Plutonium-Select
cardmember, for every dollar you spend, you'll earn up to 2% in
"Boondoggle Bucks"! This program allows you to purchase selected items
from the Department of Defense's "Big N' Pointless" catalogue: Attack
submarines, missile defense shields, even bunker-busting nukes! You
name it!
Developing...
[2004.11.16 - 12:51 PM] Blue Solution Watch
Salon has a
very good article on the rapidly spreading notion of Blue-State
Federalism as a response not just to November 2nd's disappointing
results, but to the larger, ongoing failure by Democrats and
progressives to hold onto any kind of meaningful power at the national
level. This one's worth clicking through the annoying ad for,
people:
What we're seeing, [Cannavo] says, is the growth of
blue-state nationalism, a new sort of identity politics forced into life
in reaction to the relentless insults of red America. For years now,
conservatives have excoriated liberals in almost exactly the same way
that previous right-wing movements demonized Jews -- as unwholesomely
cosmopolitan, traitorous, decadent, inclined to both socialism and
economic elitism. Right-wing authors like Michael Savage, Sean Hannity
and Ann Coulter routinely try to write their opponents out of the
nation.
..
Democrats are starting to get this, which is partly
why the results of this election felt so personal. "We are being
attacked and really caricatured," says Cannavo. "There's been an attack
on the blue states as out of touch with the country. You had 48 percent
to 51 percent in the election, but the 48 percent is considered somehow
illegitimate."
Many of the people in that 48 percent are not content
to be ruled by people who, beyond disagreeing with them, seem to despise
them. They'll seek other ways to exercise power. "Over the history of
this country," says Cannavo, "we have had states taking the lead on
certain issues and then even banding together to sue the federal
government. The Northeastern states have taken action on air pollution.
Can this be magnified in terms of issues like health insurance? Yes. The
question, though, is how far can this go. Would you eventually reach a
point of a kind of loose federation where you have two countries
pursuing their own domestic policies?"
That's essentially the idea. Clearly, it marks an
attenuation of progressive dreams for America. But at least it means
there's something liberals can do to further their own ideals in the
face of Republican domination. For the next four years, Democrats will
be forced to watch as the New Deal is dismantled.
The states can give them a place to rebuild.
Good stuff. Just remember, you heard it here
first.
UPDATE: The Salon article above refers at some length to an
article titled "The Urban Archipelago" in The Stranger. It's
quite the manifesto. Well worth the read, however. Particularly if,
like me, John Mellencamp's song "Small Town" has always made you want to
throw up...
|
[2004.11.15 - 12:56 PM] The Definition Of Insanity
What's that old saw about the definition of insanity? That it's when
you do the same thing over and over and expect different results? In
that case, the Democratic Party is clearly insane. Look what they've gone and done in
picking our new Senate Minority Leader:
He is a teetotaling Mormon, a former Capitol Hill
police officer who opposes abortion and was a cosponsor of the
constitutional amendment banning flag-burning. He is a little-known
senator from a red state whose considerable skills do not include being
a compelling presence on television or behind a lectern.
Yet for all that, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada.. is
about to become the new Senate minority leader..
Well, now, isn't that special? Given an electoral map that shows the
party's power base centered in the cosmopolitan, urban coast, what could
be more eminently sensible than sending a Red State conservative to lead
us in what is sure to be a series of unbelievably trying Senate
sessions?
The right is already puffed up about their phony mandate. The
"movement conservatives" are starry-eyed with dreams of one-party rule.
More than ever, we needed to send a signal that they could expect
strong, principled opposition. Instead, we just grabbed our ankles,
greased up, and put an engraved invitation on our backsides.
It's moments like these where I am actually tempted to believe that
the fix is in. That the Dems made a back room deal with the Republicans
to be their perennial patsies. That they are under some sub-rosa
contractual obligation to never fight back. If there's a more
logical explanation for their behavior, I'm unaware of it.
Avedon is justifiably
apoplectic about this:
It gets worse, as young Matt Yglesias points out,
quoting the same NYT piece [as excerpted above]:
Some Democrats looking for a ray of light in the
election argued that [Senator Harry] Reid's amiability might make it
harder for the White House to demonize him.
Ha ha ha. Yes, of course, the Republicans are much
too nice to demonize a sweet guy like Reid - they've only attacked the
others because they were, you know, traitors to the country who
worshiped Osama and Saddam. Gosh, it's a good thing the Democrats have
seen the light and picked someone who doesn't hate America!
Like Matt says:
This "immunization fallacy" needs to be combated in
all its manifestations. People thought after the 2000 election that it
wouldn't be possible to demonize Tom Daschle, the soft-spoken veteran
moderate Senator from very red South Dakota, but it was.
Yes! And that was obviously because he hated America!
He was such a firebrand, too - we all remember how he screamed himself
hoarse for the last four years, don't we? No wonder they had to get rid
of him.
But as we know, the truth is that the modern
Republican Party hates America, and they will drag any Democrat into the
gutter with smears and lies and hateful campaigns of viciousness and the
last thing we need is yet another nice guy to lie down for them... We
needed a party leader who had the spark and the resources to fight back
hard. And this is what they gave us. God. Damned. Fools.
Really.
Great way to boost morale and get everyone ready for four more years
of fighting for the nation's future. Fucking sell-outs.
|
[2004.11.09 - 09:47 PM] Purple My Ass
Among the many criticisms hurled at us traitorous, America-hating, latte-drinking liberals (actually, I prefer espresso) is the charge that we are prone to over-analyzing things.
You know, on that score, I think the critics may have a point.
Take the whole Red vs. Blue thing. In the immediate aftermath of the election, pundits, bloggers, and normal people alike gathered around the electoral map to ponder the persistence of the Red/Blue divide. America had dug in, they said. The culture war was in full swing. The country was polarized. We were living in Two Americas.
Decent narrative. All the more so 'cause it's basically true.
But no. No, no, no. We couldn't run with that, could we? Of course not. Instead, over the course of the last week, I've seen at least half a dozen lefty blogs tossing up a variety of voting maps at ever-finer levels of granularity. There were county-level maps. There were precinct-level maps. I swear I saw one map which actually showed each individual voter with a red or blue dot on their head, moving about in real time. Each of these maps purported to show the same thing: Most of the blue states had some red in them and most of the red had some blue.
Wow, huh?
Let me see if I get the point of all this. Is it that the Red State / Blue State concept is an oversimplification?
No fucking way? Really?
Here I was thinking there were no Democrats in Texas and no Republicans in Massachusetts. Shit, I was going to take a shovel out to the back yard tonight and see if the dirt in Connecticut is actually blue.
Two words, people: Forest. Trees.
Of course the Red State / Blue State dichotomy is an over-simplification. It happens to be a useful one. Do you know why? Because if you look at any of those maps, regardless of the level of detail, they'll tell you the same thing: Our strongholds are in the Northeast and on the West Coast, and to a slightly lesser extent in the upper Midwest. Those states contain the metropolises which supply our power base. They are where we need to focus our energies. They are where we need to regroup and rebuild before we can mount the electoral counter-offensive to take back this nation.
Yes, we've got a Republican presence in the Blue States, but that doesn't make 'em any less Blue. I don't need a map to tell me that the Northeast is profoundly different from the plains states. I've been there. Where I live, you can't drive five blocks without passing a Dunkin Donuts. Out there, you can't drive five blocks without passing a church. And do you really think Northeastern Republicans are so similar to their Red State counterparts? We've got a few 'Winger fundies up here, but mostly our Republicans are Democrats who have gone astray. They don't want theocracy and they don't want to privatize the entire government. They want fiscal responsibility and they're worried about national security, and they've been bamboozled into thinking the GOP is the answer. If the Bushies keep taking us down the road to disaster (and you know they will) these people will come around.
So print all the maps you want. We are not Purple America. We are a divided nation. Trying to analyze that fact out of existence will not help matters.
|
[2004.11.09 - 09:42 AM] Somerby Goes Nuclear on Red-State Cry-babies
Seems like a lot of people have pretty much had it with being
lectured about picking on those poor, put-upon Red States. From the Daily Howler:
THEM "RED STATE" BLUES: We're so sick of all
that "red state" blubbering (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/6/04) that it
affects us now when we read the newspapers! Example: In this morning's
Washington Post, David Brown reports an annual study which "ranks the
relative health of individual states." Which states are the healthiest?
You can probably guess where this is going:
BROWN (11/8/04): The three healthiest states
are Minnesota, New Hampshire and Vermont. Among other things, their high
rankings reflect low rates of poverty and premature death,
safer-than-average drivers and generous spending on public health.
Minnesota has ranked No. 1 for nine of the past 15 years and has never
been out of the top two.
All three healthy states are "blue." And who is
bringing up the rear? Those boo-hooing "red states," as always:
BROWN (11/8/04): At the other end of the list
are Tennessee, Mississippi and, as in 14 of the past 15 years, Louisiana
in last place.
As a matter of fact, eleven of the top 15 states are
"blue"-and all 15 at the bottom are "red!" And the criteria used in this
study actually seem to favor "red" states. After all, if "snake bites
during religious services" had been one of the study's criteria, the
rankings would probably be less red-friendly than they already are.
Uh-oh! Blubbering "red-staters" will keen and wail
about the slur against their religion! But maybe if they spent more time
building healthy societies, they'd find themselves with less time on
their hands to collect and nurture treasured grievances against those
"contemptuous" "blue-state" "elitists." You know-against the troubling
"blue state elites" which help pay red-staters' way through life? We
can't remember where we saw it, but we recently saw the figures which
show the way the federal government transfers money from the industrious
"blue states" to the blubbering "red." Can someone remind us where we
saw these data? They appeared in some mainstream publication last week,
and we think they deserve some mention when boo-hooing people like
Alterman's e-mailer complain of those harsh, cruel "elites."
On the other hand, maybe red-staters would have more
time to build healthy societies for their children if they weren't so
busy divorcing each other. Despite the impressive "moral values" they
love to vote on, red states lead the nation in divorce-and elite
Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate! Yes indeed, there they
are-drinkin', divorcin' and boo-hoo-hooing about their lack of respect
from the values-free blue! Not that this keeps these troubled
"red-staters" from holding their hands out every year for their annual
federal pay-out-money from their more industrious blue state neighbors,
the ones whose "elitism" they love to attack.
That is some strong brew coming from the incomparable Mr.
Somerby. I'd say he's sounding downright tribal. And you know
what? That's a good thing. We need to draw on every energy
reserve we have available to us. If Blue-on-Red counter-resentment is
the fuel that keeps our fire going, so fucking be it.
|
[2004.11.08 - 05:42 PM] Laughed At By Time, Tricked By Circumstances
Discussing the potential effects of moving to a "partially"
privatized system of Social Security based on individual savings and
investment, Atrios has this
to say:
Conservative trolls like to write "Oh, but if you
lose all your money it's all your fault!" which, after I get a good
laugh at how stupid they are, depresses the hell out of me. First,
investments are not deterministic. They are risky. People who do well in
the market like to believe they're "smart investors." Maybe they are.
But, most of them just got lucky. Being a "smart investor" means that
you know more than the market does, something which can't exist if we
believe the markets are efficient, as our conservative trolls usually
do.
This argument goes right to the greatest of all Conservative
Fallacies: The notion that, for policy purposes, we can treat
individuals as completely in control of their own destiny.
Take a moment and look around you. How did you get the job you have
today? Did you use personal connections or did you compete solely on
merit? Perhaps it came down to some combination of the two. Have you
ever been laid off from a job? How much real control did you
have over that?
How did you wind up in your current career? Did you go to college,
pick a major, graduate, and become a professional in that field? Or did
you take a detour or two and possibly wind up doing something you never
foresaw? How much real control did you have over that? And how
much control will you have over the future market for the skills you've
built up until now?
Were you born into a poor family or a comfortable one? Did you have
parents that encouraged you to pursue an education, or did they lower
your expectations and prime you for failure? How much control
did you have over that?
Looked at with a clear, unsentimental eye, our personal histories
more closely resemble one long series of accident, chance, and
contingency than they do a carefully-planned campaign of action. On
this river of events, we paddle around to the best of our abilities,
exercising what control we can, but we're kidding ourselves if we think
we're totally "in charge" of our lives. Some religious types like to
say that the first step in "getting yourself right" is acknowledging a
"higher power" than the self. I agree. But the "higher power" that has
us all by the short hairy ones isn't some all-powerful being living in
the clouds, it is simply the complexity of the universe we live
in.
Liberal social programs, contrary to conservative propaganda, were
not designed to take away individual initiative or relieve people of
responsibility for their own well-being. They were designed to minimize
individual risk in a complex world. They provide "life" insurance for
the living by distributing a certain amount of individual risk across
society as a whole. Conservatives want to take that insurance policy
away from us.
|
[2004.11.07 - 03:30 P.M.] The Blue Solution: Part II
Federalism for Liberals. That's one way to describe what I've personally decided to advocate for in the aftermath of election 2004: Strategic retreat, regrouping, and strengthening of our liberal, Blue-State strongholds.
Conservatives have been advocating for federalism -- aka "States Rights" -- for decades. In most cases, this principled belief in greater state sovereignty was a thin mask that they used to hide their true desire, which was to keep in place policies that oppressed racial minorities. They had the opportunity during the last four years to show that federalism was something they really believed in, and they blew it. Witness John Ashcroft's zeal in going after states that passed medical marijuana or assisted suicide legislation.
Oddly enough, though, it turns out there may be virtue in federalism after all. In the wake of this week's election -- an election where the GOP used divisive social issues to dramatically boost the turnout of their base -- leaving social legislation to the states is looking like a better alternative than ever. In fact, it may be the only way that those of us in the Blue States of America can protect the progressive advances of the last six decades. It is now clear that much of Red America is profoundly opposed to liberal notions of social progress. They want religion in the courthouse and in the schoolbooks and they want homosexuals to remain second-class citizens, among other things. And guess what? It appears they have the numbers to get what they want.
So why fight it? I mean, other than a concern with fairness, justice, and human rights -- other than those reasons -- why fight it? If Red State voters want to create little theocracies for themselves, I say let 'em. Knock yourselves out, folks. A Ten Commandments monument above every state court bench! Creationism 101 in the classroom. AP Theology for the really "smart" kids. Go for it. Just leave us the hell alone.
Some will argue that a sudden sloppy left-wing embrace of states rights would be hypocritical. They would claim that liberals have been trying to use the federal government to enforce their values nationwide for years, and only now that the shoe is on the other foot are they belatedly realizing the questionable nature of that approach. Fair enough. That charge cannot be entirely denied. But I would counter with this: Precisely what "values" have we tried to enforce? Have we used the government to advocate a particular sectarian viewpoint? Have we used the government to elevate one racial group over another? Have we passed laws mandating that one child per family must be gay and that every sixth pregnancy must be aborted?
No, the real "value" that we've tried to write into law over the years would more properly be described as a meta-value: To wit, that people of all races, creeds, and sexual orientations should be treated equally under the law, and that, insofar as it is reasonably possible, each individual's body should be their own to control. In the case of racial minorities, women, and gays this has required positive action by the government to explicitly afford them the same rights we straight white males take for granted. In the case of preventing tyranny by a religious majority, it has meant assiduously guarding the wall of church-state separation. Contrary to popular belief among conservatives, liberals are not about taking away your rights. We're about taking away your right to infringe on the rights of others.
But I guess that was too much to ask. So Blue State federalism it is.
The devil, of course, is in the details. How do we go about decoupling our interests as Blue Staters from that of the republic as a whole? Rob Salkowitz, not surprisingly, has a few ideas:
In policy terms, this would mean Blue State Democrats should actively oppose all programs whose net impact is a wealth transfer to the Red States. Make a big deal out of this. Challenge Red Staters pride. Stigmatize programs like farm subsidies, use-rights to federal land for mining and grazing, excessive military bases, and net-negative use of programs like AFDC and Food Stamps as handouts. Insist on a dollar-for-dollar parity of money collected from states via taxes to dollars distributed via federal programs, subsidies, tax exemptions, etc. Most Red Staters will buy it because they probably believe they are net contributors rather than recipients of federal largesse.
At the same time, national and local progressives should fight like hell wherever they have big majorities to protect important programs and safeguard individual and group rights in their own communities. We know from experience that these people are never satisfied having it their own way they always seek to inflict their version of the truth on everyone else. Every election, progressive communities will have to deal with some harebrained ballot initiative or other trying to ban gays or impose school prayer we'll just need to swat them down enough times that the crazies give up and go to live in peace in their own regions.
This new spin on States Rights (or Devolution, or Local Sovereignty) has all the makings of a winning 21st century political message: it's simple, it's deeply destructive to the social fabric of the country, and it lets one group externalize all its inner conflicts by pissing all over somebody else. Who needs unity and consensus, when all it does is lose elections for those who are fool enough to advocate for it? Time to leave behind the childish notion that we can all move forward together, when its clear that two halves of the country are dancing to two different drummers. The prosperous and liberal half of the country can get along fine much better, in fact as our own tax base, without the handout-addicted Red States (and Red areas of Blue States) dragging us down. What fools we were to persist in believing in the big One America illusion when the facts were staring us in the face.
Indeed. "Cutting the Cord" with the Red States can only lead to increased prosperity here in Blue territory. It is a fact that, within the range of economic models available in the fifty states, high-tax/high-service states offer a consistently higher standard of living than the low-tax/low-service states ruled by conservative policy makers. Left to our own devices, we will do just fine.
Of course, if the Union is to survive, we will need to pay attention to national politics again at some point, if only so we can have some say in international policy. The Bush Administration and their drones in Congress seem intent on amping up the threat of terrorism by aiding Osama in his recruiting drive. Meanwhile, our international economic policy amounts to a fire-sale on American jobs, which the free-trade zealots are more than happy to send overseas.
A return to prominence at the national level, however, also begins at home. For years we've been squandering our resources in a losing attempt to bring sanity to the nation's dealings. This has left us weak where we live. The GOP has made inroads, gaining congressional seats and governorships even in traditional liberal strongholds. This needs to stop now. In '06, my money and my time is going towards defeating Connecticut's three Republican congressional representatives and our Republican governor. I am going to break new ground personally and take an interest in state politics. I'm going to find out who my state representative is, and if he or she is a GOP'er, I'm going to work to get them fired. I'm going to do my damnedest to take the Nutmeg state from it's current shade of cyan to a deep, indigo blue. I suggest my fellow libs in the Blue States of America do all they can to effect similar changes where they live. Once we've tended to our own houses and strengthened our core resources, we will be ready to take the fight for control of the nation's greater affairs back to the opposition.
One final thing which cannot be overlooked: If the GOP "values" crusaders decide they're not going to leave us alone, we'll need strength in numbers. Each of our states, individually, cannot stand against the power of the federal government. Together, however, we can use what national presence and leverage we have to put up a fight and hold our ground. What this means, at a practical level, is that if New York decides to launch a state program to reimport drugs from Canada and Bush throws a shit fit, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Minnesota need to saddle up and come riding over the hill. If that self-appointed Minister of Purity John Asscroft diverts Justice Department resources to go after end-stage cancer victims in California who opt to use medicinal marijuana, then Washington, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (well, OK, Philadelphia) better have their back. As I said in an earlier post, this would be easier if the parties aligned with the red/blue schism, but whether we can affect such a realignment or not, it is imperative that all Blue State politicians recognize the common interests of their constituents and put that first.
We liberals do have a future in the political life of this country. We just need to look for it a little closer to home than we have been.
|
[2004.11.05 - 10:17 AM] Condescension? Cry Me A River.
Kevin Drum has a post up this morning responding to a quote about
"red state resentment" by that pompous ass Tom Wolfe:
I think support for Bush is about not wanting to be
led by East-coast pretensions. It is about not wanting to be led by
people who are forever trying to force their twisted sense of morality
onto us, which is a non-morality. That is constantly done, and there is
real resentment.
Here's Kevin's response:
I think there's an awful lot to be said for this.
Hell, I'm a coastal blue-state liberal, and even I occasionally get
tired of liberal hectoring. I half suspect that my entire Northern
California readership would disown me if I ever fessed up publicly to
the brand of car I drive. Who needs that kind of grief?
Now, needless to say, I don't agree with Wolfe that
our sense of morality is "twisted," but I do agree that we probably lose
a lot of support we don't need to lose because of a very real - and
often dripping - condescension toward anyone we consider less
enlightened than us.
..
Too often.. a visceral loathing of being lectured at
by city folks wins out and they end up marking their ballots for people
like George Bush.
Kevin goes on, in the rest of post, to advance many of the same
sentiments readers have been seeing here in recent days -- specifically,
the building consensus that we Blue staters could really benefit from
taking a second look at federalism. But I want to focus on that response
above because, frankly, I think both Wolfe's accusation and Kevin's no
lo contendre are utter nonsense.
The notion that coastal elites are constantly pissing on middle
America drives me bonkers. Yes, some of that sort of thing goes on and,
sure, I've been known to engage in it myself. But the idea that this is
a widespread, pervasive phenomenon and, more importantly, the idea that
it's strictly a one-sided exchange are completely bogus. Like the
"Liberal Media", "coastal elitism" is an idea that's been repeated so
often that it's taken on a life of its own. Who benefits from this?
Why, Red America, of course. Nothing rallies the troops like the idea
that they're under attack.
It's time to call bullshit on this, people. You know whose values
and culture are really under attack in our country? Blue
America's, that's whose.
So our Red State friends are tired of being condescended to. Fine.
Here's a short list of what I'm tired of:
- I'm tired of hearing states like Iowa and Kansas being referred
to as "the Heartland". What the hell is that meant to imply? That we
on the coasts are cold and heartless? That we're on the fringe of
American life metaphorically as well as geographically? Here's a
thought: I'm going to start referring to the Northeast as "The
Brainland of America". Let's see how our country cousins like
that.
- I'm tired of politicians and pundits from my own party saying
that you have to be from the South to be electable to national office.
And I'm tired of the very real cultural prejudices that tend to make
that assertion accurate.
- I'm tired of being lectured by the Amy Sullivans and Nick
Kristofs of the world that we need to "reach out" to the bible-thumping
set. I'm tired of the laughably stupid conceit that religious folks
need more of a voice in America. I'm tired of knowing that for a
politician to admit that he's a non-believer would be political suicide.
And I'm tired of the open bigotry that suggests the religious are
inherently morally superior to the non-religious.
- I'm tired of the cultural stereotype which says that people in
"Middle America" are hard-working folk, and the associated implication
that us coastal types aren't.
- I'm tired of a Red American culture that makes a fetish of being
simple-minded and sneers at people who are educated. In fact, I'm
really, really tired of that. How the hell are we supposed to
advance education in this country when half the population seems to
secretly harbor the idea that improving your mind is a Bad
Thing?
- I'm tired of shit like "latte-drinking", "Volvo-driving", and
"New York Times-reading" being considered potent put-downs. Yeah, some
of us like tasty caffeinated beverages, safe cars, and news that isn't
complete GOP propaganda. Please forgive us.
- I'm tired of these down-to-Earth Red Staters lecturing me about
being responsible and self-sufficient as they suck my tax dollars out of
the Big Government teat.
I could go on. Believe me.
The bottom line is this: The cultural divide runs both ways. The
notion that Middle America is picked on by the elitist coast is a farce.
If anything, the liberal tendency towards self-censorship gives Red
Staters a distinct advantage in the ongoing exchange of barbs.
Meanwhile, our media's weirdly inverted sense of political correctness
makes Red-on-Blue ridicule acceptable while Blue-on-Red "condescension"
is cause for hand-wringing.
Put a lid on it, Wolfe. And, Kevin, don't believe the hype.
|
[2004.11.04 - 01:22 PM] The Theocrats Are Coming! The Theocrats Are Coming!
(Note: The map on the left is not my work, so I'd like to give a special thanks
to whoever took the time to put it together. I think it really captures just where
we're headed.)
Two threads have emerged in the election aftermath discussions that
I've seen. Lets call them the Conventional Explanation and the
Theocratic Explanation.
The Conventional Explanation centers around the idea that, despite
our best efforts, we couldn't get our message out, couldn't demonstrate
to enough people that George Bush was lying to them, couldn't capture
the media storyline. Al Franken expresses this view in his
post-election message:
You know I wouldn't mind losing an election if it
were an honest disagreement, based on facts, over values and policy. But
that's not what happened. A large majority of Bush supporters went to
the polls believing things that were false.. They believed lies about
Kerry, and they believed lies about Iraq, and they believed lies about
Bush.
We're not going to heal this country as long as we
have a president who won't be accountable, who won't tell the truth,
who is willing to campaign with a vicious dishonesty that is
unprecedented.
Digby also seems to be settling, at least in part, on a similar narrative:
I don't agree that we lost because we weren't liberal
enough. But, neither was it because we weren't culturally conservative
enough or populist enough.
I believe it was simply because we weren't
entertaining enough and that's the sad truth. I think that Democrats are
serious, earnest and substantive people. We are the reality-based
community. And I think we top out at about forty eight percent of the
population.
For everybody else politics is show business, whether
in religious, political or media terms. Image trumps substance,
charisma and personality trump everything. I don't find George W. Bush
appealing in any way because my vision of an attractive politician is
that he be smart, competent and rhetorically talented. But, to many
people, politics is interesting because of the spectacle and the tribal
competition and they just aren't interested in any other aspects of it.
(See the PEW poll.) Oh, they mouth all the right platitudes about
values and all, but this is not about governing for them because they
have been taught that government is only relevant to their lives in
that it houses their enemies --- liberals who want to take things from
them and force things on them. This is a reality TV show and they want
to vote someone off the island.
There is some legitimacy to the Conventional Explanation, of course.
Democrats still aren't as good at the nuts and bolts of politicking as
our adversaries are. We do need to simplify our message so that the
more receptive red-tards can grasp it. We do need to package our guys
better. We certainly need to "work the refs" in the media better. But
these critiques miss the Really Big Story: We really do have two
Americas now, they are fundamentally at odds with each other at the
deepest possible level, and their America -- Red America -- is
motivated primarily by a creeping theocratic fanaticism that is not
amenable to change via reasoned discourse or "politics as usual".
Not one, not two, but three op-ed pieces in the New York
Times -- media organ of the Blue States of America, perhaps? -- get
at this point today. Thomas Friedman began his day yesterday by putting
his multiple personality disorder to good use and interviewing himself to find out why he was so
freaked out by Tuesday's outcome:
I often begin writing columns by interviewing myself.
I did that yesterday, asking myself this: Why didn't I feel totally
depressed after George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis, or even when
George W. Bush defeated Al Gore? Why did I wake up feeling deeply
troubled yesterday?
Answer: whatever differences I felt with the elder
Bush were over what was the right policy. There was much he ultimately
did that I ended up admiring. And when George W. Bush was elected four
years ago on a platform of compassionate conservatism, after running
from the middle, I assumed the same would be true with him. (Wrong.) But
what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped
because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't
just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different
kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing;
we disagree on what America is.
Is it a country that does not intrude into people's
sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a
country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a
country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our
Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion
doesn't trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose
president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of
dividing us from one another and from the world?
At one level this election was about nothing. None of
the real problems facing the nation were really discussed. But at
another level, without warning, it actually became about everything.
Partly that happened because so many Supreme Court seats are at stake,
and partly because Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate
social issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if
we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president. I felt as
if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Constitutional
Convention broke out.
Friedman perfectly lays the groundwork here for understanding the
problem: This isn't a disagreement over specific policies, nor is it
factual dispute about who's lying and who's not. This is a disagreement
about the nature of America itself. Maureen Dowd then goes on to
discuss how Bush, who has no interest whatsoever in uniting the country,
deliberately and systematically sought to deepen our divisions:
W. doesn't see division as a danger. He sees it as a
wingman.
The president got re-elected by dividing the country
along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule.
He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who
disagree to heel.
W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq
- drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they
call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem
cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay
marriage.
Mr. Bush, whose administration drummed up fake
evidence to trick us into war with Iraq, sticking our troops in an
immoral position with no exit strategy, won on "moral issues."
Ironic as it may seem to those of us who derive our morals from
deeply held and well-reasoned principles as opposed to having them
revealed in a 2000-year-old book, that is precisely what George Bush
did. For his supporters, this election really was more about gay
marriage than it was about the ever-expanding conflagration in Iraq or
other such pedestrian concerns. And the bitch of it is that, because
the gay marriage issue (and abortion and the rest) strike intelligent
liberals as such non-starters, this groundswell passed completely under
our radar.
Finally, Gary Wills puts this cultural conflict in its proper context:
America, the first real democracy in history, was a
product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance,
respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the
founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was
then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the
Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions
of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a
poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr.
Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or
was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.
The secular states of modern Europe do not understand
the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had
experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble
those nations less than we do our putative enemies.
Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at
secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity?
Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the
Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists.
Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so
single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad,
no matter whose zeal is being expressed.
In a classic example of there being small solace in being right, may
I just say to my liberal fellow travelers I told you so.
The pernicious effects of religious belief have long been a hobby
horse of mine. Religious faith -- of all varieties, really, but
particularly in its crazed fundamentalist form -- is the greatest
destructive social force in the long, bloody, fractious history of our
species, and in America today it is the force that has finally torn our
once great republic in two. Al Franken believes we can win these
people over by getting the facts across to them, by telling them the
truth in a still-louder voice. I say, what possible difference is the
truth going to make to people who think the Grand Canyon was caused by
Noah's flood?
For years now, liberals like myself have been accused of being
alarmist whenever we got freaked out about school prayer, ten
commandments monuments on public property, or hot-button issues like
abortion rights. "Relax and re-focus", we were told, "These are just
wedge issues that the right uses to motivate its base. The real issues
are economic."
Well guess what? It's not just the economy, Stupid. They've
motivated their base, all right. The religious right is no longer a
loud but small-time constituency of the GOP. They are now calling the
shots. And all the things we've been told not to worry about --
overturning Roe v. Wade, legislating religious orthodoxy, legally
enshrining one group's idea of sexual "morality" -- are going to come
a-callin'. Doubt it? I've got $50 that says Roe is overturned in
Bush's second term. E-mail me if you're interested.
This is the real face of our Red-State opposition, folks: Biblical
fundamentalists, glazed-eyed evangelists for whom empirically-based
epistemology is nothing more than several long-ish words strung
together. They are not, by their nature, given to pluralism. They are
not inclined to live and let live, and in fact we have aroused their
ire in no small part by trying to get them to adopt that mindset.
If we do not recognize the threat they pose and ready ourselves, here
in the temporary safe zones of Blue America, to protect our rights in
our courts and legislatures, we are going to be in deep shit.
|
[2004.11.03 - 05:34 PM] Second Chance My Ass
Josh Marshall has an excellent response to Andrew Sullivan's call for a Bush second chance:
Yesterday, in an overnight post, Andrew Sullivan wrote, President Bush "deserves a fresh start, a chance to prove himself again, and the constructive criticism of those of us who decided to back his opponent. He needs our prayers and our support for the enormous tasks still ahead of him."
I thought about this when I read it. And, to put it simply, I didn't agree. What I considered writing was that given the track record he's compiled and the way he ran this campaign, he's really owed no fresh start. That would be graciousness at war with reality.
It would be up to the president, I thought of writing, to show concrete signs of a willingness not to govern in the divisive and factional spirit from which he's governed in the last four years.
And then there's this from his comments today: "We've worked hard and gained many new friends, and the result is now clear -- a record voter turnout and a broad, nationwide victory."
This is the touchstone and the sign. A 'broad, nationwide victory'? He must be kidding. Our system is majority rule. And 51% is a win. But he's claiming a mandate.
"A broad, nationwide victory"?
It would almost be comical if it weren't for the seriousness of what it portends. This election cut the nation in two. A single percentage point over 50% is not broad. A victory that carried no states in the Northeast, close to none in the Industrial midwest is not nationwide, and none on the west coast is not nationwide.
And yet he plans to use this narrow victory as though it were a broad mandate, starting right back with the same strategy that has already come near to tearing this country apart.
As if we didn't all see this coming. He lost the last election and claimed a mandate. What on Earth did people imagine he'd do with an actual victory? Govern from the center?
No. No second chances for Bush. No uniting behind this president, not now and not ever. He's a lying bastard, a religious lunatic, and he has never, ever extended a single olive leaf (let alone a branch) to those of us who stand in opposition to him. Fuck him.
Resist. Oppose. Obstruct. Fight back. Fight for Blue America against the angry tyrant child the masses in the middle have given new life to. Never surrender.
|
[2004.11.03 - 04:24 PM] The Blue Solution
Staring blankly at an electoral map today, I thought to myself "Well,
if nothing else, I can take solace that I live in deep blue New
England." Sure, there are card-carrying 'Wingers a-plenty in my office,
but they are the minority here, and a quick journey into any of our
thriving metropolitan areas or college towns can quickly reconnect one
with the (vastly superior) values and culture of Blue America. Our
progressive brethren in Oklahoma, Montana and -- shudder -- Mississippi?
I can't imagine what that's like. I don't even want to think about
it.
So I'm riffing on this to myself, and I begin thinking, well, that's
it then. That's what we have to hold onto. Nationally, we are
outnumbered. We appear to have no control over that for the moment.
Red America, the flame stoked beneath their religiously intolerant
simple-minded asses, has us at a growing numerical disadvantage. But we
have our enclaves here in the Blue states, and that's something. As
putrid a dystopia as they may wish to build for themselves, they're not
about to force us to erect a Ten Commandments monument in the center of
Harvard Square or downtown Northampton. Not yet at least.
Unsurprisingly, I discovered that Rob Salkowitz has been thinking along the
same lines:
If neither pitched conflict nor supine compromise
holds much appeal, there is a third way for the Left. That is, even in
the face of political defeat, to take stock in the assets remaining to
us. Where is the economic power in America today? In the cities, on the
coasts, in the corridors of innovation in Northern Virginia and North
Carolina, in university towns and enclaves scattered across the country:
in short, in Blue America.
This is no accident. Innovation needs the atmosphere
afforded by liberal politics the way fire needs oxygen. Creative people
want cultural resources, an uninhibited social environment free from the
disapproving eyes of moralistic busybodies, and a diversity of
human-scale businesses. Successful people want a safe, stable
environment with a well-developed infrastructure built and maintained by
an active and accountable government.
In the current economic environment, where America is
challenged by global competitors in every arena, innovation is our only
advantage. And who among us thinks that the next big engine of American
jobs, progress and money is going to come from the hinterlands of
Mississippi or South Dakota, or the sedate, sprawling suburbs of
Indiana? Red America is, for the most part, a dead zone of resource-poor
communities, poorly-educated, underdeveloped, dependent on extractive
industries, land tenancy, low-paying jobs, military bases and federal
subsidies. The heartland of Bush Country that sees itself as kick-ass
tough and ruggedly independent is in fact nearly parasitic in an
economic and cultural sense on Blue America and the occasional Blue
enclaves within Red States. Cultural conservatives heap scorn on the
decadent output of the American entertainment industry, but where are
you more likely to find average people planted perpetually in front of
the TV, watching Jerry Springer, NYPD Blue and Oprah? Not San Francisco,
not Manhattan, not Chapel Hill or Madison.
Red America hates us, but they need us. And they hate
us all the more for needing us. Yesterday, they asserted their
dominance. We rose up with all our might and they smacked us down,
showing us who's boss. "We're gonna shove W up your ass and make you
like it," they said with great feeling. But what made it so urgent? What
animates the passions of Red America and made them turn out in their
millions, braving long lines and bad weather just to support the status
quo? Certainly not simple distrust of a "Massachusetts liberal."
Yesterday was tough, and the coming days were
tougher. Now is the time to lick our wounds, reflect and recover. But in
our despair and justifiable self-pity, let's not lose sight of how and
why we came to this point, and that there's always a way out.
Blue America: We may be outnumbered, but we've got the money, we've
got the smarts, and we've got the inherent flexibility to deal with our
current situation.
Step one is to realize that, while our agenda is losing at the
federal level, there's nothing to prevent us from aggressively
protecting and expanding it at the state level. Case in point:
California passed an initiative to expand stem cell research. Another prominent example: Several
states, including Massachusetts and Vermont, have explored the
possibility of reimporting drugs from Canada. State and local
progressive initiatives can work.
Step two is to recognize our shared interests and pool our resources
so that we can effectively protect our prerogatives from federal
infringement. This is going to be difficult to do within our two-party
system. A best case scenario would be a fundamental realignment of the
parties so that they line up more closely along the Blue/Red divide.
West coast Republicans need to realize that their interests -- or
rather, the interests of their constituents -- are far more in line with
those of East coast Democrats than they are with the Orrin Hatches and
Tom DeLays of the nation. East coast Republicans like Olympia Snowe and
Lincoln Chafee need to get a clue and switch parties, period.
Party realignment or no, Blue States need to come together to form
some sort of mutual protection pact against intrusion by Red
State-backed social legislation. If they want to crap on the
constitution in Mississippi there's probably nothing we can do to stop
them, but we can say no here at home.
If what I'm saying sounds like a left-wing version of Pat Buchanan's
call for culture war, well, that's because it pretty much is. Turns out
Pat was right and Barack Obama was wrong. There are two
Americas. Let's resolve to fight like hell for ours.
|
[2004.11.03 - 11:09 AM] Morford
Morford is so on the mark with this post-election piece:
This election's apparent outcome, this heartbreaking
proof of a nation split more deeply and decisively than ever, it simply
reinforces the feeling among much of the educated populace: It is a
weirdly embarrassing time to be an American. It is jarring and oddly
shattering and makes you rethink what it really means to be a part of
this country. The answer: It doesn't mean much at all. Not really. Not
anymore.
This is the common wisdom on the progressive Left.
Those first four toxic Bush years? A fluke. A phantasm. A stolen
election. A gaffe, a mugging, a crime. But this? An election this close
makes you reconsider. Maybe, after all, we aren't nearly as far along as
we think. Maybe we're not all that sophisticated or nuanced or
respectable a nation as we sometimes dare to dream.
Maybe, in fact, we're regressing, back to the days of
guns and sexism and pre-emptive violence, of environmental abuse and no
rights for women and an sincere hatred of gays and foreigners and
minorities. Sound familiar? It should: It's the modern GOP platform.
Here's the thing: For tens of millions of us, it is
simply unconscionable that we could possibly be led for another four
years by a small and spoiled little man who has very little real idea
what he's doing and even less of how the hell he got there. It would be
funny, in a Adam Sandler, toilet-humored sort of way, were it not so
poisonous and depressing. And yet it looks like we're stuck with it,
like a shard of glass buried deep in the eye.
Right now, this morning, it's just so damned important to see other
sane people out there wallowing in the same feelings I am. It's
absolutely necessary. We're living through a national tragedy that,
sadly, only half the nation is aware of as such.
I keep coming back to this line:
[It] makes you rethink what it really means to be a
part of this country. The answer: It doesn't mean much at all. Not
really. Not anymore.
I've been feeling something like that all morning long. Just a sense
of sad, bewildered detachment. Wherever this country is going, whatever
it's metastasizing into, I don't feel like I'm a part of it anymore.
|
[2004.11.03 - 07:59 AM] Bad News Blues
My feeling this morning can best be summed up in this lyric from Green Day's American Idiot:
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alienation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
No, it appears that everything really isn't meant to be OK.
Glancing at today's Washington Post headlines, I see:
Bush Camp Convinced of Win
GOP Keeps Control of Senate
Same-Sex Marriage Bans Win
How can this be? All last night and into this morning, my wife and I just kept experiencing this deep, fundamental disbelief that things were turning out the way they appeared to be. After everything we've been through, a majority -- albeit an anorexically skinny one -- appears to want more. They've waddled up to the trough for a second helping of war, lies, deficits, lies, environmental degradation, lies, crippling tax cuts, lies, bigotry, lies, and, of course, lies.
There is still a slim ray of hope in Ohio's provisional ballots. But given the numbers (Kerry trailing by well over 100,000 with only about 250,000 pb's) it's a really tenuous one. Probably time to start thinking about the next four years.
|
[2004.11.02 - 10:54 AM] Much Props
Man, the waiting really is the hardest part, isn't it?
Imagine this: Your team made it to the big game. Kickoff was just
moments ago. But you, along with all the other fans, are locked out of
the stadium. The game is not being broadcast, either. You know it's
going on, and that's it. Later tonight, the game will end. At that
point, the officials will retrieve a videotape of the action and watch
it to find out what the final score was. Only then will you be allowed
to know the outcome.
Brutal. Just brutal.
Anyhow, I think now's as good a time as any to do some shout-outs to
those of you on the internets who have helped me to stay properly moored
through these infuriating times.
Four years ago I had never heard of Bartcop.com. 'Ole Bart's was the
first political web site that I began frequenting after they installed
the Monkey in office. I ran across him on About.com's political comedy
rundown. He kept me sane through those first harrowing months.
Four years ago I had never heard of "blogs". Now they, uh... well,
let's just say they take up a good portion of my day.
It started when I met Atrios in the Bartcop IRC chat room, and
decided to check out Eschaton.
It was via that popular gathering place, if I recall correctly, that I
first linked through to Josh Marshall,
who is still my favorite daily read. I also met Avedon Carol in the BC chat
room. To this day, she remains one of the left blogosphere's most
under-appreciated contributors. I ran across Kevin Drum back when he was
still CalPundit, and followed him over to his new position at the
Washington Monthly. Definitely the best move that publication ever
made. Lately, I've been frequenting the (in my opinion misnamed) All Spin Zone to keep
abreast of goings on in the reality-based community. And of course
there's Aaron, who
is just as good at making me laugh as he is at making me think. And
there's Rob Salkowitz who, if
there is any justice in the universe, will be recognized centuries from
now as one of our wisest political philosophers.
These are just some of the people who have helped keep me going
through these four years of political hell. Along with my wonderful
wife and my small circle of (mostly) liberal friends, they've helped me
believe that we can get through this and turn things around.
Thanks.
|
[2004.11.01 - 04:50 PM] Not Bush and Then Some
Well, we are almost there. By this time tomorrow, I will have pulled
the lever for John Kerry. If someone were to ask me why I am
voting for Kerry, I would say to them "Are you fucking high, asking me
that?" And then I would tell them this: "George Bush must be defeated.
The fate of the world literally hangs in the balance. John Kerry is the
one man on Earth currently positioned to remove Bush from office."
I have recently run across several eloquent, impassioned
pro-Kerry pieces, which I will get to in a moment. But before
coming to the pro-Kerry case, I want to point out the perfect legitimacy
of the anti-Bush case. I am one of those who believes that George Bush
is the worst president this great nation has ever had. In fact, I would
go further. If you take this man's belligerent, apocalyptic,
warmongering stupidity and magnify it by the unprecedented power of the
office of President of the United States, you could make the case that
George Bush is one of the biggest disasters in the history of world
leadership.
Don't scoff. Think about it.
The geopolitical order has been more or less in flux since the end of
the Cold War. These are dangerous times. We face a looming energy
crisis, an environmental crisis that's in full swing, and economic
instability everywhere we look. On top of that, we face the challenge
of radical Islamic terrorism, brought home to us on Sept. 11th. George
Bush was in a position to bring the countries of the world together to
find solutions to all of these issues. Instead he gave the world
the finger, and now they're giving it back. The ramifications of this
one arrogant imbecile's decisions could well have already doomed my
generation's grandchildren.
If we accomplish nothing else in electing John Kerry, we will at
least begin to halt our hurtling progress down the road to hell.
There's a chance, however, that we could accomplish quite a bit more. There's a
chance that Kerry could be more than Anybody But Bush, that he could, in
fact, be exactly the right man for the job. For starters,
consider this crucial point that Ezra nails here:
Bush, a man who didn't grow up desiring the
presidency and whose motivations were familial and manipulated, entered
an office expecting to simply do a job, maybe even bring a radical
viewpoint to it. But no more than that. And so, faced with a
transformative moment that immediately created unprecedented unity and
resolve, he resolved to send us shopping and make congressional gains.
He failed history, he failed a spectacular moment, and he did so because
he was never prepared to be the President of the United States of
America, all George wanted to be was CEO.
Kerry, conversely, seems to have pursued the
presidency since he could roll over. He grew up in awe of the office and
has spent a lifetime attempting to transcend his often impersonal and
ill-fitting nature in order to reach it. This guy wants it. And that's
crucial. I only trust those obsessed with the presidency and its
capabilities to hold the office, they're the only ones who understand
its historic potential. They're the guys who, when the planes hit the
buildings, will snap to attention, fling the children's book across the
room, and rise to the moment. And they force us to do the same.
Damned straight.
Have we ever seen a smaller man than George Bush in the Oval
Office? He has absolutely no notion of how weighty his job is. This
comes through so clearly in the way he jokes around like a damned
10-year-old prior to giving speeches, winking at the camera and pumping
his fists like this is some sort of damned game show. John Kerry
appreciates the gravity of the office. He respects it.
Second, consider Digby's take on Kerry the Man:
Back when he won the primaries and I was still
smarting from the defeat of my chosen candidate, I spent one evening
reflecting and reading about John Kerry, trying to see what it was that
so many of my fellow Democrats seemed to get about this guy that I
hadn't seen until he was already half way there. After all, I'd once
voted for the man and had plenty of respect for him. Indeed, by the time
his nomination was clinched, I thought he was a gift in many ways. A
liberal in the White House seemed almost too good to be true in this day
and age.
I discovered that what the Democrats in places like
Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina saw was a man who was tough
enough to win and tough enough to take the slings and arrows of what was
going to happen to him afterwards. That flinty, Yankee determination is
an all-American trait more authentic than all the faux folksiness and
phony posturing that two-faced cowpoke from Kennebunkport could ever
hope to conjure. And it's a trait that people understood was vital as we
deal with threats to our democracy from abroad and from within.
Bill Clinton was a good president, but in the end, I think his
greatest flaw was that he never fought back against the GOP with the
ferocity that their obscene campaign against him deserved. He changed
the subject, he slipped away when they least expected it, he talked his
way out of a lot of fights, but he never gave them the punch in the face
they so richly deserved. John Kerry will.
Finally, take into consideration this anecdote that Pierce passes along today:
Once, in Iowa, Kerry dropped in on a group of Vietnam
veterans. Some of them liked him. Some of them didn't, largely because
of the whole VVAW thing. (And, trust me, this was my first beat at the
Boston Phoenix, and I discovered that the politics within the various
Vietnam veteran's groups were desperate and bloody.) Kerry dismissed
the staff, locked the door, blew off the rest of the schedule, and sat
there and talked and argued with these guys until they were all
exhausted. He wanted to talk to the people who disliked him more than
he wanted to talk to anyone else. He gave them the respect of open
debate.
Imagine the incumbent doing that. Imagine him
sitting down in a room where half the people truly loathe him and
everything he stands for, him and his ticket-only rallies, and his
coddling staff, and his use of the Secret Service as cheap sidewalk
bouncers. Imagine him hearing them out, debating them, giving them the
respect of his knowledgeable disagreement. It is inconceivable. One
can more easily imagine C-Plus Augustus's flapping his arms and flying
to the top of the Washington Monument. Imagine that "character" is even
at issue between these two men.
Thanks to George Bush, a lot of people hate us. Kerry has a
capacity to hear them out -- even when he disagrees with them -- that
Bush absolutely lacks. He has it within him to listen, to explain, and
to work out solutions. George Bush never listens (remember how
he referred to 15 million protesters as a "focus group"?), never
explains (that's one of the things he said he enjoys most about the
presidency), and never solves a single damned problem (he's too
busy creating them).
So.
I think John Kerry will, at the very least, be a good president. If
he can clean up Bush's mess in Iraq, he will prove himself a very
good president. And if he can unite our polarized country in a return
to a politics of decency, if he can unite the world in the fight against terrorism and
repair the international institutions that Bush has left in tatters, he
may achieve greatness.
All that aside, not being George W. Bush is a hell of a start.
|
