Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Edwards-Obama '08
And if that fails, Obama-Stewart '12.
But let's not kid ourselves: this country has a structural Republican majority that is largely unconcerned with economic performance, foreign policy success, and anything that seems real to educated people in the reality based community. Our elections are going to look more like censuses for some time---and the good guys (and I mean that in every sense of the word, folks) are on the losing side of the count.
If we couldn't win in 2004, with Bush running on the worst record of any president in memory---perhaps in history, save Herbert Hoover---and with more personal responsibility for that failure than any president before him; if we couldn't explain to the people of even the most backwards state that this is the worst administration in history, that we could do better with almost anyone; if we can't overcome the middle America's hatred for the better educated, more worldly, more sensitive party of the cities, with the fruits of Bush's mindless thuggery and budget ransacking on full display, then I fear nothing short of a depression will do. And with these folks, so untethered from reality they would make the reasonable voters of 1932 weep, would probably still believe it was someone else's fault.
The evangelical voters finally showed up, and boy are they a backwards bunch; an Afghanistan in our own backyard (Coburn & DeMint: America's answer to the Taliban). It amazes me that someone could seriously believe they have a strong moral sense, yet think that preventing "gay marriage" is a more important moral issue than those raised by Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and preemptive war. Thousands of Iraqi's dead, versus the right to hospital visits and inheritance for Steve and Steve. There's one for the moral philosophers.
Abortion is a more difficult issue, because if you really believe a zygote has a soul, you will consider killing it murder. But it is disconcerting, to say the least, to see people so concerned about innocent zygotes, yet so unconcerned about innocent Iraqis. Yee-ha foreign policy and a tender concern for the unborn don't mix because of morality. They mix because of religous fervor, a movement that draws not on moral sense, but on fear of the modern world, traditionalism, and the cult of high priests like Bush.
Most Republicans wouldn't know a real morality if it slapped them in the face.
Just saw a great point on the Daily Show: Red State voters voted Republican, they say, because of fear of terrorism and gays. But all the terrorist attacks hit cities in Blue States (and will likely continue to target them), and most gays live in the Blue state cities (because they aren't welcome in the backwards Red States). NYC, full of gays and terror bullseye numero uno, turned out huge for Kerry. If anyone should be afraid or hurting, it should be the New Yorkers. So why the paranoia in Ohio?
Reminds me of a story my old roommate told, about talking to an Austrian in a small town who blamed that town's problems on its Jewish population. Which turned out to be six people.
As you can see, I'm rather angry about the election. A different kind of anger from 2000. In 2000, I was furious about election theft, one of the highest crimes possible in a democracy. I wanted Bush impeached every day for the last four years. Now, I am furious not at Bush (who seems more and more like the abstract "evil" he keeps promising to fight), but at the millions who voted to ratify his performance, choices, and agenda. They just reelected the worst president---and worst human being---ever to occupy the White House. I have never been more alienated or ashamed of my country. I am still American; I still hold dear American values, but I fear they will go out of fashion, in favor of an Orwellian brew of deception, fear, and theocracy.
More soon on what I think the Bush agenda will entail. I believe he now has the power and will to radically reshape our country. It will not be pretty. Despite my disdain for constitutional monarchy, I'm already looking longingly at the UK.
But let's not kid ourselves: this country has a structural Republican majority that is largely unconcerned with economic performance, foreign policy success, and anything that seems real to educated people in the reality based community. Our elections are going to look more like censuses for some time---and the good guys (and I mean that in every sense of the word, folks) are on the losing side of the count.
If we couldn't win in 2004, with Bush running on the worst record of any president in memory---perhaps in history, save Herbert Hoover---and with more personal responsibility for that failure than any president before him; if we couldn't explain to the people of even the most backwards state that this is the worst administration in history, that we could do better with almost anyone; if we can't overcome the middle America's hatred for the better educated, more worldly, more sensitive party of the cities, with the fruits of Bush's mindless thuggery and budget ransacking on full display, then I fear nothing short of a depression will do. And with these folks, so untethered from reality they would make the reasonable voters of 1932 weep, would probably still believe it was someone else's fault.
The evangelical voters finally showed up, and boy are they a backwards bunch; an Afghanistan in our own backyard (Coburn & DeMint: America's answer to the Taliban). It amazes me that someone could seriously believe they have a strong moral sense, yet think that preventing "gay marriage" is a more important moral issue than those raised by Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and preemptive war. Thousands of Iraqi's dead, versus the right to hospital visits and inheritance for Steve and Steve. There's one for the moral philosophers.
Abortion is a more difficult issue, because if you really believe a zygote has a soul, you will consider killing it murder. But it is disconcerting, to say the least, to see people so concerned about innocent zygotes, yet so unconcerned about innocent Iraqis. Yee-ha foreign policy and a tender concern for the unborn don't mix because of morality. They mix because of religous fervor, a movement that draws not on moral sense, but on fear of the modern world, traditionalism, and the cult of high priests like Bush.
Most Republicans wouldn't know a real morality if it slapped them in the face.
Just saw a great point on the Daily Show: Red State voters voted Republican, they say, because of fear of terrorism and gays. But all the terrorist attacks hit cities in Blue States (and will likely continue to target them), and most gays live in the Blue state cities (because they aren't welcome in the backwards Red States). NYC, full of gays and terror bullseye numero uno, turned out huge for Kerry. If anyone should be afraid or hurting, it should be the New Yorkers. So why the paranoia in Ohio?
Reminds me of a story my old roommate told, about talking to an Austrian in a small town who blamed that town's problems on its Jewish population. Which turned out to be six people.
As you can see, I'm rather angry about the election. A different kind of anger from 2000. In 2000, I was furious about election theft, one of the highest crimes possible in a democracy. I wanted Bush impeached every day for the last four years. Now, I am furious not at Bush (who seems more and more like the abstract "evil" he keeps promising to fight), but at the millions who voted to ratify his performance, choices, and agenda. They just reelected the worst president---and worst human being---ever to occupy the White House. I have never been more alienated or ashamed of my country. I am still American; I still hold dear American values, but I fear they will go out of fashion, in favor of an Orwellian brew of deception, fear, and theocracy.
More soon on what I think the Bush agenda will entail. I believe he now has the power and will to radically reshape our country. It will not be pretty. Despite my disdain for constitutional monarchy, I'm already looking longingly at the UK.
