Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

This post leads me to believe that you don't have a clue as to why people voted for Bush, and that's pretty sad. But you're not alone, and I wonder how people who can be so smart can be so blind.

It's not as all or nothing as you think. There are many shades of grey, and we're talking about the American people here, David, not some vast conspiracy that's out to destroy your freedom. For you to glom onto only that at this hour seems terribly shallow for someone so deep.

Such rancor got nowhere this week and it won't get anywhere downstream. The Democratic Party doesn't know how to talk to anybody beyond urbanites, and this isn't an urban country.

That is the problem. If you honestly were to drift into the "center" about which you speak — even for just a moment — you'd find it's not about you. It's just people trying to make it through each day, and Mr. Kerry didn't float their boat.

To assume ignorance is your enemy is also foolish, for not all smart people are on the left. Rather than flee to the safe ground of attack, why not take a year and get to know some of these folks?

'Nuff said. I have the deepest respect for you, and I hope this is just your emotions finding outlet.

Regards

Rancor works. Ask Karl Rove.

God bless you David! I love you more every day. You go baby! I'm all with you. No more of this pandering to the middle crap. Look where it has gotten us. It really is us versus them, because they won't have it any other way! For them it will always be their way or the highway. Ok fine, they've declared war. Then let it be war then. I suggest we win it, because if there is on thing I've learned about rabid bush supporters you can't reason with them, you can't debate them civily, you can't find compromise or compassion. They won't have it. Like Bush, their mind are made up and that's that. You'll have a better time turning a slab of granite around than getting these people to think critically or to question their dogmas. So war it is.

I want to add one more thing if I haven't already, and this is a great caveat that progressives need to grab onto right now and run with it fast, hard and furious over the next 4 years:

We have the moral high ground.

We have merely lacked the capacity to express it. The other side cleverly duped enough people to think they have it when they really don't. And more than any other issue, that is why people vote. What the Republicans actually have is a strict-father version of Christian values rather than the nurturing-mother version of Christian values. The reason the conservative right has become so powerful is becuase they found a unifying message around their core value based on the strict-father model. We can do the same with the nurture-mother model.

Now for some good news. According to a statitician on NPR this afternoon, Christians with nurturing-mother values outnumber the "fire and brimstone" strict-father Christians 2 to 1! That fact alone should get you jazzed.

Thank you David, for being able to express what so many of us are feeling. My friends from other nations think we are all insane. The US has lost a sense of reality. Perhaps we can be citizens of the world for awhile, then "return" to the US.

Amen. I don't live or vote in the US, of course, so some would say I'm in no position to pass comment. But as a citizen of the world, the insane decision to return these terrible people to power has a direct impact on me - and everyone else on the face of this planet.

I love Jeff Jarvis, but I can't buy into his peace pledge, I'm afraid: "I promise to support the President, even if I didn't vote for him" -- NO!

He promised to support and care for my friends, and he lied. When he put his hand on the bible less than four years ago, that was his pledge - to look after the citizens of the United States - to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.

He didn't. He has raped his own country and mortgaged all our futures.

I'm with David. Speak truth to duplicity. Speak truth to corruption. Rancour is right.

Arm yourselves

Terry, what are the planks in your platform? I'm curious (genuinely) about whether your centrism leads you and me to different stands on issues. I'm not asking you to spell out in detail everything you believe. Nothing like that. But on the core issues -- by your def -- are you leaning toward moderating your positions? For example, I think the war is a catastrophic mistake, I want pro-choice justices, I don't want drilling in ANWAR, I do want to spend a lot of money on alternative energy, I want gay marriage legalized, I don't want religion in my schools or religion supplanting science, I want sex education and condoms in the public schools, etc. -- a pretty predictable palette. I'm not interested in compromising on these ideas in order to meet in the middle. We tried running a centrist candidate and just had our asses handed to us.

I will admit that the name-calling in my post is my anger speaking, but I remain interested in opposing the Bush administration in just about all its major aims. If the Democratic Party doesn't want to be the opposition party, then I'm not interested in being a Democrat any more.

Poop. It stripped the URL from my 'arm yourselves' link: http://tinyurl.com/6zlra

/m

Terry, you are awarded no points, and may god have mercy on your soul. (a la Billy Madison) ---that's a little harsh, but funny (don't take this as personally as you will take it):

For you to suggest that "such rancor got nowhere this week" is simply ridiculous. Yes, Bush won, but are you kidding me...nowhere? how about the half of our country that voted for truth? where did bush get the mandate that Cheney talked about from? and FYI, this "rancor" you mention is based on the "truth," is justified, and will eventually turn into a solid way of imparting that truth, after we all find outlet for our emotions---I will start now...

Explain to me how this is people "making it through each day" (which I deeply disagree with you on, are you saying people have no dreams, aspirations? yes, people want to make it through each day, but you imply that they aren't trying to get anywhere, which is a farce), anyway, on to the heartbreaking:

In a survey by UMD PIPA from a few months ago, the average frequency of three misperceptions about the war in iraq (1. that WMDs were actually found, 2. that Saddam was working closley with al-Qaeda, and 3. that the world public opinion favored our going to war with Iraq) for those planning to vote for Bush was 45% versus the avg frequency for those planning to vote for the democratic candidate which was only 17%.

Do you think it's OK that this is how Bush supporters want to make it through each day? Now, this whole war in Iraq load of shit seems to have been overshadowed on election day by "morality and values"----but i fail to see how the two became so disjointed. Is the FACT that Bush and his cronies foster the belief in falsehoods not a reflection of the exact morality and values that people decided to vote because of??? And yet they decide to vote for Bush? Is the FACT that Bush's own mother did not want Bush's own brother to marry a latin american woman and almost disowned Jeb because of it not a reflection of the exact morality and values that people decided to vote because of??? And yet---they decide to vote for Bush!?! ABSURD! SIMPLY ABSURD!!!

You are correct to say that "not all smart people are on the left," just realize based on the above FACTS what many of those smart people on the right do with their brains. Nobody on the left is pushing these falsehoods. I think what you meant by saying that the Democratic party doesn't know how to talk to rural americans is that the Democratic party isn't willing to stoop low enough to manipulate ANY americans (I say any and not rural because kerry wins a fine percentage of rural votes just as bush coerces a fine percent of urban votes--so the division is not rural/urban).

I'll stick by the side of those smart lefties, David included, until the sun don't shine...while it's difficult to see through the happy-go-lucky right wing shit slinging, I see it, and hopefully you will to. It sure would be sweet if the world was as simple as GW makes it out to be, but it's not. Consider debate number two when Kerry attempted to explain why he voted against a ban on partial birth abortions...he said that he was against partial birth abortions, but he couldn't vote for the ban because it did not include exceptions for the "life and health of the mother," he goes on to explain why he would not sign legislation that requires a girl raped by her father to get parental notification from her rapist father to get an abortion and that things aren't as simple as Bush makes them out to be. Bush then stands up and says, "it's pretty simple when they say are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? YES OR NO."

Are you going to honestly say that Bush is more moral than Kerry when he signs a ban on partial birth abortion that lacks the exceptions Kerry highlighted? He certainly sounds like a more stupid, pigheaded, and short-sighted man. Clearly less compassionate, less thoughtful, with a more narrow vision and understanding, and no command of the way the world works. The world is not always YES OR NO!!! Not hardly ever!!

But my gosh, he sure is resolute in getting a ban on partial birth abortions. That's something I can really admire, yeah. I think that what people really mean by resolute when they describe GW using that word goes far beyond stupid, as David described it. As you can see by this partial birth abortion example...what they are actually saying is "continuing to a goal despite the cost and sacrifice that others will have to endure"---stupid? You tell me. And if you can explain to me why Bush is a more moral man than Kerry I will be shocked and awed (and yes, Kerry has his moral quirks--see Teresa's various cringe-inducing quotes).

Whoever wrote that last post, I couldn't agree more. Very insightful, pure genious. I had some stuff to say, but you said it all already.

(umm, yea, this is me owning up to that last post- i got so excited i forgot to put my name and fake email, oops, i mean, real email that i never check and only use to post things that will attract terrifying emails, shit.)

Dave,

Speak truth to stupidity. Speak truth to thuggery. Speak truth to douchebaggery. Better we each become Michael Moore than we all become Winston Smith. The power of testifying should give us, if not hope, at least something to do.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Hey, I am a right-leaning libretartion. I am worried about the social and religious leanings of the right. A lot. However, you can stop it by denigrating people who hold different opinions, beliefs and values. You simply cannot win without winning some of them to your way of thinking. Maybe, even learn something from their reality. It's as vaid a reality as any other reality, even if you are repulsed by it.

Cut out the anger. Get rid of the Michael Moore's on the left. Get some ideas that get people passionate. Create something. Define yourself by the world you want not by your opinion of the other side.

Learn. Teach. Share. Convert.

Unless, of course, the point is simply to be angry and outraged.

Paul

You go, Dave. I think sitting passively has gotten us nowhere with the rancorous right. While standing with Sierra Club members last week holding a sign that read, "Pollution is not a family value", Bush rally attendees screamed at us, "BABY KILLERS!" "WHERE'S YOUR FAMILY VALUES?" "FLIP-FLOP!" "MURDERERS!", all the while hemming us in and pushing us around. Tell me how reaching hand out to any one of a thousand screaming people at that moment would have furthered our cause. Tell me how sitting there holding a meeker sign would have changed that outcome.

The fact is that Bush and his minions have whipped up their followers into a jihad. They are blind to their frenzy, while we wear spittle flung from their own screaming mouths -- and I mean that literally. Michael Moore is radical (the same guy who spanked Dems for their complicity in his film F9/11)? Try putting up with nearly a decade of Rush Limbaugh's hateful speech or Bill O'Reilly's intolerance, or Bill Bennett's hypocrisy on values. Michael Moore is nothing compared to these corporately-endorsed mouthpieces for the right.

Everything that happened to this country for the last four years has been attributed to the Clinton Administration and our liberalism. To that I say BULLSHIT. We on the left are frankly fed up with the double-standard hegemony of the right; how is lying about oral sex out of wedlock like invading and plundering a country while killing more than 100,000 civilians, let alone lying about the justification for this war? How is it acceptable in any way for an investigation of a high crime to drag out for over a year when the perpetrator resides in the office of the Vice Presidency? (You do remember the Plame Affair, yes?) How is it acceptable that all sundry unethical behaviors are glossed over without any repercussions? (Like the misstatement of Halliburton's earnings during the last year of Cheney's leadership there, or Cheney's possible indictment on corruption charges in the EU, to name two.) How is it acceptable to allow the mastermind of the largest terrorist act against our nation to slip away? (The US told both British troops and French special forces that had located OBL to "do nothing". Why?) Why is it acceptable to fail regularly and systematically on nearly every military objective, by undermining the expertise of our own military? (Remember Shinseki? Al Qaqaa?) Not to mention the on-going lackluster economy...or the fact that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, days after he returned from his brush-cutting vacation, in spite of all the warnings from people like Tenet and Clarke for months beforehand.

There is every single reason for those of us that identify as progressive to be rancorous. The right just rolled over and rubberstamped Bush's consistent record of failure. Had Clinton been guilty of even the smallest franction of these failures, I have no doubt that the right would have drawn and quartered him, put his head on a pike; look what they did to him for far less.

At least progressives draw the line somewhere on rancor. Perhaps it's time we lost that chalk and took it to the mats.

Paul, you're right. But I do think the Michael Moore type has a value, in that he is exposing what truly exists out there. Charlton Heston denigrates himself, Michael Moore just gives him the chance to do it. In B for Columbine Heston could very easily have said something thoughtful or truthful about why there is so much violence in our society (like disregard for other people, materialism, cynicism, & skepticism), instead I think he said something about how bloody and recent our history was--clearly no more bloody or recent than many other histories.

Compare it to athletics: to win a game, yes it's important to focus on your game plan, but it's just silly not to know what the other team is doing. By doing this Moore energizes our side. The danger, as I think you're touching on, is that you might become preoccupied with the other team, and lose sight of your own game plan--something that I also worry about happening--but hopefully an election like this will demonstrate the necessity for us to flesh-out our values and ideals and develop a solid game plan for demonstrating them, rather than focusing on the other team.

David

The Republicans clearly articulated what they were for while Democrats are focused on what they are against.

Maybe it makes sense to focus on the passion of love instead of the passion of hate. Positivity trumps negativity every time.

I doubt you'll listen to me, because I think you consider me the enemy (I voted Republican), but give Doc and Shelley a read.

Paul Wellstone had the
"moral value" angle right...
combining politics with strong
ethical vision. We need
another Wellstone (if that
is possible... ).
Jo Ann

Terry, I also wonder about your platform. I know you as intelligent, well-read and perceptive from your blog. To tell the truth, that makes me quite uncomfortable.

Much like the pastor on NPR this morning, a well-spoken, intelligent and educated-sounding man who praised the "genius" of Karl Rove for having floated the anti-gay-marriage amendment and thus galvanizing what he termed the "Christian" opposition. No matter that the president has flouted our treaty obligations, cooked the intelligence that unleashed a needless and counter-productive war, treated a civilian population dependent on us to torture and collective punishment, brought the star chamber to America, swept away due process when convenient, shifted taxation from wealth to work, vitiated the constitution he swore to protect, repeatedly revealed himself out of his own mouth to be startlingly oblivious to the real world, or conscious of a mature adult's responsibilities. None of those are of concern to a real "Christian," apparently, at least not as much as the possibility that a certain class of minorities might enjoy the same rights as the rest of us.

Some years ago, my profession had me knocking around some of the remoter areas of the world, and I ran into more than my share of ex-Nazis and Italian Fascists. Men who would identify themselves that way and point to a bronze bust of Mussolini on their office shelf or some similar relic, but well-educated, polite and gentlemanly all the same, difficult to reconcile with the reality of the regime they supported. I got the same uneasy feeling listening to the pastor this morning -- and reading your note here. And the sad and sorry GOP campaign this year has given me some faint whiff of what those men were like in the 1930's.

We are all trying to make it through the day. I was raised on a farm, where we were mainly supported by my dad's job as a machinist. I suspect that you have more education than I. So tell me about the Bush administration's shades of gray. Most of them seem pretty dark to me.

I have no interest in hating anyone. I have less than no interest in driving in wedges where bridges are possible. But: I am not moving to the center (= extreme right) in order to compromise on positions that are close to my personal core. We can have a completely reasonable disagreement about whether fetuses are people. I'd love it. But I'm still going to do whatever I can, within the limits of the law, to stop you from teaching my kids that Christian creationism is science.

Let me put this differently. I feel pressure (self-imposed) to censor myself in order to maintain the civil facade necessary to reach a compromise that sells out my values. "We all need to play nice," my inner Liberal tells me. Nope. We need, now -- today -- more than ever, to draw the line and declare it. We're not playing and niceness gets kids killed.

So, sure, I'm conflicted. I respect diversity and divergence of beliefs. Of course. But I am not going to "play nice" in the face of intolerance and violence.

David

From the accounts I have read on blogs, your real-life civility is not a facade, but is a deep part of you. Why do you think it is wise to dispose of it when discussing issues with people who might have another point of view? When you share your wisdom in a calm reasoned way I hear your point of view. When you blog-scream at me, I have troubling hearing.

Also, please don't lump all the issues amd all the people who voted Republican together. I am neither red or blue, but I have preferred one party or another in any given election.

When we treat and are treated as people first, not Democrats, Liberals, Republicans or Conservatives - then the conversation can truly begin.

I'm not agreee with your opinion about internet and elections: in any way Bush would have won.

We have been in an ideological war for some time now, only the left didn't know it. Now they do, so the battle is joined. It is important to know that we are dealing, largely, with people who give the appearance of reasonability, but nevertheless have a world view straight out of the 13th century. But what do we really know about what they really belive? I exhort everyone to attend any evangelical church for a few weeks to find out. Talk to the pastor about salvation, God, demons, angels, the end times. Ask him why he has urged his congregation to support Bush. Remember that the overwhelming reason that people gave for voting for Bush is because they believe he represents their moral values. It is critically important to understand where those values come from and what they're about. We may not be them, but we must understand them. Once you have a pretty good idea about what's going on if you don't already, the veil of their sanity will fall swiftly to the ground. You will come to the realization that appeasement will not work. BTW, Dave, I know I give you a hard time, but I want to you to know that I agree with almost 100% of what you say, and I think your blog is a service. I just also happen to think that there should be liberty to express differences, concerns, etc., and in this way you don't disappoint.

Somebody way up near the top of the comments wrote: "Such rancor got nowhere this week and it won't get anywhere downstream. The Democratic Party doesn't know how to talk to anybody beyond urbanites, and this isn't an urban country."

Funny. Maybe they didn't watch the rise of the Republican right. Maybe they didn't go to Free Republic or Little Green Footballs online. Maybe they didn't listen to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.

Rancor worked. Rancor is exactly what got the Republicans to where they are today. Rancor - and abuse and distortions and sometimes outright lies - won the last election, this election, and will win the next, all other things being equal.

Do I advocate any of this? Not necessarily - but it is simply false to say rancor doesn't work. The evidence speaks volumes to the contrary.

"I want pro-choice justices." Gee, shouldn't we just abolish elected legislatures and submit to rule by philosopher kings? (No? Then precisely where would you draw the line?)

"I don't want drilling in ANWAR." I'm honestly curious -- isn't life far too short to spend one second fretting over a big ice cube you'll never see?

"I do want to spend a lot of money on alternative energy." Great! Get some investors, and best of luck to you!

"I want gay marriage legalized." I thought you prided yourself on being a sophisticated citizen of the world, in solidarity with all peoples. What fraction of the world's population do you think can comprehend the expression "gay marriage"?

"I don't want religion in my schools...I'm still going to do whatever I can, within the limits of the law, to stop you from teaching my kids that Christian creationism is science." I'm sure you agree that the most effective way to take politics out of education is to get the government out of the business of running schools--period.

"I want sex education and condoms in the public schools." Lemme see..it's okay to use public resources to impose YOUR moral views on others, just not vice versa. Got it. Sure.

"Speak truth to stupidity. Speak truth to thuggery. Speak truth to douchebaggery...I respect diversity and divergence of beliefs." Uh, sure. Thanks for clarifying.

David,
Excellent words, as usual, and a great thread of comments. One of the great challenges we will have as progressives between now and the next election is whether or not to make this a knife fight with the right. We may need to go that far to win, but will we want to be the people we become when go that far? I'm not looking for a leftie Karl Rove.

Unfortunately we have gotten to the point where reasoned argument falls largely on deaf ears (in both directions). That has to change. The first step is to find issues where we can garner broad support (the shenanigans around voting machines would be a good place to start; follow that with health care or the disappearance of pensions) to bring in those who are mostly with us. I, like you, strongly support gay marriage but I'm ready to embrace someone who is with me on the environment, education, fair labor practices, and ending the disaster in Iraq even if he or she can't quite come to terms with gay marriage. Some may call that selling out but I know that if I can find five or six issues in common with someone then we can have a reasoned discourse and civil disagreement on everything else.

I use gay marriage as an example because the Reps used it brilliantly (if cynically) this time around. The national amendment vote and the eleven state votes brought out their forces in droves. It pushed people beyond where they may have agreed with us on the war or the economy and they voted for Bush. Our side failed to articulate as compelling an issue.

We need to be angry now. But we need to channel that anger into productive energy to take back the House and Senate in two years. I look forward to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you and many others in that battle.

"You go, Dave. I think sitting passively has gotten us nowhere with the rancorous right....Bush rally attendees screamed at us, "BABY KILLERS!" "WHERE'S YOUR FAMILY VALUES?" ...Tell me how sitting there holding a meeker sign would have changed that outcome."

Videotape it. You can't convince people who are in the throes of passion, but you can use _their behavior_ (and its contrast with yours) to convince others.

---

As for subject of your post David - the choices "support", "speak truth", "knife fight" are 3, not 2. I agree 100% that speaking truth is the way. And one can do so with civility.

And as for "support" - I don't quite see on what planet this would be a reasonable course of action. Would you "support" an abusive spouse?

I never cease to be amazed by the fictions that liberals feed themselves. If you want to "speak truth to stupidity" you have to know where to find it. Go check the exit polls and see who the stupid people voted for (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html). Here are a couple of examples:

1. Aren't older people smarter and wiser than younger ones? But under-30s voted for Kerry 54-45, while over-60s voted for Bush 54-46.

2. Don't smart people make more money than stupid people? OK, incomes over $50K voted for Bush 56-43, and the rest for Kerry 55-44.

3. And aren't educated people smarter than non-educated people? OK, so how come HS, Junior College, and 4-year college grads went for Bush while HS dropouts went for Kerry? The only shred of evidence to support your theory in the exit polls comes from the 16% of voters with post-grad education, Kerry voters by 55-44.

Sorry, but you're never going to win an election at this rate.

Intelligence is a morally neutral virtue.

George Wallace improved morally by changing his positions, not his IQ. Zell Miller took the opposite tack, and where will it put him? Circle nine, round three, feet first.

Oh, and Richard: As to points 1, 2, and 3: No, No, and No.

Why bother?

Start thinking about SECESSION.

If the country is a couple, it would be a long nasty divorce proceeding, but it would've been over long ago.

After reading JOHO for a year or so, I have to admit that I was disappointed when I read this post. I can certainly relate to David's frustration, disappointment, and even anger, as I've seen it (both left and right) and even felt it at times myself, but I felt that this post crossed a line of reasonable discourse.

A fair response would be: "Reasonable discourse? Have you heard/read some of things Republicans get away with?" And you'd be right, but I still have a (naive?) hope that people from both sides will rise above the anger and name calling.

I wrote more on my site:

http://www.leaveitbehind.com/home/2004/11/david_weinberge.html

Thanks.