1. It is just one election. There is always another day. It may have been the most important election since 1964, depending on how we react to it. Do we form a circular firing squad, or fight to keep from becoming a war-mongering theocracy.
2. We do have to understand the opposition. We have to get inside it, take over its language, and exploit its contradictions from within. This is what the neocons did to the New Deal philosophy. Now we have to do it back. That means learning to speak Strauss.
We also have to learn the bible and bring as many pasters and theologians into the fold as possible. We need a coherent left Christianity, and we need it organized. That's hard for an avowed secularist like me to stomach, but I think it's the case. They don't hate your guts by the way; they are praying for your soul; that you accept Jesus in your heart. What they hate is that you/me won't accept their gift of becoming like them.
3. I was greatly amused by George Will's post-election column, which said the Dems lost because they nominated a liberal. Kerry is about as centrist as you can get. A generation ago he would have been comfortable as a Republican. Now the Dems lost because they nominated 3 purple hearts with lots of plans but no clear story of what he wanted America to be. I contended already back in the primary season that the Dems would be better with either Dean or Edwards, because though both were farther to the left of Kerry, they both had a coherent story to play against Bush's fiction, which would have dissolved into the bad action flick it is if it faced any competition.
jwb
No, I hold firm to the idea that people are convertable if you talk to them with respect and earnestness. It happens in teaching all the time.
I agree with you about Abu Ghraib etc. It's not just a question of having "slipped" in the eyes of the world--it's a question of having pretty much ended the Geneva Conventions, along with pretty much guaranteeing that we'll be terrorist targets for the next half-century, at least. Plus, you know, the privatizing of social security, the almost certain overturn of Roe v. Wade, etc. etc. Like you say: people will figure it out, but it'll be too fucking late for a lot of us.
No, we don't have to move right. But we do, obviously, have not only to become more politically active in day-to-day life (which is fine with me) but also learn to stop feeding the "elitist" meme. Not by accomodating the far right. But by really appealing to the hearts and minds thing.
It has to work.
Well, I agree with you on (1) and (3) at least. And then there's (2)...
I think the Diachronic Agency post is making, at least in part, a strategic point: we're not going to win with namecalling. And that's partly my point, too. I want to understand for theoretical reasons, and for pragmatic ones. I find explanations of the form "S performed action A because he is stupid or evil or both" to be unhelpful most of the time, just as I reject as unenlightening "S A-ed because he hates freedom." Even if true, unhelpful. I understand full well that etiquette and virtue are two different things, but I also think that once we identify the opponent as other, as outside our conceptual schemes or beyond the reach of argument, there's very little chance of winning elections, and that means very little chance of repairing the damage.
Oh hey, I know you guys didn't have luck hooking up while doing the canvassing stuff (neither did Mr. B., by the way, though like you he did meet a cutie, apparently), but you might try this.
Referendum on Abu Ghraib?
Really? I don't remember that prop on the ballot. I'm pretty sure I would have remembered the language "panties on the head" too. Probably that damned electronic voting -- you know -- Diebold conspiracy and all.
And here I was just voting for the guy who I thought would lead this country without capitulating to the Europeans and jacking up my taxes.
Maybe, just maybe, people have different views on where the country should go and they don't concide with yours?
I mean, maybe I'm reaching here, but maybe there is a middle ground between a "war-mongering theocracy" and "those damned liberals who eat aborted fetuses and want to make Christianity illegal."
Nah...much easier to just call people names, ascribe your own motivations to them. That way you can maintain that cocksure sense of moral superiority that has served you so well over the last two decades in elections.
Did you miss the referendum part? Well, I have a feeling it wouldn't have changed your vote.
Yes, FL has it right: my point is mainly strategic. I'm not recommending that we go all understanding or otherwise gooey-eyed for its own sake. I'm recommending that we stop insulting and belittling the Bush supporters who could be won over by a political argument that recognized and to some extent tried to accommodate their concerns. Of course many Bush supporters cannot be engaged. But why focus on them? Why tar them all with the loonie-fundamentalist brush when many of the Bush supporters we know -- I mean for example online or out in the suburbs -- are not loonie fundamentalists at all.
I'm not recommending moving right. I'm recommending arguing in a way designed to engage people who disagree with you. The post-election talk of reframing left-wing positions in ways that engage 'spiritual' values is an instance of what I have in mind. (My getting over the heebie-geebies that lead me to use those scare-quotes would be another.)
Given a choice between a fake republican and a real one, voters are going to choose the real one, it seems. Personally, I am glad Daschile's gone. It is time to become something besides "not republican' - if that's possible. The Democrats used to be the party of the labor unions, but the union's have lost power and money. What's left? Corporations. Both parties are the parties of the corporations, the democrats only less so. And who's gonna stick up for being less pro-corporate? The media? It's a giant corporation.
Jimbo's right, we do need to take back religious discourse. Used to, christians had an honest choice between leftist theology and conservative theology. Now the leftists have written them off, to our own detriment. The Repubs have cherry-picked certain bible passages and ignored others. There's plenty that's Left in the Bible.
And Zygote? When the President considers international treaties on human rights to be quaint, oversees systematic torture by the american military, and refuses to fire anyone over it, then it's up to the country, if it disaproves, to fire him. We didn't. The rest of the world sees this as approval of the American policy of torture. Do yourself a favor and don't kid yourself by denying that there is such a policy. It exists, and the whold world knows it. Bush may be stroking his nipples about his new mandate at home, but the US has lost it's mandate abroad, and that's a mistake. Nations do not stand alone, not even the United States. This is likely the beginning of the end of American supremecy as we have known it.
Michael, I agree that the events at Abu Ghraib were hideous, disgusting and did more to hurt our cause not only in the Arab world, but in the international community as a whole. Those who did it are being punished.
There's also a segment of the international community that sees the actions in Beslan as perfectly justified.
Syria sits on the human rights commission.
There is geonicide in the Sudan while the UN does nothing and France cashes more checks soaked in blood.
Much of the international community would be just fine and dandy if the Arabs pushed the Jews right into the sea.
They bow to the same forces who would eradicate us. Look at the oil for food scandal. Look at who was cashing the checks and running back door deals to provide the country with weapons and arms.
Perhaps you feel we should slide even closer to them -- maybe if we kiss up a little more, act a little bit more like them, give in on our principles just a little, they'll like us.
You are right about the end of American supremacy as we have known it -- we're too busy eating our own to be much of a power anymore.
Syria sits on the human rights commission.
And we don't. We were kicked off. We send people who we have no good reason to suspect to Syria for torturing.
As for Sudan, that's horrible. It's hard to even think about. The UN does nothing - it's a flawed body. I'm not the biggest UN fan. But, WE'RE not doing anything either. So it's a bit hypocritical to be pointing fingers at others, isn't it?
Much of the international community would be just fine and dandy if the Arabs pushed the Jews right into the sea.
This is a point ONLY if you already concede America has no moral capital in the world, that we're no better than Egypt, or similar countries. Make that argument if you wish, but it's a Pyrrhic victory.
hey bow to the same forces who would eradicate us.
yeah, Iraq was so close to eradicating us. How long did that war take?
give in on our principles just a little
That's just it, where are our principles? There's rhetoric, but where are our actions?
I agree, we should go into Sudan. There is a more pressing reason to go into Sudan than there is Iraq.
We also let Rwanda go on forever.
The same forces that oppose our involvement in Iraq would oppose us in the Sudan or Rwanda. Which is why I have a hard time giving much credence to the wishes and whims of the international community.
Hell, France refuses sanctions in the Sudan. Sanctions!
We don't have any moral capital in the world. We're part of the Great Satan and the Jewish-Zionist Conspiracy. Although I don't know if I want to have any moral capital with that group...
I agree with you on all three points, Ogged.
1. This election is a disaster on several fronts, from our moral standing in the world, to fiscal sanity, to civil liberties, to the environment, and so much more. But America voted for it and America will get what it deserves. I know many on the right take some perverse pride in being hated by foreigners, but when the entire room thinks you're an asshole, there's about a 99% probability that you've been acting like one.
2. I grew up in Southern Baptist churches in eastern North Carolina. I do understand the opposition. It isn't Republicans or Christians at large that bother me; that group includes a lot of my extended family and many of my closest friends. The group that scares me are Jesus' Stormtroopers - not because I don't know them, but because I do. I know that Bush's whole bloc isn't angry homophobes, but the entire angry homophobe bloc belongs solidly to Bush and considers him one of their own. I'm angry with the rest of the Republican coalition for empowering and kowtowing to the Flat Earth wing of Christendom. If you can only win by pumping up the fury of that crowd, you deserve to lose. If the Democrats were beholden to the Nation of Islam, I'd be just as outraged.
3. No more moving to the right. The point is not winning elections; the point is creating a better country. The Bush path leads to an ugly America. Zygote, that isn't the reason you support him. Fine. But the end result is still the end result. The fundamentalists are empowered and the ones here, in their own way, are every bit as crazy as the ones in the Middle East.
You're right, Ogged: the fundamental question of 21st century American politics is secularist government vs. quasi-theocratic government. The Democrats do have to be the secularist party and if that means a spell as a powerless minority, then that's what it means. The danger of the other path may have to be experienced to be driven home to a majority of Americans.
The reality-based community will be over here waiting when they figure out that the Christian zealots are about as much fun as the Muslim ones.
I think the results to this election are great!!!
My days are so much better!!!!
I couldn't agree more with you about Abu Grahib. It is why this election is not like other Democratic party defeats I've lived through. We (and I didn't vote to, but now I'm wearing it like a scarlet A just like you are) voted that Abu Grahib was swell. And this election was decided by "values." Oy.
The real problem with Kerry as candidate I think, is it turns out that he - of almost all potential candidates with the possible exception of Dean - was in no position to make Abu Grahib an issue. It would have been Hanoi Jane all over again. Whether this is empirically true is something I doubt. Because Abu Grahib in essence validates everything Kerry said about Vietnam. But I suspect the cw among the consultants was very much to avoid this issue because of Kerry's "negatives." Which is too bad. I personally thought he was the best candidate in the Democratic field, because Edwards lacked any national credential and Clark was too politically callow. But Clark would have been able to really do the right job with Abu Grahib.
We are all sullied. I think you're wrong on point two as well.
On point 2, Ted understands what I'm trying to avoid. I don't want our generosity and charitability to take the edge off our anger. Understand, if you're understanding in order to convince and defeat--but don't go thinking there must be something reasonable and not-evil when there isn't.
Ogged, Yes, of course. I don't know how I could be clearer about it: the point is that these folks are wrong.
And again, I'm only taking about talking to those to whom one can talk. Eveyone seems to be overlooking that lots of non-evangelicals voted for Bush. Of course we aren't going to win over the evangelicals. But that's irrelevant to the present point.