« Perfect Storm | Home | The Really Big News »

Election
posted by Brian on November 4, 2004 at 10:25 PM

So what fun is a blog if you don't post something about politics after a big national election? That's right, no fun at all. So, here goes...

Let's just get it out of the way up front. No surprise to most who would be reading this, but I've been and remain opposed to President Bush's policies and politics since before the 2000 election. So yes, I'm disappointed with the results.

But I'm strangely and surprisingly (even to myself) at peace with Bush's re-election. To be sure, I think we're in for a really troubled future (especially if you're among the 49% of voters who rejected Bush, et al), but there are factors that leave me more calm at this point than after the 2000 election.

First of all, there's just no denying the success of Bush's campaign. I still can't relate to any reason anyone has given for voting for the guy (and his ilk; can't leave out the Republican gains in Congress), because I think his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for the country. But in spite of that, apparently 51% of voters want Bush to be their president. OK. Not my choice, but at least I'm not left with the feeling that his victory was based on technicalities at best and sheer, arrogant partisanship at worst (decide for yourself where to come down on that spectrum). "Mandate" is a scary word and probably not justified in pure terms, but in light of recent election history, I would admit that Bush has gotten as close to a mandate as seems possible at the moment.

So, with that mandate (which he's claiming whether you or I like it or not), it's clear that Bush, Frist, Hastert, and the rest of the crowd will now have no choice but to own every decision and outcome they produce. I think those decisions and outcomes have a high potential to be damaging and tragic, just as so many decisions have been for four years. But when history is written (and when the next campaign hits its stride in 2007), there will be no doubt about who is responsible for whatever God-forsaken mess we happen to be in by that point.

A corollary to that seems to be, in contrast to what most people seem to be thinking, a certain freedom on the part of the Democratic party. Politically, it can't get too much worse, so why not get some cojones (see? I still know a bit of Spanish!) and stand up to this administration. The administration and Republicans in congress seem to thrive on bullying any opposition, so, from the Democratic perspective, why not use whatever power is available to fight for actual principles instead of votes or key demographics? Yes, that means filibuster and potentially bringing Washington to a grinding halt under some circumstances. The voters have spoken: they want principled stands without compromise, come hell, high water, or international scorn. I say give it to them.

And while I'm on a bit of a rant here, I'll just say that I'm proud to be from Massachusetts at this point. I'm not a big fan of the Massachusetts Democratic Party (the effort to keep Robert Reich from even being considered for the nomination for governor a couple of years ago exposed most of those in power as corrupt, insider, nepotistic, machine politicians), but I'm happy to be represented by our congressional delegation. And despite record spending by Gov. Mitt "Aren't-You-Glad-I-Saved-The-Olympics" Romney, all of that delegation, including Barney Frank, is on it way back to Washington. I just hope they read the previous paragraph.

Finally, something has become clear to me in the last day or so. Ever since 2000, Amy and I have joked about moving to another country if Bush was re-elected (and if your politics are similar to mine, admit it; you've made the same joke; and, like us, a small or even not-so-small part of you felt serious about it.) Now I realilze that that's not necessary. It turns out that, for all intents and purposes, we already live in a different country. The president himself practically turned "Massachusetts" into an epithet, and when combined with liberal (and yes, many of us here in Massachusetts do subscribe to the liberal and transformative world outlook held by the Enlightenment-influenced founders of this country) it's clear that he and his party have decided to effectively ignore this part of the country as much as he ignores most of the rest of the world. So if you've ever thought that moving to another country sounded attractive, now all you have to do is move to Massachusetts!

BKM

« Perfect Storm | Home | The Really Big News »

Comments

First of all, there's just no denying the success of Bush's campaign.

That sentence makes it sound like Bush did something besides get up and jabber at his public appearances. I prefer to think of it as the "Republican" campaign (and the same thing goes for the Democrats). But I think the success of it lay in exactly two things: bang the war drum and get out the single issue voters. The public morass of the gay marriage issue energized people like nothing else, I believe. I still can't decide who should be at fault for that, but I think the big uproar was unfortunately timed.

If you're looking for a way to express your grief, my friend Mike has made some t-shirts, which are apparently selling quite well. You can see them here:

http://store.muledesign.com/detail/election.html

Posted by David II | November 10, 2004 10:55 AM

Very funny David! Yep, blue here...

Doug Grove wrote me with a link to a map that supports my assertion that we here in MA are already in a different country. It turns out that MA was the only state in which every county voted for Kerry.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Posted by BKM | November 10, 2004 12:23 PM

You know, as much as I disliked Bill Clinton I never once thought it would be better to live in a different country because of who was President. Our country may not be perfect (and it never will be regardless of who the leader is) but I would take this country over any other in the world. I think the Democratic Party needs to take a look at who the public sees as the "spokespeople" for the party (Michael Moore, the Hollywood elite, etc.) and realize that this has alienated many of the more middle of the road democrate voters. Actually, never mind, as long as they stay on the current path Republicans will continue to control the Presidential office, Senate and House.

As for the "war drum" I would like to end with a quote by another well known Democratic President (FDR) that should remind us what America is suppose to stand for:

"We defend and we build a way of life, not for America alone, but for all mankind." - Franklin D. Roosevelt - May 26, 1940.

For more context to this quote here is the portion of the radio address it came from:

"For more than three centuries we Americans have been building on this continent a free society, a society in which the promise of the human spirit may find fulfillment. Commingled here are the blood and genius of all the peoples of the world who have sought this promise.

We have built well. We are continuing our efforts to bring the blessings of a free society, of a free and productive economic system, to every family in the land. This is the promise of America.

It is this that we must continue to build -- this that we must continue to defend.

It is the task of our generation, yours and mine. But we build and defend not for our generation alone. We defend the foundations laid down by our fathers. We build a life for generations yet unborn. We defend and we build a way of life, not for America alone, but for all mankind. Ours is a high duty, a noble task.

Day and night I pray for the restoration of peace in this mad world of ours. It is not necessary that I, the President ask the American people to pray in behalf of such a cause -- for I know you are praying with me.

I am certain that out of the hearts of every man, woman and child in this land, in every waking minute, a supplication goes up to Almighty God; that all of us beg that suffering and starving, that death and destruction may end -- and that peace may return to the world. In common affection for all mankind, your prayers join with mine -- that God will heal the wounds and the hearts of humanity."

Posted by Doug | November 13, 2004 07:15 PM

Since there seems to be alot of pride in the fact that Massachusetts was the only state to vote all Kerry I thought the following would be interesting (and enlightening) reading.

The link below is for a site that shows the "2004 Generosity Index" based on 2002 income tax returns. Massachusetts, the country unto it's own, ranks 49th out of 50 and the rest of the "blue" Northeast states are right there at the bottom with them. There is not a "blue" state in the top 25 !!!

Sad commentary for a party that claims to have so much "compassion" for the poor and downtrodden. That appears now to be only true for the "red" states.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004

Posted by Doug | November 13, 2004 11:29 PM

Hmmm... Sounds like I'm being baited here... I guess I might deserve it based on my original posting.

But on the other hand, I don't find Doug's comments to be very helpful. Flinging statistics back and forth with no real context or thorough analysis just doesn't move the discussion forward. It just sounds like one party trying to put down the other.

For instance, if I presumed that, because suicide rates are higher in states that vote Republican than those that vote Democratic (which is apparently true, believe it or not), would I then be able to assert that Republicans, who portray themselves as optimistic, are really just depressed hypocrites? Or if I said that, because Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, we in the Commonwealth value marriage more than, say, the residents of California (sorry, I have no info on divorce rates in CA, so I don't really know how they compare; it's just an example)? The answer to both of those questions is no. I don't think it's helpful to make those leaps of logic. If you're a social scientist who knows how to crunch the numbers and set them in various socio-culturo-politico-economic contexts, then I'll listen. But to say that people in Massachusetts or the Democratic Party are less compassionate than any other group, regional or political, based on one particular stat just isn't a good argument and certainly does nothing to move the discourse in a productive direction.

As for the wider discussion of The Red and Blue Map, here's a link to an article from MassINC, a nonpartisan think tank here in Boston. If you give it a read, you'll find that the election results are really so much more nuanced than most of us think.

http://www.massinc.org/commonwealth/new_map_exclusive/post_election_update_2004.html

Posted by BKM | November 15, 2004 10:20 PM

Thanks for the map link. Very in depth analysis. I will have to spend some time reviewing it later.

Posted by Doug | November 16, 2004 10:54 AM

Comments for this post have been closed.