Various thoughts today
The past 36 hours have been very difficult for everyone. Like many, I am very disappointed by the results. I want to put down some thoughts on various attitudes and reactions I've observed.
First, the fact that this issue has become so divisive. It is causing fights between friends and within families. That is, in my opinion, one of the worst aspects of this election: tearing people apart and destroying relationships, instead of working together to make things better for everyone. I've succumbed to it myself this week, and I feel horrible for it. I am trying to keep this as neutral as possible. Discussions about specific policies can happen at another time.
Some have expressed anger at Kerry for conceding, arguing that there was still a chance in Ohio. However, my rebuttal is to look at the popular vote, even ignoring both Ohio and Florida with anomalous results: Bush was ahead. Heavy turnout, very divided, very close, but the larger portion was for Bush. I do not believe that weeks of lawsuits to again get an electoral college victory of someone who lost the popular vote is going to be productive. Had Kerry been ahead in the popular vote and electoral college trickery were used to get Bush selected, it would have been a very different situation than the one Kerry faced today.
Some have argued that Kerry ran a terrible campaign. Given the treatment of the media, I don't agree. Kerry had much more of a platform, more proposals, and more information on what he wanted to do then the Bush campaign did. The coverage of that positive message was buried by the way the campaign was reported. There was distinctly a double standard in reporting. Bush could say nothing about what he wanted to do, and the press would praise him. Bush would accuse Kerry of something, and the press would focus on the accusation and why Kerry was bad. Kerry would say something useful, and the press would focus on Bush's attacks against him. Kerry accuses Bush of something, and the press talk about how nasty Kerry is for accusing the president, and why the attacks are false. News coverage near the end of the campaign tended to cover Bush's events live, while summarizing Kerry's events after the fact. Given that situation, I'm not sure what people expected Kerry to do to run a better campaign. And ignoring the media, Kerry had hugely popular campaign events. Bush had tiny little restrictive managed events. Again, I'm not sure what the think Kerry should have done differently.
I have observed some people argue that the Democratic party should reform itself after this resounding defeat. To call this a resounding defeat is utter rubbish. Over 50 million people support Kerry. Losing by a couple of percentage points of the total turnout is not a resounding loss. On the flip side, it is not a landslide victory for Bush. It is not a mandate for Bush. To treat it as such just makes the division between the sides worse. This was a narrowly decided election, period.
I have observed people arguing that if this is the best the Democratic party could do, then the party needs to change. This is just as false. You may think that Kerry was a weak candidate, but over 50 million people believe he was a stronger candidate than Bush. That attitude is once again insulting those of a different opinion, and giving them justification to dislike you and your opinions in return.
And then I have seen Bush supporters gloating and belittling Kerry supporters. I am appalled at how completely juvenile some of these people are. Why someone, who is too immature to hold a civilized discourse over the future of the country, is allowed to vote in the first place is beyond me. Name calling in either direction is pointless and diminishes us all. And that level of vitriol only leads to greater divisions, greater tensions, and a breakdown of civility and society. There was definitely an increase in harassment and vandalism this year, and all the name calling does is to fuel the flames of violence. These attitudes create an environment where individual events can trigger riots. It is not the way to advance the civilization and society of this country. Sadly, this isn't restricted to small scale name calling. When prominent commentators start calling over 50 million people traitors for holding a differing opinion, and are rewarded for such rhetoric, it is a blisteringly clear sign of a breakdown in civilization.
Increasingly we are attacking one another over sometimes minor differences in opinion. If we have any desire at all to be a civilized, mature, and moral society, we all have to strive harder. We need to stop the extremists from all sides. As Benjamin Franklin said, united we stand, divided we fall.
First, the fact that this issue has become so divisive. It is causing fights between friends and within families. That is, in my opinion, one of the worst aspects of this election: tearing people apart and destroying relationships, instead of working together to make things better for everyone. I've succumbed to it myself this week, and I feel horrible for it. I am trying to keep this as neutral as possible. Discussions about specific policies can happen at another time.
Some have expressed anger at Kerry for conceding, arguing that there was still a chance in Ohio. However, my rebuttal is to look at the popular vote, even ignoring both Ohio and Florida with anomalous results: Bush was ahead. Heavy turnout, very divided, very close, but the larger portion was for Bush. I do not believe that weeks of lawsuits to again get an electoral college victory of someone who lost the popular vote is going to be productive. Had Kerry been ahead in the popular vote and electoral college trickery were used to get Bush selected, it would have been a very different situation than the one Kerry faced today.
Some have argued that Kerry ran a terrible campaign. Given the treatment of the media, I don't agree. Kerry had much more of a platform, more proposals, and more information on what he wanted to do then the Bush campaign did. The coverage of that positive message was buried by the way the campaign was reported. There was distinctly a double standard in reporting. Bush could say nothing about what he wanted to do, and the press would praise him. Bush would accuse Kerry of something, and the press would focus on the accusation and why Kerry was bad. Kerry would say something useful, and the press would focus on Bush's attacks against him. Kerry accuses Bush of something, and the press talk about how nasty Kerry is for accusing the president, and why the attacks are false. News coverage near the end of the campaign tended to cover Bush's events live, while summarizing Kerry's events after the fact. Given that situation, I'm not sure what people expected Kerry to do to run a better campaign. And ignoring the media, Kerry had hugely popular campaign events. Bush had tiny little restrictive managed events. Again, I'm not sure what the think Kerry should have done differently.
I have observed some people argue that the Democratic party should reform itself after this resounding defeat. To call this a resounding defeat is utter rubbish. Over 50 million people support Kerry. Losing by a couple of percentage points of the total turnout is not a resounding loss. On the flip side, it is not a landslide victory for Bush. It is not a mandate for Bush. To treat it as such just makes the division between the sides worse. This was a narrowly decided election, period.
I have observed people arguing that if this is the best the Democratic party could do, then the party needs to change. This is just as false. You may think that Kerry was a weak candidate, but over 50 million people believe he was a stronger candidate than Bush. That attitude is once again insulting those of a different opinion, and giving them justification to dislike you and your opinions in return.
And then I have seen Bush supporters gloating and belittling Kerry supporters. I am appalled at how completely juvenile some of these people are. Why someone, who is too immature to hold a civilized discourse over the future of the country, is allowed to vote in the first place is beyond me. Name calling in either direction is pointless and diminishes us all. And that level of vitriol only leads to greater divisions, greater tensions, and a breakdown of civility and society. There was definitely an increase in harassment and vandalism this year, and all the name calling does is to fuel the flames of violence. These attitudes create an environment where individual events can trigger riots. It is not the way to advance the civilization and society of this country. Sadly, this isn't restricted to small scale name calling. When prominent commentators start calling over 50 million people traitors for holding a differing opinion, and are rewarded for such rhetoric, it is a blisteringly clear sign of a breakdown in civilization.
Increasingly we are attacking one another over sometimes minor differences in opinion. If we have any desire at all to be a civilized, mature, and moral society, we all have to strive harder. We need to stop the extremists from all sides. As Benjamin Franklin said, united we stand, divided we fall.