A dialogue
From: Dan
To: S and L
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:53:35 -0800 (PST)
I feel like I've been dumped by a girlfriend. Couldn't sleep last night. No appetite. Can't think about anything else. It's bad.
Admittedly, however, just about all of my anger and frustration is directed at the idea of four more years of Bush, not at the missed opportunity of ( Read more... )
To: S and L
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:53:35 -0800 (PST)
I feel like I've been dumped by a girlfriend. Couldn't sleep last night. No appetite. Can't think about anything else. It's bad.
Admittedly, however, just about all of my anger and frustration is directed at the idea of four more years of Bush, not at the missed opportunity of ( Read more... )
It goes back to your definition of the two parties, dmcknze...Democrats want a thinking leadership, Republicans want a leader. If he leads them into a pile of shit, at least they'll all go together, and together they can be led out of it again. People don't want to have to think about issues like Gay Marriage, they don't want to see nuances in moral matters, because the moment you start chipping away at a held truth, the entire thing could crumble.
I don't think it's coincidence that in liberal Europe, where "welfare state" is a label of pride and religion is completely separated from politics, NO ONE goes to Church or considers themselves religious, and fewer and fewer people are getting married, preferring to simply cohabit and raise children together because there's no point (read benefit) to getting married. This is the type of thing that scares the pants off the White Conservative Protestants who, in Ohio, voted 91% to 9% for Bush. These are the same people who make up 17% of the 23% of Ohioans who counted "moral values" as their most important issue, and voted 85% to 15% for Bush.
People honestly view liberalism, the Democrats, and ergo, Kerry, as a threat to their way of life. Given the proof that Europe and other secular nations exhibit, can we really blame them?
The simple fact is that the war in Iraq impacts my mother not at all, but the culture of America does. And she wants to ensure that American culture continues to prize worship, the sanctity of the nuclear family, prayer, pro-life policies, and all other values that she holds dear. I don't doubt that she's willing to die for those values, which is why a man like Bush appeals to her, and a man like Kerry doesn't.
Reply
As to the Republicans and Democrats...the question seems to be whether it's better to have a thinking leadership or a strong leadership (not without thought, but just less of it). I would like to believe it is a thinking one, but I'm not sure this is the case under all circumstances.
There was a fleeing moment when I almost considered voting for Bush -- my military friend and I were talking about the election last week. I asked him who he voted for, and he said the man who signs his paycheck. I said, if Kerry is president, he would sign your paycheck too. But he countered: You don't change commanders mid-fight. This is a point that has been made throughout the campaign. I dismissed it because of the arrogant way in which it was often presented. But when my friend - someone who lives and fights the "war on terror" every day - said that, the point finally sunk in, and there is legitimacy to it.
This brings us to my cousin's "Kerry as a decorated, respected war hero comment." L is probably right that Kerry lost the support of veterans long ago, but I can forgive my cousin because he lives overseas and is perhaps a bit out of touch with American politics. His greater point still stands, however, which is the effect that the spinners have on how we perceive candidates (not to mention his line about Mother Teresa was kind of funny). We can perceive Kerry as a flip-flopper, and Bush as a stupid, charge-ahead, take-no-prisoners, leader, but when it comes right down to it, what do we really know about these men? I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist - that is not the point I'm trying to make. Instead, I'm trying to say that neither of these men is very good. Neither can speak to the whole America.
The last paragraph might be more thinking outloud than anything. I'm still trying to figure this thing out and reply comments would be much appreciated. I suppose my anxiety yesterday didn't actually have so much to do with the fact that Kerry lost, but instead had to do with a sick heart at the fact that this country seems so divided.
S
Reply
I've heard the "you don't change commanders in mid-flight" from military people trying to justify why they support this president before. I don't buy it. Not even a little bit. I assure you that if it were a Democrat running this war -- even if he were doing it more competently -- members of the military would want him out. The military HATED Clinton and was thrilled when Bush won. You know that better than I do.
I never really have understood this phenomenon, given that I think that Bush has unnecessarily endangered these people's lives and put burdens on them that most of them never expected to shoulder when they first enlisted. The best explanation I can come up with is that the military loves Republicans because Repulicans have unmitigated faith in what the military can accomplish. There's no question that Bush really believes that terror can be defeated with the military alone. That's why he's unconcerned about what our allies think.
Democrats, on the other hand, are extremely skeptical of what military might can accomplish. I couldn't disagree more with the claim that Democrats are scared to use the military (one of the Republicans' biggest complaints about Clinton in 2000 was that he had stretched the military too thin). But Democrats believe that the military is, at most, only one component of any struggle that we have to fight. Democrats believe that while the military can conquer physical battlefields, the more important battle for hearts and minds has to be fought using some other method.
So which leader would you rather follow if you were a member of the military? The guy who reluctantly accepts that maybe you can have some small impact on changing the world for the better or the guy who believes that you are part of the greatest, most powerful force for good the world has ever seen. I happen to believe that the first guy is right, but the appeal of the second guy to people in the military is obvious.
--- Dan
Reply
I'm sticking to my guns here. (Pardon the pun). The only thing Kerry really had going for him was that he wasn't Bush. And maybe also that he was a Democrat. But frankly, I don't see much difference in the Democratic or Republican party. I think the differences are more perceived than real. For instance, Bush's astronomical expansion of the government, which we mentioned at the start of this dialogue.
Bush and his administration made a huge mistake going into Iraq in the first place, and then they made huge mistakes in the aftermath. But what difference was Kerry really going to make? What did he ever say was his plan to make things better, other than that he would "stay the course" now that we are there? Maybe he said something, but I certainly never heard it. I never heard anything but "I'm not Bush, so I'll be better." I don't find that very persuasive.
And I say again - at least we have only 4 more years of Bush, and not the potential of 8 whole years of Kerry. There is potential for some new leader to emerge within the next four years. I have some hope, although admittedly not much. The type of man that is attracted to politics these days is usually not the strong, principled type.
-S
Reply
Leave a comment