A dialogue

[dmcknze]

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

Comments

From S

[anonymous]

Excellent points, Daisan. It makes me think that perhaps the White Conservative Protestants may actually have a legitimate reason to be worried about threats to their way of life. I still think it's silly for the gay marriage issue to govern your voting strategy, but regardless of that, I'm not a fan of the concept and would vote against allowing it if it came to that. But maybe I didn't give the gay-marriage-voters enough credit earlier. Yesterday and election day I was anxious and emotional...today I have been able to calm down and reflect a bit more. Gay marriage is perhaps not the "single issue," but is instead representative of all the threats (real or not) that White Protestant Conservatives see to their way of life. I think this may have been part of the point you were making, Daisan, or at least your comments made me think about this issue in this way.

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

Re: From S

[dmcknze]

S,

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

[anonymous]

Dan,

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