(no subject)
At the eve of the first 2004 presidential debate, I decided that I wouldn't ride the emotional rollercoaster of this election year's last few weeks -- I decided to condition myself for a Bush victory. If Kerry actually won, great, but if he lost I wouldn't feel traumatized. I accepted that Bush and Cheney would stay in power, that civil liberties would continue to erode in the name of homeland security, that the mess that is Iraq would worsen with continued mismanagement, and that a host of other evils big and small would continue to grow and spread. Bush had done almost everything wrong in his first term, but with Rove and Cheney in his administration they'd proven they could spin bad news into good news and make the country believe it. They could recast and redefine any political opponent to serve their needs.
They did it to Gore in 2000 -- they recast the nerdiest, ultimate Boy Scout poster boy into an impulsive liar. In the '04 primaries they did it to war hero and fellow Republican John McCain, by suggesting he had betrayed the US to Vietnam during his Hanoi internment and that he had an illegitimate child. So it was no surprise that they did the same to Kerry, whose exemplary military record was unchallenged for 35 years. Just the mere accusation that his medals were undeserved and that his combat injuries were faked is enough damage.
But after the first debate, when Kerry outperformed the scowling and ill-prepared Dubya, I was almost knocked off my self-induced coma. The big Kerry boost in the post-debate polls made me think Kerry might actually win! The feeling didn't last though. Bush was clearly prepared for rounds two and three, and Kerry never improved on his original performance.
So tonight (well, yesterday evening, since it's 1:35 in the morning as I type this) I was sitting at the cafeteria with Sully (Michigan Jeff), Mark and Bec, talking about November 2. Jeff and I are prepped for a sad, sad day, but Mark's optimistic. He kept bringing up the poll numbers from October 2000 that showed Bush with a huge lead over Gore, and that the election ended up much closer than that. He suggested that phone pollers reach a naturally conservative audience in the daytime: elderly, retired folk and stay-at-home moms. New voter registration has been big this year, he added, and that could really help the Dem's numbers.
I've been thinking about this election for months now, a lot more so these last few days. I'm obviously of a liberal persuasion, though I wasn't always. I read a newspaper article recently about a woman doing volunteer work for Bush in Ohio. She said she chose her candidate by process of elimination, with pro-life as the first test, and that left Bush. A decade ago I would've been on the same team as her. Six weeks ago I would've derided her for confusing church and state, for ignoring bigger issues like war, for disregarding ability and competency, for a million other things. Today, I can respect her stance. Pro-life is her thing; it's the candidate dealbreaker. I don't agree, but I understand.
It's the three "G" issues: God, guns and gays. If people in the red states voted for Bush because of them, I can understand. If they vote for Bush because they like his agenda, his personal style, his swagger, I guess that's cool too. What I can't stomach is the notion that some people will vote for him because they think a Kerry win would lead to a terrorist attack. And that's an idea that Bush and Dick Cheney have been hammering into people's heads during this last few weeks, relentlessly.
Some background on me: I wasn't born in the US. I grew up under the rule of a dictatorship; martial law was declared when I was four and all political dissent stamped out. Fake elections would be held once in a while, but there was no fooling anybody in the country; the President, his cronies and his party always won. And a big part of how these assholes kept power despite their obvious corruption was by creating the spectre of a bigger threat, which in this case was communism. THE COMMUNISTS WILL TAKE OVER UNLESS WE DECLARE MARTIAL LAW! WE HAVE TO KILL ALL THE COMMUNISTS! IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT US, YOU'RE A COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZER! THE OPPOSITION PARTY ARE ALL COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZERS!
It's amazing to me how similar these rantings from a third world country's despot are to campaign rhetoric from the leaders of the free world. Change 'communist' to 'terrorist' and 'martial law' to 'Patriot Act' and there you have it -- the incumbent administration's talking points for the 2004 campaign. It would be comical if it weren't so alarmingly accurate. A campaign that plays on the fears of the average American is wrong, repulsive, disgusting. And it's a campaign that works, sadly.
Back to my personal history. I lived the first two decades of my life in a dictatorship, a state where I HAD NO GODDAMNED VOICE. Coming to America changed that. And so my ability to vote is precious to me. I understand it's not the same for everyone. But I'm still taken aback by people who say they won't vote because they neither know or care about the issues. Maybe under different (more sane) conditions, with candidates that aren't that different from each other, I myself might indulge in some of that apathy. But that's not today, and not with these choices. If a campaign built on fearmongering wins, then it wins. But it does so despite my opposing vote, not with my silent assent.
They did it to Gore in 2000 -- they recast the nerdiest, ultimate Boy Scout poster boy into an impulsive liar. In the '04 primaries they did it to war hero and fellow Republican John McCain, by suggesting he had betrayed the US to Vietnam during his Hanoi internment and that he had an illegitimate child. So it was no surprise that they did the same to Kerry, whose exemplary military record was unchallenged for 35 years. Just the mere accusation that his medals were undeserved and that his combat injuries were faked is enough damage.
But after the first debate, when Kerry outperformed the scowling and ill-prepared Dubya, I was almost knocked off my self-induced coma. The big Kerry boost in the post-debate polls made me think Kerry might actually win! The feeling didn't last though. Bush was clearly prepared for rounds two and three, and Kerry never improved on his original performance.
So tonight (well, yesterday evening, since it's 1:35 in the morning as I type this) I was sitting at the cafeteria with Sully (Michigan Jeff), Mark and Bec, talking about November 2. Jeff and I are prepped for a sad, sad day, but Mark's optimistic. He kept bringing up the poll numbers from October 2000 that showed Bush with a huge lead over Gore, and that the election ended up much closer than that. He suggested that phone pollers reach a naturally conservative audience in the daytime: elderly, retired folk and stay-at-home moms. New voter registration has been big this year, he added, and that could really help the Dem's numbers.
I've been thinking about this election for months now, a lot more so these last few days. I'm obviously of a liberal persuasion, though I wasn't always. I read a newspaper article recently about a woman doing volunteer work for Bush in Ohio. She said she chose her candidate by process of elimination, with pro-life as the first test, and that left Bush. A decade ago I would've been on the same team as her. Six weeks ago I would've derided her for confusing church and state, for ignoring bigger issues like war, for disregarding ability and competency, for a million other things. Today, I can respect her stance. Pro-life is her thing; it's the candidate dealbreaker. I don't agree, but I understand.
It's the three "G" issues: God, guns and gays. If people in the red states voted for Bush because of them, I can understand. If they vote for Bush because they like his agenda, his personal style, his swagger, I guess that's cool too. What I can't stomach is the notion that some people will vote for him because they think a Kerry win would lead to a terrorist attack. And that's an idea that Bush and Dick Cheney have been hammering into people's heads during this last few weeks, relentlessly.
Some background on me: I wasn't born in the US. I grew up under the rule of a dictatorship; martial law was declared when I was four and all political dissent stamped out. Fake elections would be held once in a while, but there was no fooling anybody in the country; the President, his cronies and his party always won. And a big part of how these assholes kept power despite their obvious corruption was by creating the spectre of a bigger threat, which in this case was communism. THE COMMUNISTS WILL TAKE OVER UNLESS WE DECLARE MARTIAL LAW! WE HAVE TO KILL ALL THE COMMUNISTS! IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT US, YOU'RE A COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZER! THE OPPOSITION PARTY ARE ALL COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZERS!
It's amazing to me how similar these rantings from a third world country's despot are to campaign rhetoric from the leaders of the free world. Change 'communist' to 'terrorist' and 'martial law' to 'Patriot Act' and there you have it -- the incumbent administration's talking points for the 2004 campaign. It would be comical if it weren't so alarmingly accurate. A campaign that plays on the fears of the average American is wrong, repulsive, disgusting. And it's a campaign that works, sadly.
Back to my personal history. I lived the first two decades of my life in a dictatorship, a state where I HAD NO GODDAMNED VOICE. Coming to America changed that. And so my ability to vote is precious to me. I understand it's not the same for everyone. But I'm still taken aback by people who say they won't vote because they neither know or care about the issues. Maybe under different (more sane) conditions, with candidates that aren't that different from each other, I myself might indulge in some of that apathy. But that's not today, and not with these choices. If a campaign built on fearmongering wins, then it wins. But it does so despite my opposing vote, not with my silent assent.