August 20, 2004
"The Country Will Be Lost!"
Every election cycle there are those who predict doom and gloom should the country elect the “wrong” President. Never in my lifetime though, have so many been so earnest in their belief that the “wrong” result in November bodes terrible ill for our nation and our world. It may be that the extent of the concern is overblown, but I am sure from my conversations with people on both sides of the fence that the concern is genuine and heartfelt.
Though I attempt to observe American politics phenomenologically, I am also a participant and actor and feeler in the political process. As a feeler, I understand at a personal level the urgency driven by the fear of what a Republican victory could mean. Visions of an encroaching Big Brother, further sell-out to big corporate interests, and megalomaniacal plans for world domination laid out by the blueprint of the Project for a New American Century, drive me and others to a concern that we may pass a point of no return in which dissenting voices are silenced and the great American Experiment will be lost. For my own part, I see that as a plausible concern, but by no means a foregone conclusion should Bush win reelection. Regardless of November's result, I will not give up hope for a better world.
The concerns of the right are just as vivid, whether they see a moral collapse or an economic one, or an unwillingness to stand up militarily if necessary to very real threats from outside our borders. The craziness of the world today coupled with the potential for technological destruction can feed a palpable fear regardless of one's point of view. (I'll leave it to conservative and/or Republican respondents to post links supporting their concerns.)
So the concerns are real and exist of their own accord, but there is political advantage to be gained by stoking those fears, especially when there is a sense that one is behind. Whether this is seen as shining a light on the truth or demagoguery is largely a matter of perspective. When MoveOn.org ran their ad campaign at the end of last year, and solicited our contributions to pay for them, those of us who participated felt we were exposing truths about Bush & Co. that the mainstream media was too timid (or too owned) to report on. Now that Kerry appears to have gained a slight upper hand, it is the Bush campaign which is selling the idea that Kerry isn't willing to stand up to the forces of terrorism, and would make military decisions based on political expediency. Of course it is very convenient for the Bush campaign that as a Senator, Kerry is constrained to an up/down choice on any bill. If, for instance, the Democratic rider, which would have funded the $87 billion military appropriations bill, had not failed due to the threat of a presidential veto, then indeed Kerry would have voted for the appropriations.
In evaluating the political claims of a campaign or its supporters, it's important to see them in context, seek opposing viewpoints, and especially to seek the views of those without a vested interest in the cause. FactCheck is a website I recommend which calls out the deceptions of both campaigns. It's also wise to avoid guilt or innocence by association. If a claim is debunked, it does not mean that all similar claims are untrue, nor does it mean that causes or candidates supported by those who made the faulty claim are culpable. In looking at the current Presidential campaign, I see politicians, all of whom play politics with facts, and I wouldn't expect it to be any other way. I also tend to dismiss claims that suggest that one or the other candidate is primarily inspired by an evil plan for the future of our country. They are after all human beings with faults and merits like anyone else. From my perspective, however, the preponderance of evidence points to the current administration being guided by precepts and advisors whose primary agendas are at variance with many of the values I hold closest. While I may not be especially convinced of the forthrightness or convictions of Kerry, his campaign's deceptions strike me as fundamentally and consistently less egregious than those the President's campaign is willing to stoop to, such as those used to justify the war with Iraq. We would be fools to expect to have saints as candidates for President in this age of media sound bites and influence peddling, but I think we can expect better than the current leadership. I have come to my views earnestly by examining evidence, relying on my own values, and on my gut, but that doesn't preclude me from respecting those who have reached differing conclusions.
Many of us tend to move in circles which reinforce our own predilections. This has a tendency to insulate us from reasoned opinions which run counter to our own. It makes it all too easy to generalize about those who disagree with us, without thinking of them as independent thinkers who may actually share many of our own values. My own circumstances tend to create this insulation for me, and it takes effort on my part to "deinsulate" myself. Joining WatchBlog as an editor was one such effort, but online interaction is not enough--I need personal contact as well to nurture respect for a diversity of opinion. I have joined a conversation cafe locally, only to find that its membership is currently seriously lacking in conservative opinions. Their rules and principles are sound, however, and I would encourage others to seek this type of interaction. A recent cross-country trip to visit in-laws put me in touch with intelligent thinkers of various political opinions. I know that it is healthy and energizing for me to engage in conversations with serious Republicans and Libertarians as well as fellow Democrats. It may be exhausting to do so all the time, but insulation is surely unhealthy.
In conclusion, I certainly can't claim to know whether Bush's reelection would truly threaten American democracy on a long term basis--I certainly hope not, and I'm very confident that the right will remain strong as an opposing force even if Kerry wins and the Democrats take both houses of Congress. But I would advise my readers, when you feel hysteria beginning to overtake you, take a deep breath, remain calm, and be willing to speak your truth to many audiences, and be willing to truly listen to those of differing opinions who argue with reason and in good faith.
Posted by Walker Willingham at August 20, 2004 09:55 PMExcellent post Walker. Thanks for the infusion of a little sanity. Annenberg’s Fact Check is a great resource.
Posted by: Greg at August 20, 2004 11:26 PMWalker, that’s a good article. As with your conversation cafe, I find that conservative opinions are conspicuously absent in the national dialogue. There are plenty of conservatives talking, but none have decided to join the debate.
Many of us tend to move in circles which reinforce our own predilections. This has a tendency to insulate us from reasoned opinions which run counter to our own.
The next time I hear a reasoned opinion from the right side of this page will be the first time I’ve heard a reasoned opinion from the right side of this page.
At every single chance to talk about issues, the right drags us down into a morass of character assassination, misleading innuendo, and political spin. And more often than not, we oblige them, giving their baseless accusations legs by engaging in debate about them. All that does is distract from the issues, and that’s exactly what they want.
The kind of character assassinations we’re seeing from the right are nothing more than a variation on LBJ’s “Pig F**ker” tactic. The idea is to continuously accuse your opponent of being a pig f**ker. Force him to go before the American People and say, “I am not a pig f**ker” and from that moment on, in everyone’s eyes, he will be a pig f**ker.
I will not play that game. It’s pointless and has nothing to do with serious national debate over foreign policy, defense, the economy, energy policy, or the future of Social Security and other social issues.
Wake me up when the right says something I should take seriously.
Walker,
I only recently became aware of Annenberg’s Fact Check, however I was initially underwhelmed by their work on the Swift Boat Veterans controversy. I came away with a CNN/Wolf Blitzer impression, as they offered just enough debunking of the ‘Unfit For Command’, to balance out equally their criticism of Democrats, on other issues. I have no qualms with what they’ve debunked of our side, but I’m damn well sure the Right beats us in disinformation, ten fold. I’d be interested to know if Media Matters and the Progress Report are on your Favorites list.
You triggered memory of a TV ad ran against Harold Washington, when he ran for Mayor of Chicago in the early 1983. The tag line was vote for his White Republican opponent, ‘before it was too late’.
I do feel this is the most important election of my generation, as I am convinced there are dire consequences in our future, unless Bush is defeated.
I suspect your altruistic streak Walker, has not been tested by those from across the political aisle, you assume share your faith in civility, patience and basic sanity.
Typical rookie mistake. Stick close and you’ll be okay.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at August 21, 2004 12:37 AMWalker:
Well said!!! Very well said.
While there are those in this blog who simply insulate themselves and consider any opinion outside their own as wrong or stupid, there are also those willing to look openly at multiple opinions. There are those who are not afraid to moderate their opinions when the facts call for it, but yet who are steadfast enough to not waffle around in the middle without making any kind of statement.
I found, for instance, Bert’s opinion of FactCheck.org a bit humorous. I find Brooks Jackson to be doing a very even handed job for the most part. But Bert seems to want Jackson on his side completely. That’s not what Jackson is about, but I think I can spot the insulation in Bert’s thinking.
AP states that >”The next time I hear a reasoned opinion from the right side of this page will be the first time I’ve heard a reasoned opinion from the right side of this page.”
Yet I have had a number of back and forths with AP that have been well reasoned on both sides. For him to take such a cheap shot is really disheartening. While he and I have not agreed generally, I’ve felt we’ve both been forthright in our opinions, and have presented them factually and in a well reasoned manner. Walter, I will agree with Bert on one thing: You might be disappointed in the sanity and civility of some in here. What I do is reserve the larger part of my brain for those, like you, who are truly interested in learning the truth. The partisan hacks will reveal themselves quickly, as will the uninformed and the downright stupid. I look forward to jousting with you. I trust you will be formidable in your opinions, and perhaps we can learn something in the process.
joe, I apoligize. When I wrote that, I was thinking about all the “I hate Kerry” articles over on the other side. That and the fact that almost every other thread has been infected by the ‘swiftboat lackeys for Bush’ “pig f**ker” nonsense.
I do enjoy the back & forth, and I hope we can keep it up.
And I agree with you about factcheck.org. I also find them to be fair. Sometimes infuriatingly so. :)
Really though, I’d love to see some Republican explain Bush’s counter-terrorism strategy. As far as I can tell it’s: Do nothing until forced to do so by public opinion, and then stonewall while paying it lip service.
Bush talks alot, but I haven’t heard much in the way of grand strategy or even nuts & bolts tactics. And what does get said is rarely backed up by actions. It’s been three years and we’ve only got what Senator Boxer refers to as a Wizard of Oz defense, “When you pull back the curtain, we have red and orange alerts and a few nattily dressed air marshals but not much else.”
I’m thinking of starting a web site that uses the 9/11 commission recommendations as a score card for the next administration’s homeland security and counter-terrorism efforts. We need some benchmarks to judge our representative’s performance. I’d do it now, but it’s clear that Bush is focused on beating Kerry and can’t be bothered with distractions.
This is not the most important election in American history. Anyone who thinks it is has not read enough history. The great strength of the U.S. is our bench strength. We complain and heap vitriol on our opponents, but the vast American machine continues. I have voted on both sides - Nixon in ‘72, Carter in ’76, Reagan in ‘80&84, Bush in ’88&92, Clinton in ’96 and Gore in 2000. I think Bush has done a good job, given 9/11 and the dot.com bubble burst early in his term. I will vote for him this November. This shocks some of my friends, but “independents” change parties, don’t they. I guess I vote for incumbents unless they give me good reason not to. Second terms are usually better than the first, especially in foreign affairs. When I look back, the only time I think the choice was really important was with Ronald Reagan. Carter is our best ex president, but he was not good at the chief executive thing.
This is a fairly tame election. The rhetoric will be very different, but Kerry and Bush will behave in many of the same ways as president. They will both stay in Iraq until we seem to win or lose. When Nixon inherited the Vietnam War from LBJ, he said he would get out. He did – in a disastrous way several years later. Humprey would have done the same. I hope Iraq works out better, but I don’t think Kerry will do a better job. The economy is already growing and producing jobs. Businesses have large cash reserves and will soon invest them. Whoever gets in will get credit for the recovery, but the recovery will come whoever gets in. The good news (and the bad news) is that we will look back at this election not as a watershed, but more like the Ford-Carter race.
Jack:
Considering the vast differences in the candidate’s abilities as diplomats, and also their differences in civil rights/human rights areas, I find it hard to see how you can say there is no real difference between them with a straight face.
Posted by: Jarin at August 21, 2004 11:20 AMAP:
The “i hate Kerry” comments are written about as often as the “I hate Bush” comments, from what I see. And those writing them are typically the ones whom I referred to as the uninformed and the downright stupid.
I’m able to accept someone who dislikes Bush as long as they present cogent rationale, just as I can accept someone who dislikes Kerry as long as….well, pretty much as long as they are breathing….ha ha.
There ARE differences in the candidates. Bush is far more direct and opinionated. Once headed in a direction that he feels is right, he is unlikely to change much (see, Iraq war, tax cuts, stem cell research etc.) Kerry is much more willing to look for all sides of the equation, to try to please both sides and to try to work things out. Both approaches can be successful if used at the right time.
It truly is a vote of which mindset one chooses. I choose the more direct approach, because I saw Clinton’s approach delay the problems but not get rid of them. While others may disagree, that is part of my reasoning.
Thanks for the clarification. I look forward to our ripostes.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 21, 2004 11:55 AMJarin,
Indeed there are huge differences between the candidates and the implications for executive and court appointments that would take place under their administrations are huge, but Jack does have a point that there is little reason to believe that the administration of the war and the short term robustness of the economy will be dramatically different based on the outcome.
Jack,
Given your stance as an independent, like your friends I am shocked that give Bush a good grade for his ineptitude when you weren’t even willing to vote for him last time around. You’re right that the “vast American machine” will move forward, but with Bush and his cronies at the helm, the rules will continue to be tweaked to favor polluters, widen the gap between the haves and havenots, reward irresponsible corporate behavior, and give free reign to the neocons who are promoting a dangerous super-interventionist approach to foreign policy. And while abuses of the Patriot Act remain fairly rare and mostly mild or else unknown to us so far, the machinery is in place to allow abuse like we’ve never seen before. The bottom line is these guys have given me ample room to distrust them, and independents like you should be champing at the bit to throw them out. But then I see that the two Republicans you’ve voted against have been Ford and Dole, the least objectionable candidates that party has put forward in my lifetime.
Jarin:
I agree that the two men are different, but they will suffer similar constraints and be forced along similar paths. There is a lot of continuity especially as “diplomats”. In 1999 the French foreign minister said that the current administration was “the most unilateral in U.S. history.” This was the Clinton time that we now look back as the golden age of Euro friendship. That is what the French say, no matter. Almost a century ago, French premier Clemenceau (stealing from Oscar Wilde) famously remarked that America had managed to progress from barbarism to decadence without the usual interval of civilization. Even a French-speaking diplomat like John Kerry would not have brought the French around because U.S. interests and French interests did not closely mesh in Iraq. The French would not have given their permission to do anything, even if John Kerry asked very nicely. Nations don’t have permanent friends, only permanent interests. I also recall 1983, when the anti-American groups in Europe could put millions of people in the streets to protest Ronald Reagan’s unilateralist policies. Many of these same people, now in positions of leadership where they understand more, praise his policies in ending the Cold War and look back at this as a time of Western unity. When I lived in Eastern Europe, I learned that most of the politically aware people positively adored the man for calling the Soviets an evil empire. My point is that things usually look different from a longer perspective. I think the Democrats made a mistake in nominating John Kerry, who is probably perfectly competent, but is undistinguished in everything since his heroic months in Vietnam. To replace a president in a time of war, you have to have something special to offer. I think Howard Dean would have been a better choice, since as least he offered something different. Kerry is essentially “Bush light”. He says he will do a better job in foreign policy, but gives no specifics other than, “because world leaders will like him better.” Personal likeability doesn’t get you very far in foreign affairs. Besides, John Kerry will bring on Richard Holbrook as SecState. A very intelligent man not known for his light touch.
Walker Willingham
I was writing the above response when yours came in. I supported Gore because I like Clinton and thought he might continue Clinton’s moderate policies. I now understand that Clinton was a political genius. John Kerry is no Bill Clinton. Gore wasn’t either, but at least he had apprenticed under him.
In conclusion, I certainly can’t claim to know whether Bush’s reelection would truly threaten American democracy on a long term basis—I certainly hope not, and I’m very confident that the right will remain strong as an opposing force even if Kerry wins and the Democrats take both houses of Congress. But I would advise my readers, when you feel hysteria beginning to overtake you, take a deep breath, remain calm, and be willing to speak your truth to many audiences, and be willing to truly listen to those of differing opinions who argue with reason and in good faith.
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments that the world will not end no matter who wins this election. Nor will we be in chains and concentration camps either way.
Sometimes I just have to laugh when I read something about how Bush is attempting to create a fascist police state, or a neo-con third reich. I have to laugh because in my view it is so wrong and in their eyes my view that the left is trying to march us down the road of serfdom is just as wrong.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 21, 2004 09:23 PMWhat? Eric Simonson wholeheartedly agreeing with me? There must be something wrong! ;) I suppose I could claim that you’re agreeing with something I didn’t quite say, but I also believe it is true that the world won’t end if Bush is reelected, obviously literally, but even in a metaphorical sense that would be a stretch. What is at issue is whether our democracy might be threatened. I have only granted that it is beyond my knowing that Bush will - or even can - destroy our democracy as we know it, but there is sufficient evidence for me to be concerned that another Bush term has the potential to damage more than just liberal ideals.
At this point in time I would claim that our democracy is nowhere near as fragile as it was in 1796, when George Washington in his farewell address gave us a precious gift by putting to rest any notion that he (and hence anyone) should be anointed president for life. Democracy though, is always fragile, and we need vigilance to assure that our institutions remain strong. The full extent of the Patriot Act and its follow-on measures are scary for their potential, but it is sufficient for me to know that Bush is perfectly happy to put the reins of government in the hands of ideologues from corporate boardrooms without countervailing influences from representatives of the rest of We the People. Should industry be represented in a government which sets rules and standards for it? By all means. But so should environmentalists, labor interests, medical experts, and community members.
Gale Norton who represented corporate clients against environmental claims as Secretary of the Interior; Steve Friedman from Goldman Sachs as the Director of the National Economic Council; John Snow who presided over the halving of the value of the stock of CSX Corporation is now treasury secretary; and Bill Donaldson whose Wall Street firm has been under SEC investigation heads the SEC; and the list goes on. It’s not that these guys are necessarily evil, and maybe they won’t sacrifice the public good for corporate gain, but I for one would just as soon not continue to give them the opportunity. It’s not like the big corporations won’t be represented anyway in a Democratic led government. Their lobbyists will still be on K Street. But let’s not give them the whole store.
Posted by: Walker Willingham at August 22, 2004 12:09 AMJarin- What are the differences between Kerry and Bush on “civil rights/human rights areas”?
I guess the biggest difference is on abortion- and where you stand on the unborn child’s status would determine if you think Bush or Kerry are right on that issue.
For everything else- i think they are about the same. They both supported and still support the Iraq war, which is a plus on the issue of human rights (take one look at the mass graves to see why).
Now, I do think that Bush has shamefully ignored this Sudan situation- so I think that is a point where his administration is lacking on the human rights front. I would HOPE that a kerry administration would act differently and try to stop the murder and mass-rapes, but I highly doubt it. What exact issues where you thinking of?
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 22, 2004 07:52 AMNow, I do think that Bush has shamefully ignored this Sudan situation
And don’t forget his timid response to Liberia and Haiti, Misha.
The Bush administration is isolationist. The only major engagements with the world have been in Afghanistan (retaliation for 9/11) and Iraq (stabilizing our energy supply). To expect them to intervene anywhere on humanitarian grounds -Bush’s record on humanitarian aid & infrastructure in both Iraq and Afghanistan is pretty bad - just flies in the face of conservative doctrine.
Democrats, on the other hand, took a bunch of political heat from the GOP for intervening to stop genecide in Bosnia and Kosovo. A purely humanitarian action which most conservatives were against.
AP- I think Bush did a decent job on both Liberia and Haiti. Not as much as I wanted to see done, but he did more than you make it seem. The Sudan thing makes me REALLY mad though- I was just as the holocaust musuem in dc with my dad the other day and they had some information about whats going on over there. How can we continue to stand by while these things happen?
I agreed with Clinton on Kosovo- but we cant forget that he allowed Rwanda to happen without lifting a finger.
Posted by: Misha Tseytin at August 23, 2004 02:56 PMI see where Bush is refusing a UN request to send more troops to the Congo, even though “there was a consensus in the 15-nation council that more troops were needed to keep Congo’s shaky peace on track after a five-year civil war that killed more than 3 million people, most through disease and hunger.”
Misha, if you think the Bush administration has done anything on humanitarian grounds, you’re deluding yourself.
