October 03, 2004
Boorish Political Behavior
One unfortunate side effect of the politically charged atmosphere we Americans live in right now, is the thoughtless and uncaring behavior which comes out when people get so emotionally invested in their desire for a particular outcome, or the dominance of a particular world view. The flip side is that it’s encouraging to see so many people make the connection, and see the relevance of public policy on their lives and on our society.
Even if people don't get it quite right, or focus too narrowly on side issues, I think it's actually a positive thing that the level of engagement is so high. But because Americans aren't used to that, the discourse too frequently descends to shouting and name-calling, and that certainly is not good. My hope is that when the election is behind us, and we all realize that we're still here living together, that engagement can translate into a more civil discourse based in the knowledge that there is no imminent election and the improvements we need to work toward are long term efforts which will require the cooperation of folks with different opinions.
I don't claim to be immune from the negative side effects of political passion. I'd like to think that I would never grab a sign from the hands of a child (or anyone else for that matter) or shout down a veteran marching in a parade - two instances of boorish behavior by Bush detractors, which I've seen reported. But I did catch myself nearly shouting on the phone in a conversation with my aunt this summer, and I've talked with friends who admit that they've gotten too carried away.
Some tend to take a bean counter approach to these incidents, but that proves nothing that we don't all already know. There are boors of every political persuasion, and their presence or number has nothing to do with worthiness of any particular policy position. Feeling cornered can bring out the worst in some people, so as the pendulum swings in one direction, those at the other end will feel marginalized and sometimes act out in unseemly ways. For that reason if instances of misbehavior by Bush detractors outnumbers those of his supporters this season, as I suspect is likely the case, it's not really a surprise.
Most candidates for public office behave themselves reasonably well in public, leaving any misbehavior to surrogates who can spread innuendo, while absorbing most of the backlash in lieu of their candidate. Kerry and Bush were both mannerly in this week's debates, which came as no surprise to this observer. People from both sides will attempt to read ill intent into the reactions of the candidate they oppose, but ultimately it is the policies which are paramount in making this awesome decision of whom to entrust with the reigns of the most powerful government on earth.
Between now and the election, I will continue to make the case that the Bush administration represents a danger to our continued well-being, our environment, our security, and our freedoms. Through it all I will continue to respect many fellow citizens who have earnestly come to a different conclusion. Many think that I ought to also respect our President. Well, I don't. I can't. I've said before that I can't know what's in George W. Bush's heart, and that's true. But I would be disingenuous if I didn't also admit that I suspect the worst, if not of George, then of those whose bidding he slavishly follows. What I do know something about is his policies, and consistently they bespeak a contempt for many of my most strongly held values. About that, I cannot be silent.
I've already made the case that the political spectrum in this country is oversimplified, and that almost everyone has a mixture of conservative and liberal values, and other values not neatly labelled as either. What I find so objectionable about this particular administration and part of the leadership of the House of Representatives is not WHERE they fall along some left-right continuum, though I do feel they are significantly to the right of the mainstream, but the total lack of empathy for anyone or any group which stands in the way of pushing their agenda, and the wanton disregard for the concerns, and yes even the lives, of the downtrodden, when those concerns are at odds with the moneyed interests which prop them up.
Much of the right in this country misjudges many like me, who they see as "Bush-haters". I think they believe that our "liberalism" is a misguided justification for loose moral behavior, and that we see ALL conservative values as a threat to our agenda. But that is wrong. Speaking for myself, I think it is essential that wise conservative voices continue to have a place in our national discourse. I genuinely share some of their values, and respect others which I may not share. Importantly they also share some of my liberal values, whether or not they label them as such, like concern for the dispossessed and the sense that society has the responsibility to take care of its least fortunate. George Bush mouths some of these values, but his policies tell a different tale, the details of which I'll not attempt to address in this post.
John McCain in contrast has frequently broken with his own party when a bill was too harsh or not consonant with some of the basic human values he believes in. If McCain were the President today, I am next to certain that there would be little energy in the Presidential race. There would be respectful debates, but the result would be a foregone conclusion. There's not a Democrat who would stand a chance. The angst you now see from the left in America would be centered on Tom DeLay and other corrupt politicians willing to sell our democracy to the highest bidder. But there would be a lot less angst. McCain would have been Presidential in his approach to 9/11, and built on the unity that we felt (and yes I felt it too!) in those dark days in 2001. I can't know what would have happened in the Middle East, but I'm certain it would have been better planned and I doubt that we would have so alienated our European allies.
No the hue and cry one hears against Bush today is the direct result of Bush's own doing. It's not because of how far right he is, but because of how far wrong he is. Without the fear that this administration has nurtured out of the tragedy of 9/11, this would be no contest. But getting beyond the fear, and finding hope and possibility is exactly what we need to do. I don't pretend that John Kerry is the perfect answer for that, but I am certain that he is at least a step in the right direction. Not only that but the Republican party will be strengthened by Kerry's winning, as it will be forced to find more moderate voices to carry it forward.
In the meantime, we will all do well to remember the humanity of our neighbors, regardless of what they happen to be displaying in their front yard or on their bumper or their lapel. We should not avoid discussion, or be afraid of what they will think of us by revealing our views, but we should be civil. Most of us will still be here on November 3rd, and we will still be neighbors.
Posted by Walker Willingham at October 3, 2004 11:25 AMNo the hue and cry one hears against Bush today is the direct result of Bush’s own doing. It’s not because of how far right he is, but because of how far wrong he is.
Well said, Walker.
Posted by: William Cohen at October 3, 2004 11:39 AMWalker:
I can agree with a lot of what you said, though I tend to agree with Bush’s stances. I’ve been in conversations where both sides have gotten heated, though not boorish, because all the participants have strong feelings.
As far as McCain, I suspect he may decide to run in 2008. At that point, you will then see what a terrible person he is and how wrong he is . This will be pointed out by his political opponents. You will see the very same Democrats who “love” him today change their stance and find fault with his statements, actions and votes.
Don’t be fooled in our political process. McCain is much “loved” right now in part because he is NOT running. He therefore becomes a pretty picture of a politician with few looking beneath the surface. Its the same reason that early polls comparing Bush to an un-named challenger showed great numbers for the unnamed challenger. Once the “pretty picture” was replaced with a real live person, the polls changed dramatically.
I’m not casting aspersions on McCain—I really dont have much in depth knowledge about him. I’m just pointing out the realities of politics.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 3, 2004 03:29 PMThe difference with McCain, Joe, is that we got a glimpse of the real person— albeit brief thanks to the railroad job that the GOP powers that be did on him. Fact is, many left-leaning independents liked what they saw.
I don’t doubt that there would have been ugliness associated with McCain and attacks on him from Gore as well. But from what I’ve seen, I think he would have held up well to all but the most vicious of attacks…which explains how I feel about the Bush/Cheney/Rove approach to political campaigns.
Posted by: Jerome Guerra at October 3, 2004 11:05 PMYou will see the very same Democrats who “love” him today change their stance and find fault with his statements, actions and votes.
It depends. Who’s he running against? I was ready to vote for him over Gore.
Unfortunately, the last election set the standard for boorish behavior by the losing side. Not much has changed since then, nor is it likely to. The “hue and cry” that you mention has less to do with Bush policies than with his victory four years ago when the hues and cries began.
Posted by: NOTOTH at October 4, 2004 06:17 AMNototh, the hue and cry you speak of…began when Katherine “voter fraud” Harris disenfranchised black voters, Tom “My vote is for sale” Delay’s thugs rioted, and James ” Saudi” Baker’s legal armada short cutted the justice system…remember?
Posted by: Greg at October 4, 2004 07:29 AMGreg:
You gave great examples of specifically what NOTOTH was talking about. There has been no proven disenfranchisement of voters, the election results were close and contested by both sides, and the media said that Bush won even after recounts.
The close vote showed the system to be flawed, yet flawed equally on both sides of the aisle.
Democrats have not yet gotten over the poorly designed butterfly ballot, and have not yet taken responsibility for it, since a Democrat designed it. Somehow, they seem to feel that evil George Bush somehow convinced poor lil Teresa LePore to produce a badly designed ballot. Some kind of mind control or something, I’m sure.
What troubles me the most is that we have had 4 years to fix the problems and neither side has done much except bitch about it. Now we have elder statesman Jimmy Carter suggesting that the election will be fraudulent even before it happens.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 4, 2004 07:43 AMIt is interesting how people (like me) who are anti-Bush are seen as “liberal.” When I think about my political beliefs I don’t really see that I fit into either camp and would call myself a moderate, with left-leanings on some things (the environment) and right-leanings on others (gun control, capital punishment). So, when I use myself as the barometer — what else can I use, realistically? — I see Bush and his administration as being far from me ideologically. Not anything like centrist.
So why is Bush so popular? He has support among people who’ve lost jobs in his administration, he has support among parents whose children have lost limbs in Iraq, and he has support among people I perceive as being more intelligent than he is. Why?
The only answer I can come up with is fear. People are so afraid now that militant Muslims will come and kill them and their families that they believe Bush is the only one who can protect them. While that is a savvy (and possibly winning) political platform, it saddens me to think the people in this country can be so easily manipulated, so easily corralled into one-dimensional thinking.
Where is America bound if it re-elects Bush?
Posted by: Alejo at October 4, 2004 11:00 AMAlejo: Why is Bush so popular? Good question with an easy answer - Because kerry is to liberal!
You also seem to ponder why:
“He has support among people who’ve lost jobs in his administration”
- 9/11 happened and it “really” did have a negative effect on the economy. Tax cuts for those of us who need it also.
“He has support among parents whose children have lost limbs in Iraq”
- Proud parents who are proud to be an American. Parents who are proud of the fact that their children were willing to pay the ultimate price for their country. Parents who care more about their country than they do about any political party.
I am really saddened to think that you really believe “fear” is the only reason people will vote for Bush. There is no proof that Bush or kerry will make us more or less safer and most people know that.
You think the people in this country can be so easily manipulated, so easily corralled into one-dimensional thinking.
- I agree. People thinking kerry is a better answer to all problems is totally unfounded. There is no proof that kerry can or ever could do a better job than Bush. The only thing flying around on here are assumptions, name calling and this “at least give him a try, he can’t do any worse, we need a change” logic.
Both of these guys are elitest. Neither one knows or cares about the average American. I have looked at the issues and where each of them “say” they stand on them and I can see where kerry would take this country, and I don’t like it.
I can’t vote for Bush, but I must vote against kerry.
I support Bush because I believe we are all safer, and the world is better off when Freedom and Democracy is on the march. I think Bush will continue that march, and Kerry will halt in a desire to maintain the world wide status quo. It’s a lot more popular to do nothing than to act bold. Is it possible that those who support him are not afraid, but rather choose to look history in the eye and take up the challenge? The Europeans looked at Reagan the same way the look at Bush, because Reagan challenged the status quo and put Freedom on the march against Communism. Bush is hated by the same people because he dismissed the status quo and put freedom on the march against radicalism.
Of course it would have been easier to leave Iraq alone, but the world would have been no different. Since we went to Iraq, the whole world has changed, the Middle East has to re-draw its political map, re-think its strategy with the west and deal with a whole new element, Muslim democracy. Since what we’ve done in the face of terrorism has failed for the 30 years before 9/11, I like the idea of trying something new, challenging the status quo, changing the world. I support Bush not out of fear, but out of a desire to make history, to change the world as much as the fall of the Berlin wall did or the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
-D
Posted by: Delzario at October 4, 2004 12:18 PMkctim —
Don’t get me wrong — I’m not saying fear is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush. Not at all. I can see a lot of Bush’s appeal from other perspectives, I just had trouble understanding how he could still be so popular after four years of difficulty in America. My point was that there are plenty of people who would seem to have sufficient reason to dislike him but are nevertheless saying they’ll vote for him.
Delzario —
Pretty much the same point here (which shows I didn’t explain myself well): I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who agree with you, who look forward to a world made safe and free by Bush policies. But I think the average voter (that means not bloggers) is concerned first about his or her own welfare over that of the inhabitants of other countries. The average voter wants to feel sure that no one will crash another plane into a tall building in the United States. And I think the Bush campaign has utilized that fear, rightly or wrongly, in a very calculated way.
Posted by: Alejo at October 4, 2004 12:41 PMI would disagree, most of the people I know that are voting Bush (all non-bloggers) are doing so because they like an aggressive foreign policy. All the Kerry voters I know (certainly not bloggers) are voting Kerry because they want Europe to like us again (no, I’m not joking. That’s their rational).
Regardless, I’d say Kerry’s using trumped up claims of lies and sinister motives to turn people against Bush is just as low. Hell, look at Cameron Diaz basically telling women that if they vote for Bush, rape will become legal. I couldn’t vote Kerry simply because of the company he keeps.
-D
Posted by: Delzario at October 4, 2004 01:47 PMDelzario —
But why do they like an aggressive foreign policy? Because they feel it will keep them safe or is it another reason?
I’m not sure why I would think you were joking about people thinking regaining the allies we’ve lost during the last four years was a good idea. Why is that so ludicrous?
And don’t worry — I wasn’t talking about Bush’s campaign because I think Kerry is a stellar example of truth and forthrightness. I was bringing the whole thing up because I think this campaing is a reflection of the way people think. Every person should vote in the way he or she thinks is best. I just don’t think people should vote for Kerry because they think Bush looks like a monkey or vote for Bush because they have a purely visceral belief that George W. Bush will protect them. I worry that people don’t think or educate themselves enough, and allow themselves to be swayed by spin from either camp.
Posted by: Alejo at October 4, 2004 02:43 PMAlejo-
My friends like a aggressive foreign policy because they like when American leads by example rather than by committee.
I find it funny because they don’t care whether making the Germans of French like is in the best interest of the country, or our future. They only want everyone to like us. I’m not so quick to call the French or German’s allies. An ally is some one that shares your goals and helps you accomplish them. I think the French don’t have our best interest in heart. And I know Germans that only wish to see the US weak. My German family have often said they look forward to the day when France, Germany and Russia band together to take America down. This is why I don’t really give a damn about what they think/want. I’m much more concerned about what the British, Australian, Polish, Pakistani, and Italian governments/people think/want. What makes the French pols more important to our international stance than the Australian ones? Their are no permanent allies, only permanent interests.
On your last point about spin, I couldn’t agree more.
-D
Delzario: france and germany are always looked at as allies by the left here in the US because their govt. controlled country is what the left is striving for here in America. For some reason, a Constitutional Republic is not good enough for us anymore.
Posted by: kctim at October 4, 2004 03:16 PMDelzario —
You might want to be careful about referring to what the Polish and British governments and people want as being the same thing. Both of those leaders are suffering poor popularity in their countries because of their decisions to support the Iraq war.
I , for one, don’t care what the French or Germans like or don’t like. They are simply industrialized nations that it would be in our best interests to be on good diplomatic footing with.
Posted by: Alejo at October 4, 2004 03:53 PMAlejo:
I’d like to have the US be on good diplomatic footing with France and Germany also. But its worth noting that having friends who turn their backs on you isnt all that helpful. France cut out any level of discourse in the UN by stating they would never vote for war in Iraq.
There are times when friends must talk tough with one another. And that takes courage. A weak friendship is sometimes worse than no friendship at all, since you might find yourself counting on help when none is forthcoming.
I believe our relationship with the world will improve, but it needed to change. The world still loves American power and money when it comes specifically to them (note Mexico, etc). The world at large needed to be reminded that a true friendship is a two way street.
I am not afraid of a terrorist attack, though I am not naive enough to say it cant or wont happen. People like Bush because he is stalwart in his ideals, and because he is willing to stand up for our country, even when our “friends” chastise us for it.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 4, 2004 04:45 PMBut its worth noting that having friends who turn their backs on you isnt all that helpful… The world at large needed to be reminded that a true friendship is a two way street.
That’s great joe. So you must be really sympathetic to Europeans who believe global warming is a much bigger threat than a few Anti-American terrorists.
Did you write down your platitudes in a letter and send it to Bush after he gave Europe a big fat Cheney-style FU over an issue they still think is most important? Did you remind President Bush that “true friendship is a two way street”?
It’s possible that, had Bush kept negotiating on Kyoto instead of shredding it, Chirac - who in January 2003 still thought Iraq had WMD and war was inevitable and was working with the Pentagon to integrate an armored division, a carrier group and hundreds of planes into the invasion force - might have said well, Bush is is being very friendly with global warming, so I’ll be friendly back with this Iraq thing.
It’s called diplomacy.
In fact, after the fall of Baghdad, France and Germany offered peacekeeping troops and Bush shot them down! How does that improve our relationship with the world?
jbod —
I hope you’re right about our relationship with the world improving. Unfortunately I can’t see that happening under a president like Bush, with a cabinet with the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld, who behave like children when people disagree with them. I’m not saying that to be inflammatory; their diplomacy skills are nil. Even if I agree that we had to get “tough” with the world (and I’m not sure I do), we still have to treat other countries as though their differing opinions had some merit.
Posted by: Alejo at October 5, 2004 08:22 AMAP-
Are you actually going to argue that the Kyoto treaty was as/more important than Iraq/terror? Do some research; find the list of countries that actually ratified the treaty. The majority of them didn’t do it because it would have been foolish for them. Even Clinton knew that, that’s why he never tried to get it ratified; he left it for Bush to deal with.
France was selling missiles and plane parts to Iraq in the months and weeks leading up to the war knowing full well that those weapons would be used on Americans if/when the war started. Some friends!
-D
Are you actually going to argue that the Kyoto treaty was as/more important than Iraq/terror?
Read it again. That’s the EU talking. And if you want friends, you gotta be a friend.
I read it fine, my question is are you going to make a legitimate argument that the EU had it’s priorities straight worring about Kyoto? Your faulting Bush for dumping Kyoto and arguing that his problems with Europe may stem from that. So are you saying Europe is right to concentrate on Kyoto and Bush is wrong to focus on Iraq/terror?
Posted by: Delzario at October 5, 2004 10:00 AMDelzario —
Whether the EU is wrong or right for focusing on Kyoto is irrelevant from the standpoint of our relationship with them. We have to respect that their priorities are different from ours if we expect the same respect from them.
Posted by: Alejo at October 5, 2004 10:27 AMIn fact, after the fall of Baghdad, France and Germany offered peacekeeping troops and Bush shot them down! Posted by American Pundit at October 5, 2004 02:22 AM
AP, could you please provide a link that backs up this claim? The only things I could find were stories about France and Germany demanding yet another UN resolution a year or two ago, which was more gamesmanship than anything else.
I do remember that Bush quite rightly declined to include French and German contractors as bidders on reconstruction projects in Iraq. Like the old Little Red Hen fable, they wanted nothing to do with the dirty work of ousting Sadaam, but wanted a share of the spoils.
Posted by: NOTOTH at October 5, 2004 12:01 PMNo problem NOTOTH. Here it is.
And Bush shouldn’t have excluded anyone. That was hubris.
For one, it makes it look like we went into Iraq for the spoils. But most importantly, internationalizing Iraq would have altered the situation dramatically for the better.
