« Love from LMNK | Main | BACK IN BUSINESS!!! »
November 04, 2004
Forward from my friend Aaron in NYC
When I started reading this, I was surprised that he wrote about excactly how I felt. I didn't understand, I still don't understand why I'm so depressed/dissapointed over the outcome of the election this year. I honestly hardly ever follow politics. I hate conversations about it over lunch/dinner. I hate keeping myself informed about it...but for some reason I was totally hooked on the election coverage, and spent all yesterday morning pressing the refresh button on CNN.com Electoral College Map to see if Ohio would tell us the outcome of this drawn out election process. Anyway...This article just captured my interest...It made me feel a little better to know that I'm not the only person feeling down about this.
And I have to add right now...that I'm not so happy to be living in Texas. I heard on the radio this morning, the end of Pres. Bush's speech, where he directly addressed his fellow "people of Texas"...his "homeland"...I wish I were in NY...good ole democratic NY.
----------Forwarded Message------------------------
I think I agree with most of what Mr. Friedman (NYTimes columnist) has
to say below. Also of disturbing note, apparently the new GOP Senator
from Oklahoma has called for the death penalty for doctors who perform
abortions...
Hoping for brighter days ahead.
Best,
Aaron
Two Nations Under God
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: November 4, 2004
Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my health. ...
I often begin writing columns by interviewing myself. I did that
yesterday, asking myself this: Why didn't I feel totally depressed
after George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis, or even when George
W. Bush defeated Al Gore? Why did I wake up feeling deeply troubled
yesterday?
Answer: whatever differences I felt with the elder Bush were over what
was the right policy. There was much he ultimately did that I ended up
admiring. And when George W. Bush was elected four years ago on a
platform of compassionate conservatism, after running from the middle,
I assumed the same would be true with him. (Wrong.) But what troubled
me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.
Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences
and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line
between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers
should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump
science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?
At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real problems facing the nation were really discussed. But at another level, without warning, it actually became about everything. Partly that happened because so many Supreme Court seats are at stake, and partly because Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate social issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president. I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Constitutional Convention broke out.
The election results reaffirmed that. Despite an utterly incompetent
war performance in Iraq and a stagnant economy, Mr. Bush held onto the
same basic core of states that he won four years ago - as if nothing
had happened. It seemed as if people were not voting on his
performance. It seemed as if they were voting for what team they were
on.
This was not an election. This was station identification. I'd bet
anything that if the election ballots hadn't had the names Bush and
Kerry on them but simply asked instead, "Do you watch Fox TV or read
The New York Times?" the Electoral College would have broken the exact
same way.
My problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Mr. Bush is
not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith.
It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to
promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad. I respect that
moral energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it for
different ends.
"The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and
spiritual sources of American politics," noted the Harvard University
political theorist Michael J. Sandel. "They will not recover as a party until they again have candidates who can speak to those moral and spiritual yearnings - but turn them to progressive purposes in domestic policy and foreign affairs."
I've always had a simple motto when it comes to politics: Never put
yourself in a position where your party wins only if your country
fails. This column will absolutely not be rooting for George Bush to
fail so Democrats can make a comeback. If the Democrats make a
comeback, it must not be by default, because the country has lapsed
into a total mess, but because they have nominated a candidate who can
win with a positive message that connects with America's heartland.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of talk that Mr. Bush has a mandate for his
far right policies. Yes, he does have a mandate, but he also has a date - a date with history. If Mr. Bush can salvage the war in Iraq, forge a solution for dealing with our entitlements crisis - which can be done only with a bipartisan approach and a more sane fiscal policy - upgrade America's competitiveness, prevent Iran from going nuclear and produce a solution for our energy crunch, history will say that he used his mandate to lead to great effect. If he pushes for still more tax cuts and fails to solve our real problems, his date with history will be a very unpleasant one - no matter what mandate he has.
Posted by beth at November 4, 2004 11:59 AM