1.20.2009
11.08.2004
You vs. You
Here's a radical statement: I really don't think that Bush and Co. took the election under the majority that everyone is saying they did. Now I don't mean they didn't win by a literal majority, they did, a rather large one in fact. What I mean is that the pundit assessments that the election was won because the moral heart of the country spoke, becasue the majority of Americans share Bush's beliefs and outlook is misguided and I'll tell you why.
What Bush and Rove did startlingly well is to pit us against ourselves. That is the true lesson of this election and of his presidency in general, his response to 9/11, his war in Iraq, his tax policies, his foreign policy (world alienation), his proposed marriage amendment, his cheap moral facade, all of it. All we need to do is translate their Orwellian statement about him, "Bush is a uniter not a divider", translation: He is a divider by design, that is what he does. That is how he wins. Look at the reality he created, the rich vs. the poor, "liberals" vs. "conservatives", "Support our Troops" vs. "Bring our Troops Home", Us vs. Them, Old Europe vs. New Europe, and on and on and on. This is a very, very bad way to lead a free people, although it may be an excellent way to control them.
Families have been split over the gay issue or the abortion issue, spurred on to attack one another's religious conviction (just read the greater Ernste family mailing list between Chuck , Rich, Dad, etc, or look at the Catholics against Kerry). Americans have been sicked on one another, spurred on to attack one another's patriotism. Veterans have attacked other veterans over a war that was already a sore spot for America. And perhaps the worst one of all and most relevant to this election, the poor are made to choose between their morality and their economic interests. That's right, rural voters are being pitted against themselves by this administration. What conceivable motivation could the poor have for voting for oil-weathly corporate pricks who may just send their kids to fight his personal wars? And that, my friends, is what the truth is behind this election's "moral majority". Give an honest man a live-or-die choice between his morality and his pocketbook and he will choose his morality (note the word "honest", there are certainly those who would choose their pocketbook).
Come on, people, doesn't this all feel sort of like an evangelical housecall (don't get the door!)? Just like evangelicals, these guys will say anything to convice you they're right, even if they have to tell you that your non-beliver family is going to Hell. Like every good fundamentalist there is no comporimise, there is no discussion. And they have to think of everything as right, no mistakes because in their black/white world the only other option is "wrong", there is no grey area, no nuance, no discussion, no secondary viewpoint, nothing to evaluate, just success or failure.
But it doesn't have to be this way. It's a false dilemma, just like every other question Bush creates for himself, just like the fundamentalist faith he embraces. It was not "bomb Iraq or American's will die here at home", it just wasn't, false, bad leadership, wrong, -10 points. In reality it was probably closer to "bomb Iraq and American's will die in Iraq, as will thousands of innocent civilians, as will our good will with the world, etc, etc, but we will get Saddam out". American's do not have to choose. There is no culture war between gays and straight people, we were just beginning to get along ("not that there's anything wrong with that!"). One group's marriages will not affect the others, straight married life will go on and gay couples may just lead happy lives and raise happy children and show us all what commitment means by not divorcing every five minutes (I personally have 1 acquaintance who is still married out of a dozen or so who "tried").
So in these dark years ahead, please DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!. When Bush or one of his clan starts doing it again, starts pitting you against your sons and brothers and uncles and children and friends, don't buy it, it's a cheap sucker punch. You do not have to choose between gays getting to marry and your religion, gays don't care about your religion (what has religion ever given them but grief?). You don't have to choose between being a patriot and opposing the war, those who seek peace always transcend such nonsense. And most important to the people you know who voted for Bush, tell them they do not have to choose between their morality and their family savings, between God at the table and food at the table.
What Bush and Rove did startlingly well is to pit us against ourselves. That is the true lesson of this election and of his presidency in general, his response to 9/11, his war in Iraq, his tax policies, his foreign policy (world alienation), his proposed marriage amendment, his cheap moral facade, all of it. All we need to do is translate their Orwellian statement about him, "Bush is a uniter not a divider", translation: He is a divider by design, that is what he does. That is how he wins. Look at the reality he created, the rich vs. the poor, "liberals" vs. "conservatives", "Support our Troops" vs. "Bring our Troops Home", Us vs. Them, Old Europe vs. New Europe, and on and on and on. This is a very, very bad way to lead a free people, although it may be an excellent way to control them.
Seen on Slashdot: "Make no mistake, 1% of our population makes all the food we need and a small percent more is needed to make our housing. Everything else is just gravy. There's plenty of wealth to go around, and it's not even that rich bastards want it all to themselves. It's more complex than that. It's about power. It's about playing the rest of the poor dumb saps off each other so the Bushs and the Haliburtons of the world can continue to trick the people at large into giving them everything they want."
Families have been split over the gay issue or the abortion issue, spurred on to attack one another's religious conviction (just read the greater Ernste family mailing list between Chuck , Rich, Dad, etc, or look at the Catholics against Kerry). Americans have been sicked on one another, spurred on to attack one another's patriotism. Veterans have attacked other veterans over a war that was already a sore spot for America. And perhaps the worst one of all and most relevant to this election, the poor are made to choose between their morality and their economic interests. That's right, rural voters are being pitted against themselves by this administration. What conceivable motivation could the poor have for voting for oil-weathly corporate pricks who may just send their kids to fight his personal wars? And that, my friends, is what the truth is behind this election's "moral majority". Give an honest man a live-or-die choice between his morality and his pocketbook and he will choose his morality (note the word "honest", there are certainly those who would choose their pocketbook).
Come on, people, doesn't this all feel sort of like an evangelical housecall (don't get the door!)? Just like evangelicals, these guys will say anything to convice you they're right, even if they have to tell you that your non-beliver family is going to Hell. Like every good fundamentalist there is no comporimise, there is no discussion. And they have to think of everything as right, no mistakes because in their black/white world the only other option is "wrong", there is no grey area, no nuance, no discussion, no secondary viewpoint, nothing to evaluate, just success or failure.
But it doesn't have to be this way. It's a false dilemma, just like every other question Bush creates for himself, just like the fundamentalist faith he embraces. It was not "bomb Iraq or American's will die here at home", it just wasn't, false, bad leadership, wrong, -10 points. In reality it was probably closer to "bomb Iraq and American's will die in Iraq, as will thousands of innocent civilians, as will our good will with the world, etc, etc, but we will get Saddam out". American's do not have to choose. There is no culture war between gays and straight people, we were just beginning to get along ("not that there's anything wrong with that!"). One group's marriages will not affect the others, straight married life will go on and gay couples may just lead happy lives and raise happy children and show us all what commitment means by not divorcing every five minutes (I personally have 1 acquaintance who is still married out of a dozen or so who "tried").
So in these dark years ahead, please DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!. When Bush or one of his clan starts doing it again, starts pitting you against your sons and brothers and uncles and children and friends, don't buy it, it's a cheap sucker punch. You do not have to choose between gays getting to marry and your religion, gays don't care about your religion (what has religion ever given them but grief?). You don't have to choose between being a patriot and opposing the war, those who seek peace always transcend such nonsense. And most important to the people you know who voted for Bush, tell them they do not have to choose between their morality and their family savings, between God at the table and food at the table.
11.05.2004
Newsom and Newdow
On my running theme here I think this election is an indicator that the US is showing signs of sliding back into a pre-Enlightenment mentality. The Founding Fathers were children of the Enlightenment and thus set this goverment up to guard against the irrational forces that had governed the world for centuries during the Dark Ages, where personal human misery existed inside a caste system, a monarchy, and enforced sectarianism. Our first leaders saw this new nation in the context of the Enlightenment and understood that America was founded by people who had fled religious presecution in Europe so they fashioned our governement to be explicitely unbiased with regard to faith. In other words, America was not founded as a christian nation as some would have you believe. To say this is to completely missunderstand what Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin were all about as well as to miss one of the greatest things about America, it's openness and freedom. America was founded as a place of religious freedom, where the state could not favor or impose any doctrine on its people, that much is clear from both history and from the Constitution itself. Amy Goodman alluded to this recently with respect to the current election on Demoracy Now! radio:
"This is a continuing theme throughout American history. I mean, if you go back to -- from going back to the battles between the -- those who were more followers of puritanism among the founding fathers over the role of the church within -- within our government versus the Jeffersonians, Madison and Franklin and those who were more of the Enlightenment strain; but it seems to have definitely grabbed hold at this particular time again, because there have been periods in American history where the fundamentalist vote has arisen."
And yes it has arisen, although I don't really believe they have any kind of real majority. This year we simply awakened the beast with our gay marriage and "under God" discussions, drawing in those who were otherwise willing to cast their vote rationally. My title points to Gavin Newsom (the mayor of San Franciso who started the gay marriage controversy) and Michael Newdow (the athiest who took "under God" to the Supreme court), two men who generated a lot of animosity in the minds of the religious-leaning, although I don't blame Newsom and Newdow personally. Both were absolutely correct in my opinion, but their cases inserted a new dynamic into the political discussion and indeed the election itself (does anyone doubt that voters came out just to vote anti-gay and also threw in a vote for Bush?). This in an America that appeared to be making progress on such issues, especially during the 90's.
Ask youself for a moment, what do you think the status of gays will be in 100 years? Do you think they will still be repressed by the government? Does anyone really hope we are still that small-minded a hundred years from now? Can anyone imagine our successors being so mean-spirited and un-enlightened? I certainly hope not.
So why do this to them in the first place? We have a known history of this kind of stuff and I thought we had learned the lessons of intolerance. Besides, mere tolerance is nothing to brag about, people. Tolerance is the absolute lowest form of acceptance, miles away from understanding and light years from love. Does the religious right really believe that if Jesus were here he would be "tolerating" or ,to be more like contemporary christians, taunting gays and discarding their rights and dignity, or do you think he just might be there comforting the persecuted with genuine empathy? (As an aside, in the war in Iraq, does the religious right really think Jesus would be flying co-pilot in one of our bombers, or would he be there on the ground with those innocent Iraqi women and children dying a needles death?)
One group should not have power over another in this country, that is what's called the tryanny of the majority (sometimes referred to positively as the "moral majority" by Pat Roberts). And at the bottom of all of this is this dilemma: the president of the United States should not have personal constituencies, he has no constituency except the people of America as a whole. And if this President doesn't understand that (I believe he doesn't) then we are in for some very tough times, some very divided times. I for one am living in the 21st century and will continue to do so regardless of the 17th Century mentality that seems to be making its last stand. So begins the next great "civil war" (though I sincerely believe it will remain "civil" and not lead to any actual violence!!), apparently we're going to refight the intellectual battles of the 18th Century. Which side are you on?
"This is what really divides the U.S. from other industrial democracies: Gods, gays and guns, if you will. If you were to take a sampling of public opinion in countries all around the world (the Pew foundation), you'd find that the United States on most of the core cultural issues is much closer to Nigeria and Saudi Arabia than to Europe and Japan."
- Fareed Zakaria on ABC news
"This is a continuing theme throughout American history. I mean, if you go back to -- from going back to the battles between the -- those who were more followers of puritanism among the founding fathers over the role of the church within -- within our government versus the Jeffersonians, Madison and Franklin and those who were more of the Enlightenment strain; but it seems to have definitely grabbed hold at this particular time again, because there have been periods in American history where the fundamentalist vote has arisen."
And yes it has arisen, although I don't really believe they have any kind of real majority. This year we simply awakened the beast with our gay marriage and "under God" discussions, drawing in those who were otherwise willing to cast their vote rationally. My title points to Gavin Newsom (the mayor of San Franciso who started the gay marriage controversy) and Michael Newdow (the athiest who took "under God" to the Supreme court), two men who generated a lot of animosity in the minds of the religious-leaning, although I don't blame Newsom and Newdow personally. Both were absolutely correct in my opinion, but their cases inserted a new dynamic into the political discussion and indeed the election itself (does anyone doubt that voters came out just to vote anti-gay and also threw in a vote for Bush?). This in an America that appeared to be making progress on such issues, especially during the 90's.
Ask youself for a moment, what do you think the status of gays will be in 100 years? Do you think they will still be repressed by the government? Does anyone really hope we are still that small-minded a hundred years from now? Can anyone imagine our successors being so mean-spirited and un-enlightened? I certainly hope not.
So why do this to them in the first place? We have a known history of this kind of stuff and I thought we had learned the lessons of intolerance. Besides, mere tolerance is nothing to brag about, people. Tolerance is the absolute lowest form of acceptance, miles away from understanding and light years from love. Does the religious right really believe that if Jesus were here he would be "tolerating" or ,to be more like contemporary christians, taunting gays and discarding their rights and dignity, or do you think he just might be there comforting the persecuted with genuine empathy? (As an aside, in the war in Iraq, does the religious right really think Jesus would be flying co-pilot in one of our bombers, or would he be there on the ground with those innocent Iraqi women and children dying a needles death?)
One group should not have power over another in this country, that is what's called the tryanny of the majority (sometimes referred to positively as the "moral majority" by Pat Roberts). And at the bottom of all of this is this dilemma: the president of the United States should not have personal constituencies, he has no constituency except the people of America as a whole. And if this President doesn't understand that (I believe he doesn't) then we are in for some very tough times, some very divided times. I for one am living in the 21st century and will continue to do so regardless of the 17th Century mentality that seems to be making its last stand. So begins the next great "civil war" (though I sincerely believe it will remain "civil" and not lead to any actual violence!!), apparently we're going to refight the intellectual battles of the 18th Century. Which side are you on?
- Fareed Zakaria on ABC news
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)