This from the man who has reduced me to an icon of screechy liberal-ness (ie: "now, don't go all jwer on me") without ever actually addressing any of my points:
I've been checking out some blogs of Bush haters and have read about folks being disappointed in the people of the country, or bloggers who still don't get why others don't see the evil that Bush is, but you know what? Maybe it's not that everyone else is stupid. Maybe they're just as smart as you and educated themselves to the point they felt comfortable making the choices they did and those choices were for Bush. Maybe Bush isn't doing that bad of a job and people want more dead terrorists and less taxes. Obviously you don't speak for the majority and it's silly to automatically think everyone else is unable to make the proper decisions when you're in the minority. (DaBrettMan)
Let's go ahead and deconstruct that, shall we? It IS that everyone else is stupid, or at least, too busy with their own lives to research the shit out of every statement each candidate makes. Bush issues blanket lies that Americans want to believe, Americans being basically good-hearted people that want to be proud of their team (ie: America) and want to be proud of their leader (ie: the sitting President). The Democrats come out and tell the American people that they are being fooled by those wily Republicans, who make no effort to qualify their lies, but nor do they waver from them. The American People value this consistency, value it even over the fact that Bush is consistently WRONG, and make a lot of hay over the fact that Kerry changes his mind all the damned time.
We'll ignore the fact that, on the face of it, if you divorced the issue from the election and the parties, and asked Joe Lunchpail whether he'd be more supportive of someone who was willing to admit when he'd fucked up or someone who forged ahead as if he was incapable of making a mistake, he'd go for the first guy. The reason we'll ignore it is because Joe Lunchpail knows who we're talking about, and he knows what mistakes we're referring to; all he has to do to prevent cognitive dissonance and maintain his faith in the American Way is to take as a premise that the government acted correctly in Iraq. Once that's his premise, he ignores evidence to the contrary, collects evidence in support, and resents those that tell him that he's been fooled. This is human nature, and it's also why the Democrats lost every state not within broadcast distance of a major Metropolis.
Based on any objective measure, and by that I mean, measure of how the American people as a WHOLE are doing (I freely admit that, as a heterosexual middle-class white male, the real impact on my life of a Bush or Kerry is virtually nil; I'll still pay more taxes than I'd like (ie: any) and I'll still have the same role in society), Bush is doing a shitty job. No one who is gay, or female, or a minority, or who is making less than $200K/year, should ever vote for him. And yet they do, in comparative droves. Why? Because they are only thinking about themselves. Like me, white heterosexual men who already have jobs stand to lose nothing under four more years of Bush. One can argue that they should feel badly for those who are NOT white heterosexual males, but the sort of thing that will go wrong in the next four years, ie, the draft of 18-25 year-olds to attack Iran and Syria, the restriction of rights for gays seeking to marry (which, let's face it, will not prevent gays from marrying in Amsterdam or Vermont, and will not prevent them from working somewhere that treats same-sex partners as spouses for legal purposes, like Disney or Johns Hopkins), the rollback of Roe v. Wade, these things will not REALLY affect the bulk of America; most women will not have abortions, or already have and won't again; the bulk of men are already either married or committed, and have found ways to maximize the benefits of various tax filings; most men are older or younger than the most likely draft window.
But while the Democrats have a strategic obligation to consider the voters they failed to carry (ie: half of America), the Republicans have a MORAL obligation to consider the voters that they failed to carry (ie: the other half), which is to say, people who want to live their lives without government interference (a conservative principle) and people who want the government to stop wasting their money on unnecessary expenditures (another conservative principle). The Democrats lost by failing to connect with people that, by rights, should vote liberal. The Republicans won by lying to these people, and by knowing full well that these people are not the sort to rise up and demand a recount once they've been taken for a ride. They should be here for quite a while, unless the Dems wise up.
Meanwhile, it's foolish to say that this vote, or the vote in 2000, indicates ANYTHING clearly; yes, the GOP narrowly squeaked out a win, and did so more decisively than 4 years ago. However, a coin-toss is not a mandate. It's barely even a majority. For Cheney to suggest that this vote constitutes a mandate for the Bush Doctrine is so brazen that I'm surprised he could even be seen over his giant brass testicles. However, and this is the secret to Cheney's success, most Americans will either be outraged by that statement and yet do nothing, or quietly internalize it and use it as a riposte the next time a Dem suggests they got whitewashed.
There are demonstrably NOT less terrorists than there were 4 years ago; the Bush Administration crows that we've caught 70% of al-Qaeda's leadership, but neglects to mention that they're referring to the leadership circa 9/11/2001, which has virtually no relationship to today's newly-recruited leadership. I won't even bother to point out that the AWOL 30% includes Osama bin Laden, the world's most dangerous terrorist. Yes, George, good job catching bin Laden's pool-boy, have another term!
Brett also suggests (in another post) that everyone has access to the same internet that we have. You know what? That's complete bullshit. Just because our jobs allow us to pretend to work while reading websites for 6 hours a day, does not by any means imply that Joe Lunchpail (and yes, I'm aware that's insensitive, shut the fuck up) has handy access to such a tool at his 10-hour a day job on the factory floor. Nor does a busy doctor, for that matter. People want to believe what they're told, and they want to feel smart. They watch FOX, which tells them all sorts of bullshit, and they believe it, because they'd rather have a defensible opinion than a correct one. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as you can admit that's what you're about. The trouble comes when people are embarrassed that they've been caught not knowing something, or getting sold a bill of goods. I don't blame them in the slightest; no one likes these things. The question is, how do we convince them? I've been wrestling with this all day (and, indeed, for the bulk of my adult life) and I have no answer for you. If you have one, I'm dying to hear it.
