« Sail on, oh mighty ship of State | Main | I've soared with eagles and slithered with the snakes »
Trying to remain optimistic in the face of all evidence to the contrary
by northstar at 04:35 PM on November 03, 2004
After being up at 4am and working a 14-hour day at our local polling place, I finally gave up and went to bed at 1130pm. I was exhausted, and it was clear that nothing was going to be decided anytime soon.
I woke up at 3am, staggered out to the kitchen to check my laptop and discovered that Florida Ohio was going to be the fly in this election's ointment. I went back to bed with a heavy heart, wondering if it could really be possible that we could be heading down the same path we did in 2000. Could George W. Bush really be stealing another election? Could President Lowest Common Denominator REALLY have duped a majority of Americans into believing that he is a better, more effective leader than John Kerry? Apparently so.
A few more hours of sleep, and it appears not much has changed. This time, it's Ohio that hold the fate of this election in the balance. While no one has yet raised the specter of the nightmare that was Florida in 2000, the precedent is such that no one can reasonably make a call.
I have to be honest in what it all looks like through my eyes: it appears that George W. Bush has won. With a lead of 136,000 votes in Ohio, and 3.5 million nationwide, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which Kerry could overcome. Once all is said and done, my sense is that Bush will be awarded Ohio's electoral votes and thus the election as a whole. That is not the result I wanted, nor what I had believed in my heart would happen, but there it is. One can only bemoan reality for so long.
If nothing else, this election ought to renew the argument to do away with the electoral college. Nationwide, Bush enjoys a lead of 3,500,000 votes, and yet it is conceivable (though seemingly unlikely) that he could lose the electoral college. This is the second Presidential election in a row in which the electoral college could award the Presidency to the candidate with FEWER votes. Whether you call yourself a Liberal or a Conservative, that possibility ought to concern you greatly. While this is a conversation best left for another day, I do believe that the electoral college has proven itself to be an impediment to our democracy. If we believe in one man/one vote, the electoral college deserves to go the way of the buffalo.
I am aware that if the election were decided by the popular vote would have awarded the Presidency to Bush early on last night. Must we continue to be OK with a system in which a candidate with a 3.5 million vote advantage COULD STILL LOSE? If that is not a bastardization of the democratic process, I don't know what is.
I will not pretend to be happy; I am greatly disturbed that a majority of Americans seem to be perfectly happy with four more years of incompetence, ineptitude, lies, and a hopelessly misguided and deadly war in Iraq. Nonetheless, the people appear to have spoken. A wise man once said that Americans get exactly the quality of representation that they deserve. Apparently, our standards are far lower than anyone could have suspected. That so many Americans seem unable to honestly assess the dearth of principled leadership that has been the hallmark of George W. Bush's reign is something I find difficult to comprehend. At the risk of sounding arrogant and dismissive, it seems that the Bush-Cheney strategy of manipulating the fears of Americans and creating their own truth was successful. Somewhere, Niccolo Machiavelli and Josef Goebbels must be smiling.
Yes, it appears that George W. Bush has won. I'm not giving up yet, but I am also not about to pretend that things are not what they appear to be. I still cannot consider Bush to be a legitimate President. If he had not stolen the 2000 election, would he have been in a position to win this time around? Who knows? I'll leave that one to historians and intellects more nimble than my own. Regardless, my policy will continue. I will never, under any circumstance, use the words "President" and "George W. Bush" consecutively in the same sentence. Some might find that petty, but I do not believe Bush's reign was legitimate from the start. Winning an election subsequent to his theft of the 2000 election does NOT legitimize the manner in which he initially ascended to the throne.
What I do know is that if what appears to be the current reality holds up, I will continue my role as part of the Loyal Opposition. I am angry, and I am profoundly disturbed that fear and ignorance seems to have won the day. Nonetheless, it is what it is. I was hoping to be able to spend the next four years being less political. I've grown tired of "Fighting The Good Fight". Now, I have to spend four years listening to people like Rudy Giuliani talking about George W. Bush's "principled leadership". How can I not continue speaking out?
It's true, you will never go broke underestimating the taste and standards of Americans....
comments (27)
I don't remember much about the 2000 debacle but I think it ended with a Supreme Court ruling. In other words we have a system that is set up so one woman can decide the entire election for the so-called Leader of the Free World. How screwed up is that?
by anna at November 3, 2004 6:22 PM
Don't forget about Rudy's laughable comments about Kerry doing the "statesmanly thing" and conceeding quickly. Because that's what the Republicans do when a race is close - just give in and go home.
by Adam at November 3, 2004 6:39 PM
I assume you mean Guiliani. I saw him on TV the other day, looking haggard. He answered a question about all those missing explosives by basically saying it was THE TROOPS' FAULT. I thought they were off-limits, what with serving their country and all. What a dick he is.
by anna at November 3, 2004 7:00 PM
I am angry that you think anyone who disagrees with you must be "fearful and ignorant." 56 million Americans voted for George W. Bush. Are they all ignorant? Are they all ruled by (in your opinion, ungrounded) fear? I've been keeping an eye on the reaction here in NYC, a decidely liberal place, and the feeling on the ground is that those "hicks" in the South and Midwest don't understand what the real issues are. As if anyone who doesn't think your particular issue is the most important, and your particular stance the only correct path... that makes me sick more than anything else! Bush won by a pretty sizable margin. He is the first candidate in nearly 20 years to actually take the majority of the popular vote. Even if Kerry had won the election (instead of garnering just 48% of the popular vote compared to Bush's 51%), how do you have the balls to casually brush off half the country's opinions and beliefs and dare to call them ignorant?
by mg at November 3, 2004 7:16 PM
Good point MG. The people have spoken. Now about that link?
by anna at November 3, 2004 9:36 PM
MG, I don't think the people are necessarily DUMB HICKS. but it's okay if I'm SCARED of half the country now.
by LOCKHEED at November 4, 2004 3:05 AM
I think it's okay if you're scared of them, Lockheed. Meanwhile you still respect their voting decisions.
I guess I am disappointed that other people, having thought about current events perhaps more and perhaps less than me, didn't come to the same conclusion that I did, and support Kerry. Well... you win some, and you lose some.
by jean at November 4, 2004 4:09 AM
MG, you say,
"As if anyone who doesn't think your particular issue is the most important, and your particular stance the only correct path... that makes me sick more than anything else!"
If I may quote you from another recent post,
"The neo-cons currently in power believe it is America’s right and duty to change the course of history in the world. I think this is really cool. After the 9/11 attacks they’d decided to take that as the opening salvo of the inevitable war, and decided to face that attack rather than ignore it (as had been done for more than a decade before). I think this is pretty cool too. Then they attacked Iraq. I didn’t quite get that, but I can sort of see what they were trying to go for. "
Frankly, that sickened me, but I kept it to myself, as I have done with most of my political views and most views of substance on this site since I got totally torn apart by you and Mr. B for being pro-gay marriage and anti-anorexia.
It is so cool get into wars, which never have the aim of spreading democracy, and which kill people. In the end we're going to promote our "better way." But it is completely unacceptable, and sparks your moral outrage, to wish that the ignorant people, those that vote based on hating gay people or because they think they are in constant danger of getting bombed by terrorists, could do a little more research? Your huffy response to Northstar surprises me. Northstar knows as well as you do that lots of people vote for different reasons.
Do you not think that the Bush campaign tried to manipulate the fears and ignorance of people in the sticks, using religion, morality or fear as tools? A campaign? Manipulate ignorant voters?? Never! I'm disgusted at that suggestion about our squeaky-clean political system.
Something interesting in the voter demographics (I'm sure you've heard some of this). 22% of people said morality was the number one issue considered when voting, and 80% of those people voted for Bush. 19% of people ranked terrorism as their number one issue. A whopping 86% of these people voted for Bush. Of the 15% who thought the war was the number one issue, 73% voted Kerry. Of the 20% who said jobs & the economy, 86% voted Kerry.
I wonder what was on the minds of the 17.5% of voters who voted Bush based on morality? Gosh, it's just sickening if I think that voting your religious prejudices is a little short-sighted. I'm a sick individual. Wait, no, I'm just wrong! No one voted Bush because they want to suppress gay rights and a woman's right to choose!
I wonder if you polled the ignorant voters, most likely about 50/50 Democrat and Republican, what their number one issues would be and who they thought would best represent them. I bet a lot of the ignorant Kerry voters voted Economics, for example. Bastards.
But enough of my pouting, let's go celebrate the great democracy we're spreading in Iraq!
by Linz at November 4, 2004 3:01 PM
Linz! I didn't tear you apart because you were pro-gay. It was because your reaction to anyone who was anti-gay marriage was: bigot! Also, the anorexia thing gets on my nerves. It always involves talking about an ideal beauty being wrong. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder likes skinny, who's to say they're wrong or part of the anorexia problem? I didn’t mean to ream you on that one and if I did, I’m sorry. I’m actually glad that you feel that concerned for other people.
To get back on the original topic: I have to echo MG’s remarks. If more than half the country feels differently than you and you don’t know why (other than they must be dumb) then you might be missing something.
by MrBlank at November 4, 2004 5:44 PM
Anti-anorexia? I musta missed that one. I mean, who isn't against that? Bulimia is bad too. It's like when people say they are "pro-life." Unless you're a serial killer you're pro-life. But I guess that is just what MG called my hyper-realism.
by anna at November 4, 2004 6:21 PM
I never teared you apart because you are pro-gay either. I'm pro-gay. I just think there is a way to allow gay "marriage" that provides equal protection for homosexual couples and respects the wishes of the majority of the country, whic oppeses gay marriage.
As for the anorexia thing, you didn't just come out against it, which I think everyone can agree with you on, but you blamed it on advertisers. You can't blame a mental disorder on advertising. I know you took some advertising courses in college. So did I. I also work in advertising/marketing, so let me tell you a secret they never let either one of us in on when we were in school - advertising can't effectively convince people to change their brand of cereal, much less willingly cause themselves bodily harm, or bring about pysilogical/pyschological disorders.
But, anyway, on to the real topic of you comment. If you can think of a way to peacefully convince people who are willing to strap bombs to themselves, I'm all for it. Otherwise, war is what we've got. The fact you don't like war doesn't change the fact that we are in one, whether we invade Iraq and Afghanistan or not. Over the past 30 years there has been an escalation in the scope and sophistication of terrorist activity. Did these people get together to NOT wage a war against the West? This has been said over and over, and you will never believe it, but we have been in a war for a long time and just didn't know about it until 9/11. The war has been going on with out us, but we are only now finally starting to fight back.
I wonder what was on the minds of the 17.5% of voters who voted Bush based on morality? Gosh, it's just sickening if I think that voting your religious prejudices is a little short-sighted. I'm a sick individual. Wait, no, I'm just wrong! No one voted Bush because they want to suppress gay rights and a woman's right to choose!I wonder if you polled the ignorant voters, most likely about 50/50 Democrat and Republican, what their number one issues would be and who they thought would best represent them. I bet a lot of the ignorant Kerry voters voted Economics, for example. Bastards.
I know you are trying to be sarcastic here, but you really do prove my point. You believe that the morality is not important, so anyone who voted on that must be ignorant. You believe that the economics is more important, so anyone who didn't rate that highly on their list must be ignorant. It is just so narrowminded of you, and it was narrowminded of Jack, and it is narrowminded of everyone else who thinks that way.
I don't agree that, in light of all the other things going on in the world, that gay-marriage should have been the top of my list of voting priorities. Does that make me ignorant? I also don't agree that, in light of all the other things going on in the world, morality (whatever that means) should be on the top of my list of voting priorities either. Does that make me better-informed? Because I don't agree with the results of your decision-making process doesn't mean I'd ever make any judgement on the fact that you have some decision-making process. Even though you've arrived at complete different conclusions as me, I trust you've put some thought into it, and I'm sure the issues you voted on are important to you. They may or may not be important to me, but I'd never say you were ignorant or wrong for voting the way you did.
The simple fact is Geoerge W. Bush got more votes. But, apparently there are people (yourself included) who are willing to brush off the opinions and issues that are important to 51% of the country as ignorant or prejudiced (!), solely based on the fact you disagree with them. That is what got me all "huffy."
by mg at November 4, 2004 11:05 PM
mg, on the point of anorexia, the thing is this: I just don't think advertisers are careful at all with human beings. I think they are careless for the sake of promoting products. Good profits at all other costs. It's weird to me that this country is generally religious yet generally so bereft of concern for other people.
Believe it or not, I agree with you that we can decide how things effect us. (i.e. advertising can't MAKE us do things) But, on the other hand, I don't think all people realize it's a choice. Yesterday, for example, I was really emotional, and look at the stuff I wrote. Today, I had great morning sex, the weather has changed to lovely, and I meditated a little bit. I feel fuckin' great, and I can be more empathetic to your point.
BUT I am also empathetic to people that are negatively affected by advertising, and I feel more empathetic to the scores of women I've known that believe that they have to look a certain way to have worth, and have hurt themselves to get that way. Not everyone has it figured out like you do or I do, and in the meantime, I would much prefer if companies (composed of people) cared about the women that are hurt by such constant body images. You are asking more than is realistically possible of individuals (to ignore what is constant) instead of thinking, "Does it have to be constant?" To me, you are being more empathetic to companies, and not very humane.
You have yourself taken care of, but I am worried about the kids (and adults) that don't know any better. You can say an eating disorder is a mental disorder, but there are factors that trigger mental disorders, and I don't know why you'd stick up for the people sending out those triggers vs. the people that have the disorders. Also, the "unavoidable, not-advertising's-fault mental disorder" argument must also account for the 99% of women I know that are unhappy with their bodies, or once were, and had to battle to get over it. Don't they know to ignore the constant barrage? Foolish me for wishing that barrage didn't exist. Let me tell you a little secret that no one in your advertising world gives a shit about: women would feel better about themselves if advertisors laid off the super-skinny, big-tits women.
On to politics.
"But, apparently there are people (yourself included) who are willing to brush off the opinions and issues that are important to 51% of the country as ignorant or prejudiced (!), solely based on the fact you disagree with them. That is what got me all "huffy.""
No, YOU decided to get huffy. Neither Northstar nor I MADE you get huffy. Or sickened.
Your terrorism paragraph confused me. Who was responsible for 9/11? Is that why we went to war, terrorism? I also am surprised that you think there is only one way to quash terrorism, and that is by war.
"You believe that the morality is not important, so anyone who voted on that must be ignorant."
You misunderstand me. I wish that no one voted based on hating gay people, and I know that some did. I think morality is very important, but I think it's not the most mindful choice when selecting a president. Sue me.
"You believe that the economics is more important, so anyone who didn't rate that highly on their list must be ignorant."
You misunderstand me. I said that I bet that a lot of the ignorant voters on the Kerry side might have chosen that as their buzz item.
"It is just so narrowminded of you, and it was narrowminded of Jack, and it is narrowminded of everyone else who thinks that way."
Are you suggesting that there were no ignorant voters in this election?
Wow, okay.
Is it not okay, in your opinion, to have any opinion on why people vote the way they do? Is it necessarily narrowminded just because you don't like the insinuation? Do you not think that the Bush campaign very effectively used terrorism, fear and religion as tools? I believe Kerry used social security, jobs, the economy and the war as tools (and fear too!). Since the fear cancels out, do you think it's irrational to think that the economy and the war might just be better choices? Or is it just wrong to have an opinion on that? Are you opinionless? Objectivity is a beautiful thing.
People strap bombs to themselves bc they are convinced we are fucking them over, and in a lot of cases they may be right. Terrorism activity is coming from countries we screw over. It's not a coincidence. Declaring war on them is not, in my opinion, a good way to make them realize how nice we are. I believe in leading by example. I really do. Peacefully, through diplomacy. It doesn't happen overnight (much like this war) but there is a lot less bloodshed.
by Linz at November 5, 2004 10:13 AM
Bad body image and anorexia are two different things. Advertising and media, and society don't cause phsyological disorders, but I'm willing to admit that they can, to a degree, cause changes in opinion and style. But advertising alone can not get people to buy crap. Think about how much money is spent each year advertising awful movies that no one is convinced to go see. I believe that no one can convine someone else to buy or buy into soemthing, however a person can be convinced to buy or buy something. Totally a subtle and to you maybe meaningless distinction, but one i choose to make. If you think that callous of me, well spank my ass and call me callous.
Considering how often you've argued for personal choice over government interest, it still boggles my mind that this is the topic you'd pick to ignore the choices that really are made only by individuals.
As for the politics:
Are you suggesting that there were no ignorant voters in this election?
No, I'm sure there were plenty of ignorant voters. But someone who is religous and because of that religion believes that abortion is murder and that gays are evil are not ignorant. You can call them wrong and you may certainly disagree with them, but you can't and shouldn't blindly call them ignorant. The thing I'm trying to get you to understand is that because you disagree with someone doesn't make them automatically ignorant. And while we can both agree that there likely were plenty of ignorant voters, in Jack's post and in your initial comments you made it sound as if anyone who voted for Bush must be ignorant. That is why I was, and will continue to be huffy about this.
Do you think it's irrational to think that the economy and the war might just be better choices
I don't think it is irrational at all. That is my point. I can see why someone would vote on the economy and vote for Kerry because of the economy. I can also see why someone would vote on the economy and vote for Bush because of the economy. I can see why someone would vote on Iraq and vote for Kerry because of Iraq. I can also see why someone would vote on Iraq and vote for Bush because of Iraq. I may or may not agree with what issues you think are important, and why you'd vote for one candidate or the other because of that issue, but because I disagree doesn't mean I think you are ignorant.
It is clear your values are different than mine. I would never say my values aren't better or worse than yours. But by immediately dismissing the votes of 59 million people, that is exactly what you are doing.
by mg at November 5, 2004 12:52 PM
Look! More complaining. Slate is so freaked about the election result that the only explaination this author can come up with is that Republicans are not only dumb but also unteachable.
"Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue
The unteachable ignorance of the red states."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/
Wow. Slate will post anything.
by MrBlank at November 5, 2004 1:04 PM
HA! The funiest line in the article is this quote ...
... classic Republican feelings of superiority ...
... coming from a woman using an entire article to write how stupid Republicans must be. HA! I seriously expected better from Jane Smiley.
by mg at November 5, 2004 1:17 PM
Okay, mg, this is what gets me.
You say, " I would never say my values aren't better or worse than yours. "
But right after that you say,
"But by immediately dismissing the votes of 59 million people, that is exactly what you are doing."
First, that's not what he did. Second, you are dismissing the possibility that what Northstar said had any merit. THEN you called him and me narrowminded. What if he's right? Seriously, just what if? If you are so against judging people's motives, if you are so objective, just consider for a second that you, in your finite wisdom, might be wrong, and he, in his finite wisdom, might be right.
To say it more succinctly, unruffle your feathers and quit acting so holier-than-thou. You dismissed him in a heartbeat, even though the views he expressed are as intrinsic and deep to him as the views of the gay-hating religious views that you defended to me earlier.
You've gotta take like 40 steps back and be objective with everyone if you are playing the no-judgment game.
by Linz at November 5, 2004 3:23 PM
Oh I forgot to answer this.
"Considering how often you've argued for personal choice over government interest, it still boggles my mind that this is the topic you'd pick to ignore the choices that really are made only by individuals."
I can say without a doubt that this is a flawed comparison. First, this has nothing to do with the government. Secondly, I am talking specifically about individual choices. I am talking about why people with eating disorders make those choices.
If you read my post again, you will see it is a letter to one photographer, inquiring about his or her motivation to make choices. If you read the comments again, you will find one very real life example of someone whose choices were affected by advertising. Someone you should give a shit about. Someone whose words you should consider before trying to turn my views into something they are not.
How am I opposed to personal choices by wishing the advertising industry had a soul? That people like you wouldn't shrug this off and choose to be "callous." That you would consider the fact that every choice is influenced by stimuli, Mister Nature over Nurture. I think it is scientifically unrealistic to think that all people in the country can ignore constant stimuli when making their choices.
by Linz at November 5, 2004 3:59 PM
Being a homosexual is an abomination, and they should all go to hell, which is where they belong. Anyone who supports gay marriages has forgotting the values of a family. Imagine a child going to a fathers day event at school and bringing 2 dads along hugging and kissing. Imagine the childs horror as his friends laugh at him and his gay dad.
by I HATE GAYS at November 5, 2004 4:02 PM
Did you vote Bush?
by Linz at November 5, 2004 4:23 PM
mg, I'm reading that post again, and all the comments, and trying really hard not to get mad at you again. But the thing I'm figuring out, is you think that I don't know eating disorders are an illness. You think that some manifestation of that illness is inevitable. You also had some choice comment (which I am noting a trend of today... "google searches"... "little secret" from someone who's actually IN advertising) indicating the superiority of your research about eating disorders.
Gosh, it sure is rude of you to assume you're smarter and better informed than me. I was in the gifted and talented classes too. What's your IQ? How many books have you read? What was your QPA? What did you get on your SATs? How many people have you seriously conversed with about their eating disorders? Oh, wait, that doesn't matter, according to you, because it's second-hand.
So let me go beyond that and say, for the sake of the self esteem of young women (and men) everywhere, whether or not they have a chemical imbalance that leads them to take that self esteem issue too far, I wish that someone, anyone in the advertising industry would admit accountability.
You know what really chaps my ass? You and my bass player. You both think that just because I'm emotional that I cannot also be logical (and well read!). Asshats.
by Linz at November 5, 2004 4:30 PM
Someone needs to do more worky today.
by Linz <-------- at November 5, 2004 4:32 PM
Im British, so no i didnt vote bush
by I HATE GAYS at November 5, 2004 5:13 PM
Who let I Hate Gays in here, now that's the question.
by anna at November 6, 2004 1:28 PM
You know what really chaps my ass? You and Northstar. You both think that just because someone is religious or emotional that they cannot also be logical (and well read!). Asshats.
by mg at November 8, 2004 7:20 AM
Anna, I think he has some brilliant insight. I mean, imagine being a kid and getting laughed at for something! How humiliating! That certainly would never happen unless he has gay parents.
by Linz at November 8, 2004 9:00 AM
"Imagine the childs horror as his friends laugh at him and his gay dad."
Wouldn't that be gay Dads? Unless, of course, a gay Dad happened to convince a straight male to accompany him to his son's Fathers Day event.
by Ezy at November 11, 2004 2:13 PM
grow the fuck up up you stupid mother fucker!
by alicia at March 29, 2005 11:43 AM