Don’t just take my word for it. Listen to Atrios, who’s not just a wise and seasoned blogger, but is also an economist.
Economics Follow-Up
Hmm...
Chris at AMERICAblog writes:
What's missing from our news these days?Now, even though our dearly departed Atty Gen John Ashcroft assured us in his resignation letter that “The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved,” somehow I think he may have been a bit overconfident. (Which is, admittedly, understandable, as overconfidence seems to be a requisite attribute for any Bush cabinet member.)
Interesting how the terror warnings and fear, fear, fear that was pumped into the news prior to the election has suddenly gone quiet? What a coincidence.
Do you suppose they just don’t have any more old, cobwebbed intelligence waiting to be thrust upon an unsuspecting American public, or is it that there isn’t a Democratic contender whose thunder needs stealing anymore?
Taxing My Patience
This is seriously pissing me off. Forget the conservative social agenda for a moment, and let’s focus on Bush’s economic proposals, which are perhaps even a greater worry. Every story that addresses his plans is further evidence that his primary economic goal is the death of The New Deal.
During his reelection campaign, President Bush piqued interest among conservatives and liberals alike when he said replacing the income tax with a national sales tax was "an interesting idea."No, it’s not an interesting idea. In fact, it’s a terrible idea. The poorest among us pay no or very little income tax under the current system. If a family can afford only staples—the bare necessities, such as shelter, food, utilities, clothing—adding a national sales tax to those items is not going to help them; it’s going to make life more expensive and thereby more difficult. In Britain, where there is a national sales tax (VAT), items such as food and children’s clothing are exempt, which I imagine would be the case in the US as well, should life be breathed into this folly. But Brits also still pay income tax, too.
A national sales tax is not the answer to the increasing budgetary crisis in this country. Unmitigated spending in Congress, egregious tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, fiscal irresponsibility across the entire administration, ever-increasing costs for the war in Iraq, and legislation that seeks to enable more and greater spending rather than enforcing spending limits are the problems that need to get addressed, and a national sales tax solves absolutely none of them, which is perhaps the most pertinent argument against the idea. It’s a solution to a distorted holograph of the actual problem. Additionally, a national sales tax would surely cause a spike in inflation, as companies build the increased cost of their raw materials into the price points of their merchandise. The American people must treat this ridiculous suggestion with the contempt it deserves.
[A]dministration officials have begun dialing back expectations that they will move to scrap the current graduated income tax for another system.So, to pay for even more tax cuts for the rich and corporations, Bush is proposing taking away the tax benefits employers receive for providing health coverage to their employees, effectively removing the only incentive that employers have to extend said benefit to those in their employ.
Instead the administration plans to push major amendments that would shield interest, dividends and capitals gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment and take other steps intended to simplify the system and encourage economic growth, according to several people who are advising the White House or are familiar with the deliberations.
The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said. (Emphasis added.)
At least 40 million Americans are currently without health insurance right now. What do you think your chances are of joining their ranks if your employer has no inducement to provide you with coverage? Do you think he’ll keep paying part of your premiums out of the goodness of his heart? Do you think he’ll even continue to bear the administrative costs of a health plan?
"The White House is dreaming if they think they can do all this," said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist with the National Center for Policy Analysis.Well, Bruce, I hope you’re right. And more importantly, I hope the American people awaken from our own extended, snoozy dreamland. We’re long overdue for a wake-up call, and it’s up to us to prevent this White House’s dreams from becoming our national nightmare.
My Pet Turkey
President Bush stood staring at his pet turkey for seven minutes until an aide gently urged him back to the affairs of state.
Awesome.
Bush has chosen Condi Rice to replace Powell. What a shocker that loyalty would trump competency in this administration's cabinet appointment process.
Opposition or Capitulation Party?
Michael at AMERICAblog writes:
Say Hello To…
...a teetotaling Mormon (one of the most anti-gay groups in the country). A former Capitol Hill cop. A staunch opponent of abortion. A co-sponsor of the constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning.
Who is it? A rising star of the "traditional values" Republican Party? Some new young turk who came into office on the coattails of George Bush?
Nope! It's Harry Reid of Nevada, the new face of the Democratic Party and the Senate minority leader! That's right: an anti-choice, anti-free speech, anti-gay, heck even anti-beer Senator is the spokesman for the Democratic Party. Write it down. Because with his record, that might be hard to remember.
P.S. By the way, don't expect him to deliver. Reid couldn't even deliver Nevada, even though Bush broke his promise to the state and tried to dump radioactive waste in their backyard.
Just one more reason we need a Shadow Administration.
Take My Breath Away
VP Dick Cheney has been hospitalized for shortness of breath. Anyone want to take a bet on whether the October surprise (Cheney leaving the ticket) that some predicted may end up being a pre-inauguration surprise instead? It’s a bet I wouldn’t take. This has Rove written all over it. Instead of risking the win by getting rid of Cheney before the election, they’ll bring in a new VP (and their ’08 candidate) through the back door.
Who will it be? Giuliani? That wouldn’t make the religious right too happy, since he’s pro-gay and pro-choice. (AMERICAblog offers another reason that the Jesus freaks might not warmly embrace this choice.) McCain? Seems a likely possibility and would explain the apparent selling of his soul during the campaign, especially if he were given a heads-up. Maybe someone from the ’00 cabinet—Ashcroft or Rumsfeld? Scary, but possible. Ashcroft has been floated as a possible Supreme Court nominee, but if the administration thinks there’s no chance for that, they might consider him for a VP slot. I would tend to think they would use it as a chance to ready the ’08 candidate, though, and Ashcroft doesn’t seem Oval Office-bound. Schwartzenegger might be a dark horse contender, while they spend the next 4 years trying to amend the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to assume the presidency. Not a very realistic possibility, but fun to speculate.
If Cheney does step down, my money’s on Giuliani or McCain. Watch this space.
New DNC Chair
This post is very much a day late and a dollar short, as this question has already been discussed widely in other places, but no decision’s been made yet. Terry McAuliffe may step down (or be forced out) as DNC chair. Possible replacements that have been suggested are Bill Clinton, Simon Rosenberg, and Howard Dean, among others.
As you know, my opinion definitely finds itself firmly in the out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new school of thought. (Atrios has a good post about purging the party, too.) Clinton wouldn’t necessarily be a disaster in terms of job ability, but I think he would in other ways (namely, not representing the forward-looking attitude we need to take at this point). I’m all for Howard Dean, who I think has the organizational ability and the energy, not to mention name recognition, that would be required. My vote: Give Dean a chance.
Updated Links
Some of the links here at Shakespeare's Sister seemed permanently fucked, but now they're working again. I've also added some new links: AMERICAblog (a real oversight on my part), The Dark Window, and The Rude Pundit. Definitely check them out. I'm completely addicted to all three.
Also, if anyone has suggestions for sites that should be included, please let me know. (Even if it's your own site - blog whoring welcome.) I won't guarantee they'll get added, but I will check out any and all suggestions.
Follow-Up
As a post-script to the previous post, I wanted to clarify my thoughts about Perot. For anyone who may doubt that the Clinton presidency was handed to us by Perot, check out these final numbers from each election:
1992
Clinton 43.3%
Bush - 37.7%
Perot - 19%
1996
Clinton - 49%
Dole - 41%
Perot - 8%
It is the conventional wisdom (and see here for analysis) that possible Bush/Dole voters favored Perot more than possible Clinton voters. Particularly if you look at the numbers from '96, when Clinton had the incumbent advantage, it was exactly Perot's percentage that split Clinton's and Dole's takes of the votes.
This is our reality, despite our desire to ignore it. Without Perot, we would very likely be on a 24-year losing streak. Though we cannot discount Clinton's popularity while in office and after leaving office, to cite his centrist model as the be-all end-all of our problems is simply absurd.
Pointing the Finger
It’s been awhile, I know, and some of the regular readers have emailed me asking where the hell I’ve been. Sorry for the absence. I’ve been A) busy, and B) just trying to figure out where to begin. Now that I’ve collected my thoughts, what started out as a brief post has turned into quite the missive, but it lays the groundwork for my feelings going into the next four years, so in this case, I feel a rather long post is warranted.
Lots of blame has been laid at many doorsteps since Nov. 2, a day that will, no doubt, live in infamy. I’ve addressed the big three, Election Fraud, Values, and Kerry as a Candidate, and will leave the rest. After this, we move forward.
Election Fraud.
While there is admittedly a tiny part of me that yet holds a sliver of hope for a recount in Ohio, an investigation turning up irregularities that prove fraud, and Kerry being declared the victor after all, I doubt it’s going to happen. Was there voter fraud on a massive scale? It doesn’t look like it. And yet I am by no means convinced that the election wasn’t stolen. Multiple incidents of minor voter fraud (or at least, voting problems—just yesterday an election was overturned in Indiana due to Democrat straight-tickets being improperly counted, though there’s no evidence it was intentional), voter intimidation, registration challenges, provisional ballots, too few machines in some places causing massive lines…all of these combined add up to the very real possibility that a fair electoral process was undermined, significantly enough to have affected the outcome.
Still, there is no evidence of anything illegal, and being a proud member of the reality-based community, I can’t abide by going on faith when I criticize others for doing the same on other issues. Until I see proof, I am going to have to continue to advocate for recounts, emailing my support to Keith Olbermann (and any other member of the mainstream media who grows the balls to cover this story), and demanding paper trails in future elections. In other words, I have to operate under the assumption that Bush won the election fairly until I see evidence to the contrary. To all those who are passionately pursuing the truth, keep up the good work.
Values.
It is the opinion of this blogmaven that we did not lose on values. I believe this election pivoted on terror and the war in Iraq. Kerry made the right decision to avoid providing a detailed plan on either count, as he cannot discern the future and probably did not (and does not still) have the full story about what is happening on the ground in Iraq. At one point, he said something like, “Give me the presidency, and I’ll give you my plan,” which was a wise and appropriate sentiment, unfortunately ignored by the media (quelle surprise). The complaints from voters that he had no plan was ludicrous; it would have been foolish and irresponsible to attempt detailed war planning without the information afforded the commander in chief.
I, and anyone with a brain, was able to discern from his positions the type of leader he would have been, and as an extension of that, the type of war he would have waged. That his position was dependent on such nuanced thought clearly did not work in his favor this election cycle. That does not, however, make it a faulty position. The same holds true for the values issue. We hold pluralist, egalitarian values, as intended by the Framers, who were themselves flawed, but it was we on the Left who have endeavored to remedy their prejudices. While the Left has been behind the Suffrage Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Equal Rights Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, the Feminist Movement, and the Gay Rights Movement, the Right has been wrong on every issue since the Revolution.
We cannot let the Right equate legislating a specific religion-based morality with being strong on values. Indeed, it is the conscious unwillingness of the Left to legislate morality, but instead legislate secularly to leave room for individual ethics and morals, that is our greatest strength.
Kerry as Candidate.
This is perhaps the biggest thorn in my side. During the primaries, I was a Deaniac, and I was disappointed when Kerry emerged as the frontrunner after the first few primaries. But he was going to be my candidate, and so I found out everything I could about him, his record, and his platform. And although I didn’t agree with him on everything (mainly and almost exclusively his vote on the Iraq war resolution), I came to respect and admire him greatly. Someone in a comments thread on DailyKos described it as slowly falling in love with the boy next door you’d never really noticed before, which was the most apt description I’ve read of my own experience in coming to believe with all my heart and soul in John Kerry. My heart was broken when he lost not just because he bore the weight of all my hopes for the future, and my very vision of America, but because I so cared for him personally.
Mr. Shakespeare’s Sister, in his despair after the loss, told me that he felt more connected to Kerry than any other politician in his lifetime, and that in a way, he almost loved him. (A sentiment I share completely.) This, I believe, illustrates Kerry’s ability to connect with voters, contrary to the persistent media mantra that he could not, for Mr. Shakes found this great bond with a candidate not in his native Britain, but in his adopted homeland of America. It is a tribute to Kerry’s integrity, passion, goodness, and—yes—likeability that he had such a profound effect on both of us. And I do not believe we are alone.
After the election, it was revealed that the Big Dog, Clinton himself, had recommended to Kerry that he support the state gay marriage ban initiatives in order to help his chances. Kerry flatly refused. It was further evidence of the honor and courage this man has exemplified throughout his life, including the campaign, and a bitter reminder of the inspiring leadership that remained, frustratingly, just out of our collective grasp.
Which brings me to my next point. Already we are bandying about possible candidates in ’08. The conventional wisdom on Kerry seems to be “he had his chance.” It is one of my greatest aggravations that we on the Left are so intent on cannibalizing our candidates. After his loss, Al Gore was cast into the wilderness for years. Upon his return two years ago with a series of fiery and brilliant speeches, the Right’s talking points included calling him insane, unstable, and “off his meds.” We on the Left did little to counter such thinking. We did next to nothing to embrace this man who has done so much for causes we care about, such as his amazing work on behalf of the environment. We did not even consider the possibility of rallying around him for a second presidential bid; he had “had his chance,” too, after all.
In the end, Al Gore and John Kerry turned out to be very similar candidates. Both men were children of privilege, both men had served in Vietnam, despite every opportunity to avoid service, both men have been great Democratic Senators, and both men are strikingly intelligent, thought to be short on charisma, and favor nuanced policy. Al Gore was painted as an exaggerator during his campaign; John Kerry a flip-flopper—neither of which were correct. Either of them would have led administrations vastly different from George W. Bush.
Most importantly, both of them stood for the Democratic principals we espouse to embrace. But immediately after each of their defeats, we turned our backs on them, despite Al Gore’s having won the popular vote and John Kerry having won more votes than any Democratic nominee ever and having come closer to unseating and incumbent wartime president ever.
Instead, we turn back to Clinton—what did he do to win? Clinton, the man who was a proponent of throwing gays to the wolves to win this election, who threw them to the wolves during his own administration (see DOMA, Don’t’Ask Don’t Tell, etc.), who evidently believes that this grave civil rights divide is not worth fighting for. Clinton, who has done more to hurt the Left on the "values" issue more than anyone else. No, I don't personally think that his affair should undermine his political legacy, but why couldn't the guy just keep it in his fucking pants? Were it not for that scandal, and the resulting perjury, which was indeed an impeachable offence (let's face it—we'd be calling for Bush's head if he did the same), many people wouldn't have soured on the Democratic party. Al Gore may very well have been elected and we could have avoided all the bullshit we've had to deal with the last four years. Don't get me wrong; I admire Clinton very much in many, many ways, but I think one of the things the Left needs to face is that he really fucked us, and the longer we continue to lionize such a divisive figure, the harder time we're going to have conveying that we are a party of superior ethics and values.
Similarly, we continue to look to the “Clintonistas” as our potential saviors in campaigns. I don't believe we should continue to put so much stock in people like James Carville and Joe Lockhart, both of whom I actually tend to like. We on the Left seem to have such a selective memory, and selective outrage as a result. Clinton & team realistically probably only won because Perot was a spoiler (which we never acknowledge, though we are quick to blame the spoiler Nader for our '00 loss). It's foolish to remember the latter in bitterness as an excuse for a loss, and forget the other lest we be faced with the fact that without Perot, we may have been on a losing streak since 1980 rather than 2000. It doesn't bode so well for our current leadership, when you look at it in the correct perspective. Unfortunately, looking at it in the correct perspective rarely happens. In all the post-mortem I’ve read that suggests we should look to the Clinton presidency to guide our future, nowhere have I seen the name “Perot,” and yet he was perhaps more key to that presidency than anyone on our side.
We also get peeved (and rightly so) about things like Bush's cousin being the first to call Florida for Bush from his spot behind the Fox News anchor desk in ‘00, and Fox's Cameron's wife being a fundraiser for Bush, and all the other media whoring that goes on, but we don't get quite as uptight about Carville and Paul Begala keeping their fat checks from CNN's Crossfire while they work as advisors to Kerry's campaign.
I tend to be of the mind that I don't care if there's partisan hackery in the media, as long as it's not presented as "Fair and Balanced." (In Britain, the rags are clear about their biases, and I think that's fine. What I don't think is fine is the continued attempt to appear objective when that is clearly not the case.) Now that our guys are willing to do the same thing that we've been pissed off about, instead of using that selective memory again, we should get pissed at them for stooping to the same level, for compromising, and find new campaign leadership.
Finally, to borrow from Britain again, I suggest that we support Kerry in a Shadow Administration, akin to the opposition party in Parliament. We should band behind Kerry, who is now a known quantity to the American people, and who is, miraculously, a scandal-free candidate and has shown himself to be well within reach of the presidency. Throughout the next four years, each time Bush makes a decision that infuriates the Left (and I suspect there will be lots of those), Kerry should be there, making a statement about what is wrong with the decision, what the right decision was, and why he would have made it. This is the true role of a real opposition party, as opposed to the mumble-and-capitulate party the Democrats have been for the last four years. Kerry has the strength and wherewithal to do it, if only we’d give him our continued support.
The worst thing we can do is continue to point the finger at him, when instead we should be pointing the old one-fingered salute right at Bush.
I lament the state of the Left, not because we have lost the election, but because we have lost our ability to embrace our candidates and our values, and compromise neither. We will not win as Right-Lite. We will win when we take our strengths and show them for what they are—the future of America.
Not Why We Lost
There have been a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking-type stories about why we lost this election. I think there were a whole lot of reasons, but I can tell you that among them are not "because John Kerry was a poor candidate" or "because of the gay issue." I will write more on the former as time allows, but on the latter, I will turn it over to Langston Hughes, whose poem Democracy has been popping up in various blogs the past few days. (And, for the record, if the "gay issue" had any bearing whatsoever on this election, it was not the fight for equal rights that is the problem; it's the unmitigated bigotry that makes that fight necessary in the first place.)
Now over to you, Mr. Hughes.
Democracy
Democracy will not come
Today, this year
Nor ever
Through compromise and fear.
I have as much right
As the other fellow has
To stand
On my two feet
And own the land.
I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I'm dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow's bread.
Freedom
Is a strong seed
Planted
In a great need.
I live here, too.
I want freedom
Just as you.
The Bitch is Back
Okay, I’m back.
This site has, in its short existence, never been a personal blog, but last week was a week like no other. Immediately after the election, I felt quite hopeless and, frankly, depressed. Now I am angry, and I feel the fight in me coming back, and to detail that transition, I’m going to get personal.
In 2000, when Bush was selected as President, I cried. I feared the worst, and everyone around me told me I was overreacting. Four years later, those same people were politically active for the first time in their lives, and they were fighting like hell for John Kerry.
This time, I was deeply saddened by the outcome of the election, more so even than in 2000, and not just because I don’t like Bush, but because I genuinely liked Kerry. I was hurt by those on the Left who turned against him, who blamed the loss on him or his support of gay rights. But I didn’t cry.
Then last week, it was announced that Elizabeth Edwards had been diagnosed with breast cancer. I read the news Thursday on Atrios’ blog, and in a fit of soul-baring unusual for this blogger, I shared with the posters at Atrios in the comments thread for the post that I, too, had recently discovered a lump in my breast. The outpouring of support was astounding.
Perhaps even more astounding were the contributions of a troll, who said some of the ugliest, nastiest things imaginable about Elizabeth Edwards, and when I asked him why he delighted in others’ suffering, he called me a sanctimonious bitch and told me to fuck off.
That night, I lost my shit. Filled with disappointment, bitterness, rage, fear for my own health and future and the health and future of the country, and a million other emotions, I wailed and sobbed and pounded my fists. Not my best moment.
But having experienced a catharsis, and with the undeserved support and understanding of Mr. Shakespeare’s Sister, who himself had not been of sound mind for days, I came out the other side stronger and ready for a fight, armed with a healthy anger about the injustice I see grabbing this country by its throat, and I’m not about to let it become a death grip.
And so I have resolved not to give up on my country, my frustratingly red state, or this blog. I will continue to fight for my firm belief that every citizen in this country deserves equal rights and opportunities, and I will continue to raise my voice and hope that it is heard.
We may have lost this battle, but the war is still ours to be won. Onward…
The Day After
Well, where to begin?
I believe that what we have witnessed is more than a referendum on the incumbent, as this election was often described. It was bigger than that. It was a referendum on America.
Meteor Blades at DailyKos posts a missive encouraging us in our defeat: ‘Don’t Mourn, Organize.’ In part he writes:
Throughout our country’s history, abolitionists, suffragists, union organizers, anti-racists, antiwarriors, civil libertarians, feminists and gay rights activists have challenged the majority of Americans to take off their blinders. Each succeeded one way or another, but not overnight, and certainly not without serious setbacks.I, regretfully, disagree with him. They have not succeeded. This election was in fact a rejection of all of these ideals. The majority of American voters have decided that the disenfranchisement of voters and the weakening of the separation of church and state are acceptable, and that a woman’s right to choose and equal rights for gays and lesbians are unacceptable. We saw 11 states vote to restrict gay marriage; we saw one state impose a parental consent requirement for abortions; we saw the election of a former KKK member, a doctor who performed sterilizations without his patients’ consent, and a man who believes gays and lesbians should not be allowed to teach, just to mention a few.
I not only feel defeated, I feel defeatist. I've never felt my resolve drain from me the way it has in the last 24 hours. The way that this election wrapped up bigotry ("values") with xenophobia and American imperialism has made clear that the rejection of globalism and the rejection of social progressiveness have become inextricably linked. For many people, being anti-gay and anti-UN are sister issues now, because somehow the international community represents to them the embrace of a cultural egalitarianism that they loathe.
Even people who voted for Kerry voted for the anti-gay propositions. He won Oregon, but they passed anti-gay legislation, too. And in states where he lost, the numbers of those who voted for anti-gay legislation were higher than they were for Bush, meaning that lots of Kerry voters voted for them, too. I'm not convinced that the chokehold of religion and the resultant self-righteousness, wrapped up in this weird isolationist nationalism, can be overcome by reason. It feels as though I’m standing on the beach watching the tsunami head for shore.
There are lots of Lefties out there who are wondering to which country they can move. As someone with the opportunity to move abroad much more easily than most, that seems a very attractive option at the moment. There are also lots of Lefties who are resolved to keep on fighting the good fight. I want to be one of them, but I feel crippled with despair over this election.
Perhaps I will feel better tomorrow. Perhaps then I will feel more hopeful.
Early Exit Polling
Via Atrios, AMERICAblog, DailyKos, MyDD.... You get the drift. They're out there. Take them with a grain of salt.
AZ - Bush 55 / Kerry 45
CO - Bush 51 / Kerry 48
LA - Bush 57 / Kerry 42
PA - Kerry 60 / Bush 40
OH - Kerry 52 / Bush 48
FL - Kerry 51 / Bush 48
MI - Kerry 51 / Bush 47
NM - Kerry 50 / Bush 48
MN - Kerry 58 / Bush 40
WI - Kerry 52 / Bush 43
IA - Kerry 49 / Bush 49
NH - Kerry 57 / Bush 41
Today's the Day!
Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote!
Kerry for a Democratic Future
There’s so much stuff going on—polls tumbling into the media one after the other, incidents of voter intimidation in many of the swing states, the Osama tape, another story about more missing explosives… It’s just impossible for me at the moment to keep up with everything.
It being the day before the election, however, I want to take the time to plug my guy one more time. To begin, I want to share the following story related by Charles Piece in Eric Alterman’s Altercation column on MSNBC:
Once, in Iowa, Kerry dropped in on a group of Vietnam veterans. Some of them liked him. Some of them didn't, largely because of the whole VVAW [Vietnam Veterans Against the War] thing. (And, trust me, this was my first beat at the Boston Phoenix, and I discovered that the politics within the various Vietnam veteran's groups were desperate and bloody.) Kerry dismissed the staff, locked the door, blew off the rest of the schedule, and sat there and talked and argued with these guys until they were all exhausted. He wanted to talk to the people who disliked him more than he wanted to talk to anyone else. He gave them the respect of open debate.It is inconceivable because the insular and secretive nature of this administration is an anathema to democracy, and they aren’t, nor have they ever been, interested in democracy. They have instead shown an interest in winning, silencing opposition, rejecting both self-reflection and criticism, and retaining control at any cost, all at the expense of democracy.
Imagine the incumbent doing that. Imagine him sitting down in a room where half the people truly loathe him and everything he stands for, him and his ticket-only rallies, and his coddling staff, and his use of the Secret Service as cheap sidewalk bouncers. Imagine him hearing them out, debating them, giving them the respect of his knowledgeable disagreement. It is inconceivable.
Democracy isn’t just about the right to vote; it is about the right to free speech, to the airing of ideas and opinions, even—and especially—when they are outside the mainstream. Democracy is about the challenge of creating a whole out of many pieces, and John Kerry knows that giving your detractors a chance for their voices to be heard not only grants them their basic rights, but it is indeed the very responsibility of a democratically-elected leader.
I could go through the list of reasons which inform my belief that John Kerry is the better choice for President, but ultimately, the above story serves as metaphor for the entire lot. John Kerry is a man of thought and reason. He is a man who believes it wrong to surround oneself only with those who reinforce one’s own assumptions and beliefs. Instead, John Kerry embraces knowledge and experience—others’ in addition to his own. He refuses to let faith dictate policy. He allows himself to be challenged and indeed relishes any opportunity to expand his vision of the world.
Tomorrow we have a choice. We can choose a man who believes you are either with him or against him, or we can choose a man who believes that he is obliged to us all, that we are strongest when we are whole. Who do you want leading us into our collective future?
