Posted on 11/04/2004 10:55:38 PM PST by thegreatbeast
This hurts. The convictions and the dreams of American liberalism have genuinely failed to carry the day; and so, for the sake of liberalism, but also for the sake of America, it is the hour for making discriminations among the varieties of despair.
There certainly are grounds for despair. In their first term, without a popular mandate, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney governed in a radically sectarian manner, in conformity with only the wishes of their hallowed base; and there is no reason to think that the popular mandate that they have now secured for a second term will provoke them to reconsider their virulence and their smallness and their indifference to the evidence of experience beyond their own. In the aftermath of this election, the president speaks about unifying the country, but he spoke that way in the aftermath of the last election, and he became the most spectacular disuniter of America in contemporary history. We must not expect the Bush administration to rise above its theology, its secrecy, its instrumental attitude toward the courts, its sympathy for the rich, its economicist approach to health care, its easy conscience about the exploitation of the environment, its belief in its own infallibility, its regular sensation of perfection. There is no sign that the Bush administration has any good idea about how to correct its course in Iraq or to put an end once and for all to Osama bin Laden; or that it regards anti-Americanism as a serious impediment to American values and American interests abroad. The Bush administration may now be expected to behave triumphally and (as the talking heads say) to move forward with its agenda. Hard times, brutish times, lie ahead.
But there is a kind of despair, a glamorous pessimism, that liberals must at all costs avoid. The cartography of the electoral college may show a continent of red with some blue lesions at the extremities; but the popular vote in the election of 2004 was 51 percent for Bush and 48 for Kerry, and those are not the numbers of a political or philosophical rout. Fifty-one to forty-eight: Those are the numbers, rather, of a conspicuously unclear and unthrilling Democratic candidate, whose advantage in money did not offset a disadvantage in authenticity. But the important point is that, all the healing pieties of the morning after notwithstanding, this is a country divided against itself about many matters of first principle. The diversity of worldviews upon which we pride ourselves is haunting us. In such a welter of fundamental differences, the work of argument and organization becomes even more necessary. American liberalism did not die on November 2. It merely lost an election.
There is honor, moreover, in a certain kind of loss. In our distracted and accelerated and gamed society, with its religion of winning, we sometimes forget this. But the many millions of Americans who believe that the tax code should be more fair; and that one of the ends of government is to bother itself about its neediest and least fortunate citizens; and that the morality of the market is not all the morality that a society requires; and that the Bible is not the basis of a democratic political order, or of our political order; and that robust stem-cell research, and science more generally, is a primary social good; and that gay marriage is a question of equality and not the beginning of the end of civilization; and that American troops must not be sent to war ignorantly or dogmatically, or without the means to win; and that the good reputation of the United States in the world is one of its most powerful historical instruments--the many millions of Americans who believe these things are not wrong. They are merely not a majority. But they are a very large minority.
This is not to say that the wounding outcome of this election should fill liberals with a sense of their own purity. Not everybody to the left of Bush is like everybody else to the left of Bush; and it would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party to wallow now in the sort of Michael Moore leftishness that made many Americans worry whether John Kerry was sufficiently obsessed with American security, and sufficiently excited about American power, to protect them at home and to promote their purposes abroad. (On the question of American power, the American people are right and Ted Kennedy is wrong.) An internecine quarrel must now begin. But it cannot begin where there is only alienation, and the self-fulfilling confusion of the Bush administration with the United States of America. This country is bigger than its every president. This Constitution is not easy to destroy. This is not the apocalypse. But it is the most formidable challenge to American liberalism in our time.
So how do they explain 55-44-1?
-PJ
That reminds me of one of the funniest signs of all time - the day Bagdhad fell, some Iraqis that liked the idea of saddam being gone held up a sign:
Go Home You Peace Activist Wankers
Absolutely priceless!!
The only nugget of truth in the entire screed:
"On the question of American power, the American people are right and Ted Kennedy is wrong."
That old national security thingie might have something to it as an issue after all eh? A rare moment of clarity from a liberal. With more moments like this, before they know it they'll be conservative.
"Failure can be defined in many ways" is a similar saying that comes to mind. Jeez.
Yup, MSM & moveon.org told us to sit down & STFU, Billyboy was working for the people. He *never* got 50% of the vote, but now we're getting told that George Bush didn't get enough votes to claim he's been given a mandate. Calls for unity, bah humbug, after the crap they pulled with the split Senate.
Ann Coulter said it best: Seeing the wringing of hands & being able to witness the meltdown means the Bush victory is a gift which keeps on giving!
Without their massive vote fraud (that failed this time), the real numbers would be along the lines of 55-45.
Without the mainstream media propping up their candidates, it would be at least 65-35.
It would have been 60% to 40% if it weren't for the fact that the national media are paid Democrat lapdogs.
Even the media itself admits this and figures they added 15% to the spread in favor of Kerry.
This is the most significant defeat ever for modern "liberalism" and they have yet to get through the "denial" stage. But they will, and when they do, they will turn on themselves, and it won't be pretty.
most of their 'we believe X' is gibberish ...
many millions of Americans who believe that the tax code should be more fair; and that one of the ends of government is to bother itself about its neediest and least fortunate citizens;"
... implying that Bush and the $2 trillion Federal Govt - 70% of it gong to transfer payments - would disappear. That gouging the rich = 'fair' etc.
They lost because they believe their own lies. Still.
"...What a bunch of wankers.<<<
That reminds me of one of the funniest signs of all time - the day Bagdhad fell, some Iraqis that liked the idea of saddam being gone held up a sign:
Go Home You Peace Activist Wankers
Absolutely priceless!!"
http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/9456.html
I think this is what you are talking about.
Very true. w/o media, this election would have been huge for us.
"their smallness and their indifference to the evidence of experience beyond their own."
Irony anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Add me to the list that has had it up to here with this "unity" crud from the MSM. This whole thing about needing to come together came first from Kerry and then the MSM picked it up. I'm sick of it being shoved down my throat since Wednesday and I hope the newly elected pubbies ignore all this drivel! We are not divided! We are united for Bush!
Yeah. Your loss; our honor. :)
Bwahahahahahahahahaha...;^D
Let's see now, they all go to France, the French all go to Germany, the Germans all go to Poland, the Poles all go to Italy, you know this could get downright entertaining after awhile.
Codswallop! Anyone to the left of Bush who voted for Kerry has gone 4 years of unjustified seething rage and anger against a decent President, while ascribing to the kookdum of those like Micheal Moore as pure gospel.
As tragic this loss was to the left, there is probably some good to come out of it. It may not be obvious on the surface, but if the left wanted to make something good come from it, they better take a hard look at what they've done to themselves for the past 40-50 years and try to change the course. The left needs to take personal responsibility for their unjustified actions and dealing with said same on their own if they intend to survive another generation.
The left only has themselves to blame for their pent up rage and deeply rooted despair.
They better start now. Time wastes away, and I for one, as a Conservative aint going to stand around and wait. Either pull that wreck of a party from the fire or just let it burn to hell.
This was written by some high school student that just discovered the power of a dictionary. God what BS.
This is like me claiming that the Yankees' losing to the Red Sox in the biggest choke in postseason baseball history wasn't so bad, because the Red Sox only won one game more than the Yankees, and anyway, the Yanks scored more runs in the series than the Sox did.
Even worse he got less tha 50% in a low turnout year in 1996. W got 51% in a year with about 60% turnout which is the highest since 1968! That really has to hurt DemocRATS. Always in the past high turnout has been supposed to be bad for Republicans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.