The next four years are going to be great!

Great Debates
1

Position
I did my best to get GWB defeated. But now that he’s won, which is more noble: to wish him to screw up even more over the next four years so that “our side” will have a better chance of winning in 2008; or to hope that he grows into his job so that both the country and the world do better in the next four years? It’s the latter. Finally, it’s our job to make the next four years great through our individual actions, political and otherwise.

I did my best.
I think GWB did about as poor a job as any president could over the last four years. I gave $50.00 to the Democrats. I flew in from Japan on election day to vote against him: in Indiana even, where I knew my vote would not make a difference in the presidential election. I figured that that if I voted, even when my ballot couldn’t count, so many others like me would vote in states where theirs could (yes, this is magical thinking).

But GWB won. He won fair and square (that is, even had one removed every instance of fraud or mistaken poll management, he had still won). He won by a substantial margin. Not only that, but the GOP gained strength in both the Senate and the House. The American people, albeit greatly divided, nevertheless in the aggregate chose Bush, his policies, and his message.

Our first task is to understand why. Certainly Rove et al. ran a very skillful campaign, one that was dirty and negative in many ways, but still also one that had a focused message. Kerry’s campaign was much weaker.

But GWB also won because many people like his leadership style and his principles. Personally, I think they are being fooled; I don’t find GWB sincere. But many polling results indicate that Americans are concerned with “moral values.” In this regard, the GOP, sometimes cynically but also often quite sincerely, offers words that support a vision of the USA that does what it does for moral or spiritual purposes. Contrariwise, the Democratic party at the national level tends to suppress candidates who speak in spiritual terms, much more those who are sincerely religious or pro-life. The GOP offers a measure of satisfying rhetoric, the Democrats wonkery and cold policy. With Clinton it was otherwise, and the Democrats succeeded. With Gore and Kerry the Democrats offered very little that inspired.

I refuse to accept any analysis that labels “Red Staters” as mere morons, and wouldn’t it be great if we could secede and just be rid of them? Although I wrote a Pit post in which I described Bush supporters as suffering from a mental illness, our job now is not to castigate those who voted for them, but to understand them. Stewing in reproach for them will only lead to further losses.

Which is more noble?
A lot of people are hoping that Bush does even worse in the next four years. This attitude is for losers. The previous four years are now a “sunk cost,” as it were. Like it or not, Bush is the asset with which we must work for the next four years; like it or not, he is an essential tool of the polity. To wish him failure is to wish a part of our own selves to fail.

Now that Bush is president yet again, acceptance is in order. Things may change for the worse, or they may change for the better. The new cabinet may just have a special something that moderates Bush’s less desirable tendencies or even catalyzes the true leadership qualities we witnessed directly after 9/11 (no, not Pet Goat, but Bush’s excellent speeches and the just and well-managed invasion of Afghanistan).

We can choose to be negative and self-pitying over the next four years, or we can make the most of the situation and perhaps even leave the country in better shape than it was. To this end, I personally wish George W. Bush good health, peace of mind, and true wisdom in performing his job. If his excellent performance has the effect of making the GOP a stronger yet better party, then so be it. I should rather have a strong and good GOP than a weakened but malevolent version of it, as, in any case, it will be a potent political force for many years to come.

It’s our job to make the next four years great.
None of the above makes me a Republican. Far from it. Having ditched the self-pity and contumely for “Red Staters,” and having pondered and understood the reasons for our recent defeat, we of the Left must, in a positive fashion, try to regain power and make the country better. In two years we have a chance to improve our numbers in the House and Senate. Throughout the next four years we can aim to put Democrats in a wide variety of local offices, including governorships, which serve as training grounds for future presidential candidates. Getting our act together in small and medium-sized ways is the first step to regaining the presidency in 2008.

Howbeit, there is much more to think about than politics alone. It is a small-big world out there, with much potential for improvement and enjoyment over the next four years. Personally, I intend to start a business and succeed in my own manner. I intend to be a good, moral CEO who treats his employees like gold and produces a product that makes the world a little better.

We must not give in to negativity. We must find something to love and work to make that thing as alive and beautiful as possible. My love right now is Indianapolis, the city of my birth. The economy here now is said not to be good, but everywhere I see potential. The empty buildings downtown really ought to be refurbished and filled with thriving tenants. Seeing that’s the case, I can only conclude that it’s my duty to make it so.

And so on, with every person in this country picking something to love and making it better. And while we’re at it, we really ought to love the country as a whole and wish it, and its president, the best four years that can possibly be.

2

You know what? Whether I like the President or his policies doesn’t matter. No one cares what I think, and my being hopeful or in despair will effect no one but myself.

I’m going to spend the next four years trying to hang onto my job, getting my master’s degree, writing a book, taking care of my mother, and hoping I don’t get blown up in a terrorist attack, hit by a cab or have a stroke. That’s all. If I manage to lose 20 pounds, too, all to the better.

I don’t think George or Dick or Condi are going to lose any sleep over it one way or the other.

3

I think I just got stupider for having read this thread. Thanks.

4

Dunno, Aeschines, its like half Pollyanna, half Lenin.

5

Don’t thank me, thank your own negative potential.

6

Isn’t that the ideal ratio?!

7

Ah, but it will also effect those around you; and they will affect others, and so on.

[quote]
I’m going to spend the next four years trying to hang onto my job, getting my master’s degree, writing a book, taking care of my mother, and hoping I don’t get blown up in a terrorist attack, hit by a cab or have a stroke. That’s all. If I manage to lose 20 pounds, too, all to the better.
[/quote
Most noble goals!

I think they would lose sleep over a terrorist attack.

8

Well, even if it puts me in the minority, I agree 110% with you, Aeschines.

I found nothing in your post that I disagree with. I have to admit, that there are times where the thought of “I hope Bush really screws things up now, so people will see the problems with his policies.” In all sincerity, though, I certainly do not wish this. The fact of the matter is that we need Bush to do good (even great) things for our country. As you said, if we carry the notion quoted above, we are only digging our own graves.
LilShieste

9

… has popped into my head.

Preview should be my friend.
LilShieste

10

Thanks, LS. I’m going to buy me a new scarf with that extra 10%.

11

Well, I think the schaedenfreude of a Bush implosion is a consummation devoutly to be wished so long as he doesn’t royally fuck us all on the way down the road to well-deserved ignominy. Desire for Bush’s failure is weighed in my mind always against the potential costs such a failure might incur; so it really depends upon the degree to which his and his party’s fall from grace might damage the rest of us. It’s a loser attitude only so far as we cannot insulate ourselves from Bush’s shortcomings.

12

Won by a substantial margin? Since when is 51% of the vote a substantial margin? I’d say it’s just barely squeaking by.

13

I meant merely that the margin was such that, unlike 2000, there is no doubt who won, pace the tinfoilers.

14

I think I meant my post for a different thread.
You are right. It is a “loser” attitude to think that just because your guy didn’t win that it is ok to not put anything into the country and then blame Bush for all the problems that result.

15

I have found myself hoping, not that things would “get worse” in Iraq, but that the deceptions and the failures would become manifest and become the cause of serious negative consequences for GWB et al. And yeah, it frustrated me that he was able not only to avoid any negative consequences, but to essentially turn Iraq into a positive by eliding the distinction between Iraq and the WOT (which is precisely the distinction that was the cause of my opposition).

But now . . . while my preferred endgame is still the U.S. leaving, I don’t need any more demonstrations of the folly of the invasion, because I’ve come to the conclusion that schadenfreude in this respect really does partake, whether I mean it to or not, of relishing in events that may cause more young guys to get killed. So . . . here’s hoping the Iraqis belatedly realize their mistake and bust out those flowers that Wolfowitz et al. assured us they’d have waiting.

16

But is it a “loser” attitude to still point out the problems that President Bush has already created and will create in the future? It’s all very well and good to support a President when he does good for the whole of America, But what we are seeing in just these past couple of weeks doesn’t lead me to want to support him in his efforts. From the “cleansing” of the Cabinet, the CIA and other governmental bodies of those who might give a more balanced viewpoint, to the sudden barrage of post-election right-wing editorials that have hit the newspapers across the country accusing the Democrats of not being “Christian” enough, what I am seeing is a concerted effort to demonize those who oppose the Powers That Be so that it will be next to impossible for anyone to run against the Republican nominee without an automatic cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads. The current administration never did give a damn about bilateral cooperation, and I truly believe that they believe that they have reached a point where they don’t even have to pretend anymore. The next four years will be damn rough on the country if there is open opposition to President Bush, but the only alternative would be much worse.
IMHO, of course.

17

There was no real mistake on their part, besides being in the wrong place at the most inopportune of times, and there will be no flowers. It’s an avalanche of sorrow that has a momentum of its own, and no wish, good or ill, will spare those soldiers from the consequences of this folly. Mistakes of this magitude cannot be turned on a dime, and like a ship plowing into an iceberg, it’s possible to see the disaster coming long before it hits, and be powerless to change course. Certainly we should not aid and abet terrorists, but criticism of a war that had nothing to do with terrorists is not treason.

What’s most important is that we learn something from the mess. If things go badly, it’s sure not my fault, or yours. But it would be criminal to not try to hold Bush responsible for wasting tens of thousands of lives for Neoconservative geopolitics and free-flowing oil. The main question in my mind is “Can it be done, and what will it cost?”

18

Good advice any time.

Let me be another who commends your attitude.

19

But what if the President’s best isn’t your best?

20

Your use of the terms “huge margin” and “aggregate” are baffling to me. In not one state did a majority of the voting age population cast a vote to commit their state’s electors to George W. Bush as President. The largest percentages of the state VAP he got were in Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, and Utah, a total of 1.6 million voters. Whoo. Pee.

While no doubt some of the people who stayed home would have voted for Bush and simply assumed he had it in the bag, such a concept does not speak well of his appeal. Surely someone with such reputed power to stir the masses to action would have had a higher turnout. W won because the Democrats failed to motivate greater numbers to vote for Kerry. This is largely due to the Democrats abandonment of largely liberal policies, IMO. I fail to see how saying “rah rah” to Bush for the next two years will encourage their support of the only viable opposition he has.

No one is hoping for Bush and the country to do worse than it has for the last four years.

What many are hoping for is that by the next general election, the majority of people in each state will have realized how intellectually and morally bankrupt the neo-con policy now governing our nation really is. If it taks a worsening situation in the country to do so, so be it. We might hope that Bush will “grow into” a job he should have been fully prepared to take on four years ago, but his track record suggests this is highly unlikely. Hoping will not make it otherwise.

“Moral values” is a nebulous term, and it has already been shown that when voters gave specific issues that mattered to them, as opposed to general concepts, the top ones had almost nothing to do with morality.

When people speak of “moral values” and the fact that the President is a “Good Christian”, it is part of crreping sickness in this country: The tendency to regard ourselves as a “Christian Nation”. Folks who subscribe to such a notion LIKE the fact that W reffered early on to the War on Terrorism as a “crusade”. They believe to this day that Saddam Hussein was behind the 11th of September attacks, not becuase the President says so, but because they figure all them towel-heads are more or less the same, and are conspiring with each other constantly to destroy our Jesus-loving country.

The long-term political health of this country depends upon the nation waking from this stupor. I don’t wish it to be a terrorist attack or a staggering economic depression or government oppression that forms the wake-up call. I’d like to think something less drastic could bring the change about. But if that’s what it takes, it will be to the longer-term benefit of the country that it happen.

Fortunately, it may very well not take such dire circumstances to make a change ijn the country.

Bush is a really bad President. But in 2001, we were horrible reminded that there are circumstances where we simply need to look to someone in charge and get behind them. This temporarily blinded a great many of us to the fact that Bush is a bad President, but over the last three years, we have gradully been getting over this. Unfortunately, not enough of us came to in time for the election. Around election time, his approval percentages stalled at about 48% . This may represent the people who will support him “no matter what”.

But maybe not.

The Republicans feel so comfortable in power now that they will soon feel the freedom to factionalize, as we can observe already happening in the Texas state legislature.

Nearly every single one of the Bush Administration’s policies, past present and future, have been and will continue to be bad for the people of this nation (hoping will not make it otherwise). It may be that by 2006 a number of these 48% will have been so badly screwed in ways they can no longer ignore that their congesspeople are in danger of losing their jobs. With luck, there will not even need to be a Democratic majority in Congress to see through a much-needed impeachment.

I do not wish to be counted among the bamboozled when the nation comes to its senses. I will work for what change I can, and I will continue to vehemently oppose this President.