Yesterday, my friends came up with an elaborate plan to move to Ireland, to escape W and his majority. Here’s what I emailed in reply. (It’s a little Chicago specific, but I think everyone will get the gist).
Friends,
I think I’m as messed up and disappointed as any of you. Something happened yesterday (and today) that I can’t quite make sense of, something that doesn’t make me feel good, something I’m pretty sure is a bad thing.
I feel a little lost, a little out of place, and I’m not entirely sure what to do with that. But there is something I feel sure I have to say.
F*** Canada! F*** Ireland! I’m not leaving!!
This is MY country, and I like it. I love it even, thank you very much. Just because 51% of the people here see the world fundamentally differently then I do, is no reason to leave. Progress isn’t easy or smooth or always forward. And no matter how rocky, I can take pride in the fact that I’m on the right side, that I’m in the group leading it, not in the half that will need to be dragged forward kicking and screaming.
We’ve witnessed a great day in America, a great election. 120 million American voted this time. At least 6 states had record setting turnouts. People cared. People put forth the effort. People made their voices heard.
No, our candidate will not be President. Does that mean we lost? No, we were just behind when *this * election was over. Democracy has spoken, and I can’t feel bad about that. Life moves on, and so do we. Besides, when did winning mean anything to us – we’re Cubs fans.
So yes, be disappointed, be confused, be angry even. But don’t quit. This country is great, its people are great. We’ve got day baseball, we’ve got Kurt Elling at the Green Mill, we’ve got deep dish pizza, we’ve had and will once again have Must See TV! And, of course, we have family, friends, and loved ones, some of whom might even be on the “other” side.
Americans love a good fight, and we had one. But the real fight is each and every day, as we try to ensure fairness, as we work to learn and understand more about ourselves and our world, as we strive to treat each of our brothers and sisters with the dignity and respect they deserve. This grand American experiment in Democracy continues, and I intend to be a part of it. It **is ** worth it.
My apologies for the rant,
Progress is en every day sort of thing. The pendulum swings back and forth. My only thoughts are to believe in what you believe, keep an open mind, and fight like hell when you have to.
Liberals should stand their ground, just like conversavtives did after 1964.
Conditions and mood of the country changes. Only accidently should liberals find themselves on the same side of populisits. Liberals are the sheriff that stands between the murder suspect and the lynch mob, protecting the few against the many, the weak against the powerful.
I would advise liberals to be more open-minded. How’s that for irony? If you want to affect change you must understand your enemy. You don’t. Calling Bush evil and his supporters ignorant douchbags makes that obvious and makes you seem immature. If you really believe that Bush is “evil” then you’re delusional and will not be in a mindset that is capable of effecting change. Assume your opponent acts rationally and try to figure out what they’re thinking rather than assume you must be morally and intellectually superior. Don’t assume Bush supporters have a facile understanding of politics. I find the liberals on this board to be among the most close-minded people I’ve ever “met.” Offer viable alternative solutions rather than merely attacking the solutions of others.
Another thing I’d advise liberals to do is stop making “statements” and start getting things done. They often seem more interested in showing how much they care rather than actually caring.
For starters, make an honest attempt at asking this question:
What might possibly come of, say, the Iraq War, that is genuinely positive in your mind?
Accountability? Good Lord. Please don’t condescend. We now have the least accountable president I’ve ever witnessed.
He also has overseen discretionary spending growing at a faster clip than Clinton ever had. Republican House, Senate, and White House, and spending going through the roof, with less tax base to support it.
My girlfriend is all up in arms about this too. “I hate America, I don’t want to be here!” “People are stupid! Bush is Evil!”
Bah. Some one has to lose in an election. There isn’t any type of booby prize. Rule by the majority is going to turn out in away that you don’t care for about half of the time. Chill out and wait for the next election.
Great analysis and commentary manhattan. I agree with almost all of it and hope that democrats and liberals in general can take a few of these ideas to heart because they are setting themselves up for harder, then ridiculous, then ludicrous, then inconceivable defeats down the road.
I also agree with KidCharlemagne. Liberals are now so painfully focused on a core set of narrow ideas that questioning or examining those goals is considered blasphamy. Also, embracing poor black voters for all those years but now screaming ignorance and shame at young people that grew up on rural white farms does not speak well to the true intent of liberalism and inclusion.
For crying out loud, Bush is not exactly a bright light as a president. I thought he has done such a piss-poor job that I voted for Kerry, which I HATED to do.
If you remade the Democratic party into the party of accountable government, you’d get my vote just about every time. Do you think I enjoy sharing a party with the paleoconservative Pat Buchanan types? If the Democrats start pushing accountability, tax fairness, tax simplification, cuts in corporate welfare, and efficiency in government programs don’t you think they can convert whole swaths of people who are currently voting Republican?
If you want to paint the Republicans under Bush as the party of spending, borrowing, and flushing tax money down the toilet you’ve got a good point. Now offer an alternative, instead of complaining that the Republicans are stealing your best ideas.
Hell, it’s in the Democrats’ purely selfish interests to eliminate corporate welfare and transfer as many programs as possible to the states – anybody who’s crunched the numbers knows that the red states are big-time moochers at the expense of the blue states in those areas.
OK, good point. Dems should learn the word accountability because the current conservative leaders are very vulnerable on that front. I catch on eventually.
I like you quite a bit, manny. You are just as fun to agree with as to disagree with, and at the end of the day I don’t feel like there’s ill will hanging over anything. But this? You’ve got to be kidding me. Got to be. If only one message was sent to Bush, it was this: “We don’t need accountability. Not in the budget, not in your actions.”
Not kidding, but perhaps using “accountability” in a different sense. As a fiscal conservative, I agree with the criticisms of the size of increase in the domestic budget (while being mindful that most of the people in this forum complaining about it would welcome similar or larger increases from a different president). But look at how the money’s getting spent. A lot of it was on education, which money was accompanied by specific performance demands and penalties for non-compliance. Again, one might reasonably quibble whether the measurement standards are the right ones, but the days of the education establishment saying that a few more billion will fix the problems and getting it without being asked to prove the money was well spent are over. Similarly, over at NEA, Dana Gioia is introducing accountability standards, audits (for the first time ever) setting standards to ensure the public is aware of the no-charge or low-charge art they’re paying for, etc. Stuff like that. All I’m saying is that if liberals ever hope to pass a new program or expand an existing one, they’d better have a plan to measure the effectiveness of the money. Jobs training program? OK, how many people moved into better jobs? How many kept them?
As regards political accountability, one might reasonably argue about it. I’d mostly agree with the people in this thread – the Bush administration’s fetish for secrecy has long been one of my peeves. But I’d note two things. First, this isn’t a thread about Bush and what he should do, it’s about what should liberals do. Lots of my advice can be applied to others, too. Second, there was a political accountability measurement event on Tuesday. He passed.
Manhattan, I disagree with parts of your argument. Why do we have to lose the hate? The right truly hated Clinton, and they hated Kerry. Why can’t we hate Bush? So is there a reason why they can hate Kerry but we can’t hate Bush?
Also, I think your statement about Hillary is laughable. First of all, she’s reviled by the right, and I haven’t even known anyone on the left that is all that fond of her. I don’t think she would have done much good.
I think you are right about the rest. As I’ve said in the other thread, us leftists should probably join the Green party and let the Democrats veer sharply to the right. After this election, it is obvious that the leftists will be disenfranchised no matter what we do. So I’d rather be disenfranchised and vote someone I can support wholeheartedly.
Oh, crap! I forgot one of the most important pieces of advice I had.
Get some leaders with a spine: This goes back to gay marriage again. All the liberals say they want it, right? No. Not a single person of national stature will say it. Not one. I’m not talking about your presidential candidate – this is about advice to get you back on the winning track, not about how to commit political suicide. But geez. Schumer just won by, like, 88-12 or somesuch. His job is safer than the Pope’s. Can you at least persuade him to say that he supports the right of homosexuals to enter into full marriages? Barbara Boxer thumped whoever her loser opponent was by 20 points and is among the most liberal people in power in the country. Will she say it? I think I got more votes than Pat Leahy’s opponent in Vermont, which already has civil unions. Will he take the next step? If you can’t even get your leaders to abandon weasel language and actually vocally support something in public, maybe you want to be rethinking whether you call the opponents bigots.
A meme I’ve seen recently floating around, and which I think is applicable here, is this: morals.
It’s pretty clear in the wake of Bush’s victory, social conservatives are going to start pushing hard for him to promote a moral values-based agenda, if I may coin a phrase. See, for example, Bill Bennett’s recent piece.
Liberals, and Democrats in particular, need to co-opt this movement and co-opt it hard. Given all of the exit polling in the red states, it’s clear that many voters care about moral issues. But why does that imply they should vote Republican? Saying that Democrats are immoral or amoral is just plain false. So, here’s a chance to get that message out in a positive way.
Let’s start pushing for “moral values”, and while we’re doing it let’s make damned sure that “moral values” are not just a code word for “ban gay marriage and repeal Roe vs. Wade”. Let’s advocate, vocally, a whole spectrum of moral values. Accountability. Fairness. Compassion. Charity. Justice. Thoughtfulness. Respect. Decency. Humility.
Let’s start framing our issues in moral terms. Keeping our noses out of other people’s bedrooms, out of respect for their privacy and out of recognition that as flawed creature we aren’t always qualified to judge the private lives of others. Drawing a sharp line between church and state, not because we don’t think religion has something to say about morality but because we’re humble enough to know that a person’s soul is their own business, and decent enough not to badger them if we don’t share the same faith. Advocating caution and consensus in international affairs, because we know we’re not infallible and because we see the value in being able to account for our actions after the fact without being ashamed of them.
One thing is clear: liberals need desperately to start framing ourselves better. I’ve seen a fair bit of gloating recently that liberals lost because we don’t understand conservatives. I would charge, though, that conservatives have an equally poor understanding of liberals, largely due to the efforts of that vocal few who have made “liberal”, “intellectual”, and “Massachusetts” sound like dirty words to 51% of the electorate. That needs to change. I’m liberal and I’m intellectual and I’m proud of both facts. (I’m not from Massachusetts, but you can’t have everything.) Let’s make the rest of the country understand why.
Y’know, I don’t care about losing Congressional seats and governorships at this point. More Congressional seats aren’t going to stop the upcoming debt meltdown.
From The Economist:
Krugman’s been pointing out for years that, aside from the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency, our economy is looking rather banana-republic-ish. And as the dollar sinks relative to the euro, why would anyone lend us a dollar today to receive $1.02 from us this time next year? Other than to have us by the balls, just in case - which may be the Chinese motivation. When they say ‘jump’, we’ll say ‘how high?’ Wonderful, huh? We’re in a position where another great power decides whether our economy sinks or swims.
First of all, what’s a ‘Chompskyite’? Second, if you’re talking about the linguist, he’s far more of a marginalized figure in the Democratic party than Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, et. al. are in the GOP. When is the GOP going to put some daylight in between it and the religious fascists?
Oh, that’s right: the GOP is the religious fascists. They own the GOP. Aren’t you proud of your old stalwart religious fascists in Congress, like Tom DeLay, and your new stars, like Sens.-elect DeMint and Coburn? You’ve got a lot of nerve, to tell us to cast out anybody to the right of Leon Trotsky. I’d tell you Republicans to clean house first, but you’d have to demolish it to the foundations and start over.
Didn’t you mean, “war for terror”?
Or anyone who took Giuliani seriously after he blamed al-Qaqaa on our troops, that’s your guy. Or anyone who voted for the President who sent our troops to Iraq without a game plan for the real game - the one that began when the statue fell - that’s your guy. People who say Michael Moore is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, when they don’t say that of the people who develop war plans that let suspected WMD sites and conventional explosives depots alike get looted by insurgents who use them to kill our troops, well not only are they our guy, but it’s amazing they aren’t shouting at nobody in particular on street corners.
Wow, whole lot of anti-Americanism going on. But it seems to win elections, rather than lose them, as long as it’s sold right.
Well, we Dems are going to keep fighting for America, even if it keeps on losing us elections. Why? Because the well-being of this country matters to us. And those traitors who would send our troops into harm’s way as IED fodder without a game plan, we will work to see that they have their day in court.
laugh at the notion of Justice Marshall as a dictator. Did she force anyone to marry someone of the same sex? That would be dictatorial. Allowing someone to do so may have been overreaching, but that’s as far as it goes. No jackbooted thugs broke into a heterosexual’s house and forced them to have carnal knowledge of someone of the same sex. But thanks for the giggle.
In the words of Chumbawumba, Do you suffer from long-term memory loss? The nineties really weren’t that long ago, even though it seems like an age. “Angry white males,” “mad as hell,” the GOP slogans of such a recent time. Not to mention the frothing hate they had of Bill Clinton, and even more so for Hillary. Remember GOP book titles about her like “Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton”? Funny you should have mentioned her. Think the real reason the Dems kept her out of the limelight was not because they had a problem with her, but because she’d successfully been demonized by your party? (Drudge put the ugliest Hillary pic he could find on the front page of his site just this morning. All your party has to do to get a good Two-Minute-Hate going is bring her name up. And suddenly it’s us who have a problem with her? We’re right through the looking-glass here.)
And this hate thing: how about that Ann Coulter? Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right; Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism - nope, no hate there. And definitely no shrillness. And she keeps popping up on the conservative cable news shows. Looks like it wasn’t just the '90s.
Other posters are already ahead of me here. Iraq, the economy, the deficit, Tora Bora, the August 6 PDB, the steep increase in nonmilitary discretionary spending, Abu Grhaib, the torture memos, the Christmas tree of a corporate tax cut a few weeks back…yeah, a mere trace of acountability somewhere in this Administration would be a frickin’ miracle.
OK, it was an exaggeration, and I could have more accurately said “I don’t feel my vote means anything”, which is slightly better. The other side just keeps on winning, no matter what we do…
Also, I forgot to quarrel with Manhattan’s use of the term “anti-American”. That term is inaccurate and offensive. And it shows that he doesn’t understand the left at all.