Someone 'Splain Me Some

Democrats Scratching Heads

Published on November 4, 2004 By TaBooTenente In Current Events

G.O.P.

Government of the People, yes. The people have chosen, and even if we choose to view the results of the recent election as close, we have an undisputedly elected President. This one was no nail-biter, either, as much as I may have destroyed my own nails in my anxiety. As the Ohio tally margin gradually shrank, and then grew, and finally stablized, I realized I had expected some fraud, some conspiracy clogging the infernal machines to surface, and once again I could convince myself that the sane majority had spoken; moreover, only the dark machinations of the reactionary freemasonry kept this vessel of evil in power.

This just in: IT"S NOT TRUE.

It's not true--honestly! We've got to admit this fact immediately. We the people of the United States of America have re-elected George W. Bush to his second term. We the People have also solidified an already conservative Senate, secured a conservative House. In regard to the social propositions scattered throughout the country, We the People returned them with the same socially conservative stamp.

I saw a bumper sticker riding on the back of a mini-van the other day in my neighborhood (yes, a mini-van, not a thirty year-old Ford pick-up) that read "Cut the Trees: Save the Bush". Here's a bumper sticker many may have seen (or own): "U.S. Out of the U.N." I live in what is commonly considered a liberal bubble in a conservative sea. What other evidence do we Democrats need that something is wrong?

Maybe-- no, wait for it--maybe what's wrong is us.

And I no longer mean "us" as "we", as in "We the People". I mean this: maybe there is something wrong with me, because I am a Democrat.

In recent history, certain blocks of the country have always voted for Democratic candidates. Does it shock you, like it does a young thirty year-old me, that the south was a Democratic certainty? The minority vote was also nearly unanimous; don't stare, but I think the minority vote cost us Florida. I am a employee of my county, making me Union fodder. Union members in this country received, as I did, numerous fliers, door-knocking campaigners, and supper-disturbing phone calls declaring unilateral support for John Kerry, urging Union members and other blue-collar labor workers to unite, hoping to purge the white house.

That support was far from unilateral during this election. My guess is that the next stalwart Democratic block to defect completely into the Red will be the Union, and the blue-collar labor workers.

This brings me to the questions driving this long, ungainly article:

1)Conservatives: What's wrong with Democrats? I am relatively uneasy with the argument that Bush makes people
feel safer; though I understand people tend to vote with stability during war. But what makes me wonder more than
anything is the neighborhoods, the zipcodes, the entire community populations that ridicule and refuse liberalism.
In these places, liberalism is evil. When did this happen? How?

2)Democrats: What's wrong with us? Let's take a good look at ourselves. Those of us who nursed the desire, deep
in our uneasily shifting bowels, to vote for Ralph Nader may believe that the Democratic party has become, perhaps
by necessity, too conservative, do you think that if the party re-polarized itself, swinging back toward the left, we
would restore ourselves?

I am writing this article, so let us consider ME as the example. I am filled with arrogance. I should get that out of the way at the outset. Look: it is true. I cannot conceive that the majority of the population could possibly disagree with me on any of the points of my belief system:

1)I believe the war in Iraq is morally wrong because
--Iraq had not attacked us. We pre-emptively struck against a sovereign nation, using manufactured, faulty reasoning as our
authorization;
--innocent manipulated soldiers and civilians (American, Iraqi, and other) continue to die for no certain goal; and because
--the war recycles a stagnant, hurtful fear among the citizens of the United States, making us feel as if we need to insulate
against the world.
2)I believe the war in Iraq is politically wrong because
--we have alienated not only the neutral parties of the U.N. and the rest of the world, but mortified our allies as well. Should a
catastrophic WWIII occur, then the U.S.A. and our dwindling allies would resemble our imperialist enemies in WWII;
--we have gutted our strained economy; and because
--most importantly, made the world less safe than it was before the war.
3)I believe that our economy is in a terrible state, and "tax relief" only makes the cost of living more dire and disasterous for
working folk.
4)I believe that our education sytem is an embarrassment. I cannot understand why state measures to support schools
continue to be killed.
5)I believe that no human being has a right to determine a legal stance on a concept like marriage. In a larger, spiritual sense, if
God disapproves of same-sex marriages, then let God deliver judgement. "Let the one who is innocent in the silence of his
soul cast the first stone...."
6)I believe our prison system is a moral, barbaric atrocity.

That's good to go on for now.

I have lived my life up to this point, to this day, developing these beliefs; and I arrogantly admit (until two days ago) that I do not understand how someone could so signifiantly disagree with me, that they might vote in the conservative regime.

But I cannot continue to feel this way. I admit to arrogance. Now I confess to confusion and shame. I do not understand, that is still true. But I want to understand, and I believe that Democrats need to re-learn how to view "conservatism". We need to learn the "why" of conservatism, and, perhaps more importantly, we need to re-learn the "why" of liberalism.

So what do you say? What's happening?

Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum

Comments

citahellion

on Nov 04, 2004

Interesting article, and a laudable willingness for self-examination that seems to be sadly lacking in many Democrats (and Republicans too, only they have less call for it at the moment) these days.

To answer your questions from a generally conservative point of view:
1) Morally wrong to go into Iraq:
a) pre-emptiveness: I am certainly willing to admit that the evidence that was used was faulty and that Saddam actually presented little in the way of current or future threat. However, when faulty evidence is all that you have available, you make decisions based on it. Furthermore, I reject the blanket claim of pre-emptiveness because of the 12 years of economic sanctions, inspections, and the year's worth of warnings that we were gearing up for it. In the end, it came down to brinksmanship; and as the overwhelming favorite in an armed conflict, we showed little concern for stepping over the final line.

innocent soldiers and civilians die for no cause: I disagree. The war has two well-defined aims: i) eliminate WMD caches or capabilities, ii) remove Saddam from power and replace him with a democratic structure. To be sure, we have not done everything possible to reduce or eliminate casualties. That needs to be addressed. But the basic premise of this statement is one I find faulty.
c) incites fear at home: now HERE is a standard 'touchy-feely" argument that Democrats love to push. My only response to this is that some people, when scared, run and hide; some, when scared, face up to their fears, defeat them, and get on with their lives. America is supposed to be primarily in the second category.

2) Politically wrong because:
a) Ally alienation: okay, this is a valid point. The diplomacy has been handled rather poorly and needs to improve. Comparing us to the WWII Axis, however, is a cheap and pointless low blow.

bad economy: Look around. The only aspect of the economy that is bad is the federal deficit. Everything else is going great. Yes, the deficit needs to be addressed, but the economy is not any sort of disaster, as it is commonly made out to be.
c) less safe: This is such a broad claim that it's impossible to reply realistically to it. How about "I disagree." I think the world made itself a more dangerous place, not us.

3) Bad economy again: See 2b) above. I will agree that we are near a sort of tipping-point, in that the larger the government becomes, the harder it is to have a good economy; and so we need to focus on eliminating government wherever possible, or at least preventing it from growing further. At the moment, however, we are in a good position to start working on that because the economy is reasonably strong, and gains may be quickly realized.

4) bad education: Insofar as you refer to public education (K-12), I agree to an extent; it's not great. My own personal preference would be to eliminate public education and go to a completely private system. To call the system itself an embarrassment, however, is overstating things and is belied by your follow-up that what it really needs is more funding.

5) legality of marriage: You're trying to flout 230 years of US law. Good luck with that. In a sense, though, I agree; marriage and government really should not mix.

6) Bad prison system: I'll agree with you, but without the rhetoric. Our prison system is based on punitive measures and is widely perceived to be riddled with its own internal crimes and behavioral issues. If there's a better proposal, though, I've yet to hear it.

d3adz0mbie

on Nov 04, 2004

1)I believe the war in Iraq is morally wrong because --Iraq had not attacked us. We pre-emptively struck against a sovereign nation, using manufactured, faulty reasoning as our authorization; --innocent manipulated soldiers and civilians (American, Iraqi, and other) continue to die for no certain goal; and because --the war recycles a stagnant, hurtful fear among the citizens of the United States, making us feel as if we need to insulate against the world. 2)I believe the war in Iraq is politically wrong because --we have alienated not only the neutral parties of the U.N. and the rest of the world, but mortified our allies as well. Should a catastrophic WWIII occur, then the U.S.A. and our dwindling allies would resemble our imperialist enemies in WWII; --we have gutted our strained economy; and because --most importantly, made the world less safe than it was before the war. 3)I believe that our economy is in a terrible state, and "tax relief" only makes the cost of living more dire and disasterous for working folk. 4)I believe that our education sytem is an embarrassment. I cannot understand why state measures to support schools continue to be killed. 5)I believe that no human being has a right to determine a legal stance on a concept like marriage. In a larger, spiritual sense, if God disapproves of same-sex marriages, then let God deliver judgement. "Let the one who is innocent in the silence of his soul cast the first stone...." 6)I believe our prison system is a moral, barbaric atrocity.

Wow, an excellent article from a Democrat. I will do my best to answer your issues listed above, but I need to say first and foremost that these issues have actually very little to do with the results of the 2004 elections, which I will do my best to explain at the end of my reply.

1.) Actually, Iraq had been attacking us for the past 11 years. Actually shooting at our planes, trying to kill US troops. But this first issue is deeper than that. Why were the US troops flying over Iraq? Why did we eventually invade? Where is the seperation between Democrats and Republicans on this issue?
We had established a no fly zone over Iraq under the jurisdiction of the UN. British, Australian and American planes flew over Iraq daily as part of an enforcement of UN Security council guidelines resulting from Iraqs cease fire agreement in 1991. What is misunderstood about the original gulf war is that it never ended! Thats right, Iraq agreed to a cease fire, but did not sign a surrender agreement insisted upon by the UN Security Council. The no fly zone was in place because of this. Daily Iraq broke the cease fire, yet for years the UN did nothing to enforce the cease fire agreement.
Take that one factor into consideration when you look at the larger picture of post 09/11 2002. America was still scared of biological attacks. The anthrax scare was fresh, the twin towers were still fresh in our minds, and weapon inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq for the 13th time in 11 years. Top that with 117 violations of UN Security council resolutions by Iraq, and they are suddenly moved to the top of the list. Many people think the USA defied the UN will by invading Iraq, the truth is that the USA and Britain were enforcing written UN resolutions.
This is where the parties break down: Democrats think that Bush manufactured WMD's as an excuse to invade Iraq. Either because his dad didn't take Saddam out, or the assisnation attempt. Democrats think that conservatives believed the WMD excuse hook , line and sinker, thus making this an asinine war. If these reasons were true, Democrats would be absolutely correct. To many Democrats, supporting the President on this issue proves the Conservative base is dumb, and has followed the President into a war based on illegal reasoning.
Conservatives see it differently. The POSSIBILITY of WMD's was just another factor to invade. When Democrats say the President has "flip flopped" on the reasons he went to war it is only a partial truth... this administration laid out no less than 8 reasons to invade Iraq before a single troop took action. So one day you may hear media talking points on WMD's, the next the President is talking about violated UN resolutions... Democrats rightly see that as confusing! Which is it? WMD's or support for terror? It was a combination of UN resolution violations, kicking inspectors out, support of Hamas (Saddam had a $25,000 reward for the families of Hamas homocide bombers), human rights violations, the continued military hostility to our troops in the UN sanctioned no fly zone and the POSSIBILITY of WMD's. Added up, in the heat of 2002, this marked a huge red X over Iraq for Conservatives. Saddam had been a consistant threat, supported terrorism and was militarily aggressive. To Conservatives, the risk was greater than the loss.
The President was helped along by both parties in Congress. The UN Security Council authorized the use of "whatever means necessary" to enforce Iraqi oriented resolutions. It looked as if the world agreed with us, although we had a suspicion this would be twisted for political ends. The Democratic leadership has done just that in the minds of Conservatives, which is why you will hear some Conservatives feel as if the Democratic leadership does not support the troops. The truth is that all US wars have been used by both parties for political gain. The only Democratic claim of the Conservative base I take a huge issue with is the claim that Conservatives believe that Saddam was tied to 09/11. I have not heard, read or met a single Conservative that believes this. It is in light of the terrorist attacks on our homeland that placed Saddams total behaviour in the international community into an unacceptable catagory.

As for manipulation of "soldiers and civilians (American, Iraqi, and other)" dying for no specific goal, this is where Democrats and Conservatives really split. Democrats...well, Im not sure what people in your party think about the goal of Iraq. Maybe nobody in your party sees the long term strategy, so I'll lay out the very specific goals of this war with Iraq.
a.) To remove Saddam from power. Accomplished.
b.) To fight terrorists and extremists on foreign soil, instead of in the USA. PArtially accomplished.
c.) To restore humane conditions to the people of Iraq. PArtially accomplished. These conditions include more than just power and water and infrastructure, they also include the removal of oppression from a dictorial regime, the mass slaughter of people with differing political and ethnic backgrounds, and the religious oppression of women and children.
d.) To establish a stable, free democracy in the Middle East. In progress. This is the most important goal, and our sharpest weapon in the war on terror. Conservatives think that the war on terror is winnable, even though there will never be a group of extreme Muslims sitting down at a table with the Secretary of State signing a peace treaty. We believe this war is a war of ideals, and that we are in it for decades. Remember how the cold war took 50 years to win? Think along the same timelines for the war on terrorism. The only way this war can be won is to undermine the extremist thinking and third world conditions that inspire young men to commit homocide against innocents. As Americans, Conservatives believe the best way to undermine extremist thinking is to instill democratic values in a region, giving people a chance to vote and make their voice heard, as we just did a few days ago. More importantly, we combine democracy with capitalism: capitalism destroyed socialism, and time and again it has proved one of the best long term solutioons for lifting a nation out of poverty.

I have to agree that this war recycles stagnant feelings of fear, but not among US citizens, instead among the citizens of the world. Remember that the world views America not only as a bastion of freedom, but also as the last remaining superpower. ANYTHING we do sets nerves on end across the globe, and I promise you, nothing we do will ever be 100% accepted by the international community.

2.) I addressed some of the international issues above, but let me add that the rest of the world is not entirely innocent. France and other countries were taking profits meant to go to the Iraqi people and lining their own pockets, basically as a bribe to counter the USA's moves against Saddam. This is documented now, and its not the first time one of our allies has sold us out for personal gain.
I just don't see how the world is 'less safe'. Wars still occured throughout the world before we invaded Iraq, ethnic cleansings happened across the globe, people have always been killed for their beliefs by governments in power, and the terrorist threat against free countries has only been escalating over the past two decades. From hijacked planes to blown up ships, thousands of civilians dead to flying passanger planes into buildings... the world has been getting worse and worse, not better. This war in Iraq has just focused the issue to a little better clarity for the world that wasnt always concerned with one hijacked plane, or a group of olympic athletes held at gunpoint. Iraq means that this won't be ignored, and if terrorists of the world wont lay down their arms we will remake the world into something that will deal with us much better. It survival of the fittest, and in this case we fight or die. Or our children do. At least from the conservative veiwpoint.

3.) We disagree here, and Im not sure what to tell you. 09/11 was a terrible blow to our economy: millions lost jobs directly resulting from those attacks. Personally I am doing economically better than I ever did under the Clinton administration, and current contracts I have signed with clients ensure that my next three years will be prosperous. Friends and family I know find that its easier to find jobs this year, and today, as I type this, the market is up yet again (140pts atm).
The price of crude oil concerns me, but I dont lay that soley at the feet of President Bush, I lay it at at the feet of every President thats hel office over the past 70 years. We have reached the global oil peak, and worldwide oil reserves are dwindling quickly. We MUST develop a plan for alternative power and focus on plastics recycling NOW, or our children will live in a vastly different world. This is an issue I saw both Bush and Kerry kind of 'glaze over', giving more lip service to for a brief moment during each campaign than either canidate actually developing a detailed, progressive plan. Perhaps this is something Republicans and Democrats can unify on... I dont know.

4.) I have no answer for you here. Ive thought public schools have been a joke for 3 decades now. I have seen some improvement over the past two years, but the schools have a long way to go. Republicans back vouchers for private schools as a short term fix, until this issue, which will take time and effort to repair, can be truely corrected. I think its that Republicans dont believe that sending more money to encourage the same bad policies is going to fix the situation.

5.) This is where Republicans feel our values are being attacked. This is the same as saying African Americans should not be allowed to enrich their lives by embracing their african heritage! Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman. As a religious ritual this is a sacred point for many religions (not just Christians). As a civic ceremony...well, its good that States recognize marriage for legal reasons. Where the confusion comes is the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. I was vastly dissappointed that on many of the ballots two days ago, civil unions were made illegal in several states! This makes homosexuals second class citizens!
I honestly believe that if marriage would be preserved for traditionalists (we are Americans too after all, and our heritage should be respected the same as blacks, hispanics, gays and any other group), and homosexuals would be allowed by the states to have any sort of civil union that gave them the same LEGAL rights as married couples, this would be a non-issue.
Democrats seem to want to co-opt marriage for their own ends, changing it into something its not. Many Republicans seem to want to exclude gays from having certain rights they are entitled to, which is wrong. We must find common ground on this issue, not for the 12% of homosexuals, but for the protection of every American citizens rights to be equal under the law.

6.) I agree with you here, but have you seen either a Democrat or Republican with a rational solution? I have not.

The election came down to 136,000+/-votes in a single state. I honestly don't think Kerry was a canidate that your party could heartily back, but was for some people the only viable alternative to a President they despise. That won't win an election, especially combined with some of the outright hatred displayed by Democrats towards Republicans. I cannot imagine ever being called "stupid", "idiot" and moron so many times in my life by people that don't even know me. Most republicans Ive talked with feel the same way - that Democrats were very hateful this election, and I think that mobilized the Republican base to actually vote.
We want a discourse on issues. We want to work with every American. But we don't want to be insulted in the process. We dont like being called names when we are trying to discuss the issues, and "bigot", "racist" and "homophobe" are hurtful, especially when its not true. Many Republicans Ive talked to would actually vote for Leiberman if he ran for President, as he respects the issues, listens to both sides, and while standing strong on his own views, is always willing to work with every American. That is respectable, and a strong trait we want from our President.

I honestly hope you understand my explanations. I do not mean to claim that you are "WRONG" or that your beliefs are not valid, I am merely trying to help you undserstand the other side a little better. We aren't all idiots over here, we just have different concerns, and perhaps look at issues on different scales than the other side might.

TaBooTenente

on Nov 07, 2004

My main problem with the Republican position is this: Saddam violating U.N. resolutions does not justify the destruction we've dealt an entire nation. Imagine holding the guns, or dropping the bombs. Imagine your son dragged into the street at 2am. You can call this a "bleeding heart" argument, but you have to at least recognize the possibility that this war has taken "justification" too far. I appreciate your arguments. They are rational explanations beyond what's generally offered by our President. Ideally, this type of conversation might lead to a dialogue capable of bridging this strange polarized nation we live in these days. Still, I can't help feeling frustration reading all of our arguments, here, yours, mine, and others expressed over the world's airwaves. How can they be so opposed? How can you see a positive swing in the economy, when all I see is a surplus completly gutted and inverted? How can you see an increase in jobs, when I see gap-filling temp work doomed to fall in a small handful of years? How can we disagree so fundamentally about health care and the privitization of Social Security? People do not know how to leverage tax credits into retirement. Do you think this is fundamentally a difference in Philosophy, in perspective, or something else? People are angry. I think it's becoming a problem.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!