Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Sad thoughts from an upset citizen
As promised, I sat in front of the television for most of today, getting my hopes up as voter turnout appeared sky high, a good sign for Kerry, and most exit polls showed Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania all going Kerry by 3-4 points.
It became apparent during the actual returns of Ohio and Florida that it wasn't going to go as the Votemaster said it would. Florida jumped out to a huge lead, and in Ohio the gap just wouldn't get any smaller.
So it looks as though we get another four years. Like I said, I'm not going to live and die with this election. What troubles me, as I look up at the map of the US, is the division of red and blue. Illinois, my state, a lone blue amongst a sea of red, to the west and south. The northeast and the west coast, the bastions of liberalism. Didn't we already fight the civil war? Why can't these be the United States?
Barack Obama desperately wanted us to believe that there is no Red America, there is no Blue America, there is simply America. Well, Mr. Obama, I can't do that. I won't live in the red states. I don't even want to live in a red county. Why? I don't hate conservatives; in fact I agree with much of the practical applications of conservatism, and I could probably be convinced to vote for a Republican candidate as long as it wasn't for President.
But like I said earlier, voting is for the future. Voting conservative is a vote for the present, a vote for things to remain more or less the same. Which is why the republicans came out in droves; they want Bush to provide exactly that. There is a need for conservativism, to make sure we are fiscally responsible, to make sure that taxes are low, to make sure that the rural areas of America are taken care of. I look at the polls and I see that rich America votes pro-bush; they like his tax cuts for the wealthy. It's a vote to keep more money in your wallet, it's a vote for the present. I see white protestant america votes pro-bush, they like how things are now, they think America is the perfect nation and only needs to tweak the formula, not overhaul it.
I appreciate these sentiments, being selfish, and being proud. I understand them. I even condoned them in an earlier post, if for no other reason that it's better than voting scared of terrorism. There are other reasons to vote conservative; I admit, but I am generalizing here. Too much of America thinks with a closed-mind. They can't, or perhaps, don't want to, envision an America where gays are treated with equal rights. Just like 100 years ago, many didn't want to envision an America where blacks and women were treated with equal rights. And they can't envision an America where atheism is a way of life, where people don't go to church, where people don't expect the Bible to be taught in schools. And they can't envision an America where perhaps, we are not the most powerful country on the globe, and where we can't do things unilaterally, where we have to work with the rest of the world. Can't anyone else envision an America where things change, where things progress?
I know it's not as simple as red vs. blue. It's not as simple as red=closed-minded and blue=open-minded. But people in blue counties do have one thing in common. They live in cities, and they live with other people. They don't get to shut their minds off from the rest of the world, exposing themselves to only the kind of people that they deem acceptable. And they take into account the effect that laws can have on other people than themselves.
This isn't meant to be a criticism of conservatives. 20% of city dwellers in chicago voted bush. Are they closed-minded? I doubt that. Are all of the 80% of the kerry supporters open-minded? No, probably not. And I admit I am upset (I wrote it in the title, dammit). And why am I upset?
Because it hurt just as much to see the propositions on defining gay marriage passing as it did to see Bush climbing in the polls. You can like Bush for a variety of reasons: you think that the war in Iraq will contribute to global security in the future or you think tax cuts are necessary, et cetera. But excluding gays from marriage and civil unions is totally indefensible; it's bigotry, and it makes me so angry that I want to smash the keyboard into bits as I write these words. Have we not progressed as a nation, as a people, as a species? Haven't we learned enough from our past mistakes that we can see bigotry when it blatantly rises in front of us? Do we have to take these giant steps backwards? Won't I just be fighting the same fight for atheists' rights when I am old and gray? What will make these people understand that fear of change is totally irrational? That things can be better than they are today, for the good of humanity? That the Bible (or the Constitution, for that matter) is not everyone's moral code? I don't know. I doubt that the next four years will do anything to help that. And that's why I'm sad and upset.
In any case, good luck, George. Prove me wrong. Make this world better.
It became apparent during the actual returns of Ohio and Florida that it wasn't going to go as the Votemaster said it would. Florida jumped out to a huge lead, and in Ohio the gap just wouldn't get any smaller.
So it looks as though we get another four years. Like I said, I'm not going to live and die with this election. What troubles me, as I look up at the map of the US, is the division of red and blue. Illinois, my state, a lone blue amongst a sea of red, to the west and south. The northeast and the west coast, the bastions of liberalism. Didn't we already fight the civil war? Why can't these be the United States?
Barack Obama desperately wanted us to believe that there is no Red America, there is no Blue America, there is simply America. Well, Mr. Obama, I can't do that. I won't live in the red states. I don't even want to live in a red county. Why? I don't hate conservatives; in fact I agree with much of the practical applications of conservatism, and I could probably be convinced to vote for a Republican candidate as long as it wasn't for President.
But like I said earlier, voting is for the future. Voting conservative is a vote for the present, a vote for things to remain more or less the same. Which is why the republicans came out in droves; they want Bush to provide exactly that. There is a need for conservativism, to make sure we are fiscally responsible, to make sure that taxes are low, to make sure that the rural areas of America are taken care of. I look at the polls and I see that rich America votes pro-bush; they like his tax cuts for the wealthy. It's a vote to keep more money in your wallet, it's a vote for the present. I see white protestant america votes pro-bush, they like how things are now, they think America is the perfect nation and only needs to tweak the formula, not overhaul it.
I appreciate these sentiments, being selfish, and being proud. I understand them. I even condoned them in an earlier post, if for no other reason that it's better than voting scared of terrorism. There are other reasons to vote conservative; I admit, but I am generalizing here. Too much of America thinks with a closed-mind. They can't, or perhaps, don't want to, envision an America where gays are treated with equal rights. Just like 100 years ago, many didn't want to envision an America where blacks and women were treated with equal rights. And they can't envision an America where atheism is a way of life, where people don't go to church, where people don't expect the Bible to be taught in schools. And they can't envision an America where perhaps, we are not the most powerful country on the globe, and where we can't do things unilaterally, where we have to work with the rest of the world. Can't anyone else envision an America where things change, where things progress?
I know it's not as simple as red vs. blue. It's not as simple as red=closed-minded and blue=open-minded. But people in blue counties do have one thing in common. They live in cities, and they live with other people. They don't get to shut their minds off from the rest of the world, exposing themselves to only the kind of people that they deem acceptable. And they take into account the effect that laws can have on other people than themselves.
This isn't meant to be a criticism of conservatives. 20% of city dwellers in chicago voted bush. Are they closed-minded? I doubt that. Are all of the 80% of the kerry supporters open-minded? No, probably not. And I admit I am upset (I wrote it in the title, dammit). And why am I upset?
Because it hurt just as much to see the propositions on defining gay marriage passing as it did to see Bush climbing in the polls. You can like Bush for a variety of reasons: you think that the war in Iraq will contribute to global security in the future or you think tax cuts are necessary, et cetera. But excluding gays from marriage and civil unions is totally indefensible; it's bigotry, and it makes me so angry that I want to smash the keyboard into bits as I write these words. Have we not progressed as a nation, as a people, as a species? Haven't we learned enough from our past mistakes that we can see bigotry when it blatantly rises in front of us? Do we have to take these giant steps backwards? Won't I just be fighting the same fight for atheists' rights when I am old and gray? What will make these people understand that fear of change is totally irrational? That things can be better than they are today, for the good of humanity? That the Bible (or the Constitution, for that matter) is not everyone's moral code? I don't know. I doubt that the next four years will do anything to help that. And that's why I'm sad and upset.
In any case, good luck, George. Prove me wrong. Make this world better.
# posted by Stuart @ 1:18 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
First of all, maybe instead of sitting in front of your TV all day you should have gone and voted, not that it would have made a difference, but then you would have more ground to complain. The unknowns of this election were the 'young votes' and the young voters, ages 18-29 did not vote in any higher numbers (percentage wise) than they did in 2000. I know that I voted (even took the time to vote for all 70 judges in Cook County (Chicago)) and I know that Dave and Pat voted, so we are not the problem. To sound cheesy, what is that quote, even the longest walk starts with one step?
As for the gay marriage issue on the ballot in some states. The country as a whole is against it, and I think that this is simply because the average voting age is probably around 50. This is a movement that will catch on as we, people in our 20's, develop more of a voice in politics (starts with showing up to vote). While the measure was defeated in every state that it was on the ballot in, there are no real big surprises. The measure was easily beaten in many highly republican states, both in the south and western states such as North Dakota, Montana, and Utah. No surprises here. The 2 states where the measure was even close was Michigan and Oregon, definitely the most liberal states that had the measure on their ballot, and the only 2 that went to Kerry. It should be noted that Ohio was the next closest vote. By the way, even with the House and Senate pickups, Bush will not get a constitutional ban on gay marriage, and remember that Kerry was not exactly pro-same sex marriages, his idea was to leave it up to the states, and look how that turned out.
Now, I ended up voting for Kerry yesterday, after many months of deliberation, and looking everywhere for a better solution, and I will now offer some potential bright spots from 4 more years of Bush, at least in my opinion.
1) Low taxes. Despite what was said, Bush did lower taxes across the board, including creating the 10% tax bracket and eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. Also, as our parents and grandparents get older, having a Republican around to keep the estate taxes low is not entirely a bad thing.
2) His plan to allow young people to opt out of Social Security and put that money into a fund possibly similar to a 401K. Anyone can invest better than the government, just put it in the bank, and it is probably going to do better than the current system, and it is definitely more secure there.
3) I have thought and still think that it would take a 2nd term President to do something about the Social Security system, because reforming it is not going to be popular. Many economists agree that the benefit age must be moved back to at least 67, and Bush has not ruled this out. Kerry vowed to leave the current system alone, and I do think that was exactly the wrong thing to do.
Finally, wouldn't you be happier with Hillary in 2008 and not Kerry?
Please respond.
-Derek
As for the gay marriage issue on the ballot in some states. The country as a whole is against it, and I think that this is simply because the average voting age is probably around 50. This is a movement that will catch on as we, people in our 20's, develop more of a voice in politics (starts with showing up to vote). While the measure was defeated in every state that it was on the ballot in, there are no real big surprises. The measure was easily beaten in many highly republican states, both in the south and western states such as North Dakota, Montana, and Utah. No surprises here. The 2 states where the measure was even close was Michigan and Oregon, definitely the most liberal states that had the measure on their ballot, and the only 2 that went to Kerry. It should be noted that Ohio was the next closest vote. By the way, even with the House and Senate pickups, Bush will not get a constitutional ban on gay marriage, and remember that Kerry was not exactly pro-same sex marriages, his idea was to leave it up to the states, and look how that turned out.
Now, I ended up voting for Kerry yesterday, after many months of deliberation, and looking everywhere for a better solution, and I will now offer some potential bright spots from 4 more years of Bush, at least in my opinion.
1) Low taxes. Despite what was said, Bush did lower taxes across the board, including creating the 10% tax bracket and eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. Also, as our parents and grandparents get older, having a Republican around to keep the estate taxes low is not entirely a bad thing.
2) His plan to allow young people to opt out of Social Security and put that money into a fund possibly similar to a 401K. Anyone can invest better than the government, just put it in the bank, and it is probably going to do better than the current system, and it is definitely more secure there.
3) I have thought and still think that it would take a 2nd term President to do something about the Social Security system, because reforming it is not going to be popular. Many economists agree that the benefit age must be moved back to at least 67, and Bush has not ruled this out. Kerry vowed to leave the current system alone, and I do think that was exactly the wrong thing to do.
Finally, wouldn't you be happier with Hillary in 2008 and not Kerry?
Please respond.
-Derek
# posted by 
: 9:45 AM
: 9:45 AM
First, don't give me that crap about voting giving you a right to complain. I just don't want to hear that shit. We all agree that voting is powerless, so don't pretend that it's not. Secondly, don't pretend that because you voted you are a better citizen or that your voice counts for more. I can choose not to vote, that's my right. Call it my protest against the electoral system.
I agree that 50 year-olds are against gay marriage, and I agree that they need to die off before it gets more mainstream. And I agree that neither Kerry or Bush is really for same-sex marriages because it's too unpopular. I am just complaining about americans as a whole here. Why did they have to legislate an article of faith? Didn't the country do OK without gay marriage laws for the first 200 years? Just because the gay rights movement is a little stronger, everyone felt the need to clamp down before it got 'out of hand'.
I also agree that Bush can do some good in the next election, and I also agree that his 8 years almost guarantees us a democratic president in 2008. As for hillary, I just don't know. Somehow I doubt she would be any more of a uniter of the nation. But yes, if Bush can be a little more fiscally conservative, balance the budget, not make a total mess of Iraq, and fix Social Security, (which I doubt he will do, by the way, because there are other problems than it merely being unpopular), and also appoint Supreme Court Justices who aren't right-wing wackos, then perhaps I will not look at Bush being the worst president of my lifetime.
But like I said, I don't want to be angry about the election. I am upset about the moral ideology of America shifting to the right. I can handle wanting tax cuts and liking Bush's stubbornness. But wanting to move back to the 1950's, when gays stayed in the closet, and if you didn't go to church, you kept your mouth shut, and we taught creationism in schools is something I won't understand. And that's why I won't live in a red state.
I agree that 50 year-olds are against gay marriage, and I agree that they need to die off before it gets more mainstream. And I agree that neither Kerry or Bush is really for same-sex marriages because it's too unpopular. I am just complaining about americans as a whole here. Why did they have to legislate an article of faith? Didn't the country do OK without gay marriage laws for the first 200 years? Just because the gay rights movement is a little stronger, everyone felt the need to clamp down before it got 'out of hand'.
I also agree that Bush can do some good in the next election, and I also agree that his 8 years almost guarantees us a democratic president in 2008. As for hillary, I just don't know. Somehow I doubt she would be any more of a uniter of the nation. But yes, if Bush can be a little more fiscally conservative, balance the budget, not make a total mess of Iraq, and fix Social Security, (which I doubt he will do, by the way, because there are other problems than it merely being unpopular), and also appoint Supreme Court Justices who aren't right-wing wackos, then perhaps I will not look at Bush being the worst president of my lifetime.
But like I said, I don't want to be angry about the election. I am upset about the moral ideology of America shifting to the right. I can handle wanting tax cuts and liking Bush's stubbornness. But wanting to move back to the 1950's, when gays stayed in the closet, and if you didn't go to church, you kept your mouth shut, and we taught creationism in schools is something I won't understand. And that's why I won't live in a red state.
here here! down with the red states! i agree, the ideological shift to the right is much more concerning than any single race - even for the presidency. I also would like to agree that 4 more years of bush offers small glimmers of hope on an issue or two, but that's only because we still think republicans want to restrain spending. thats simply not the case. the democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility nowadays, so don't look for a balanced budget anytime soon. especially with bush seeking to make the tax cuts permanent (and probably offer some more) and ask for 80 billion more for iraq. the best hope kerry brought was the possibility that other countries would be brought back to the table and contribute more in iraq. the other disappointing thing about kerry losing is the supreme court. tax cuts can be repealed, education plans can be overhauled, but supreme court justices just don't go away. with strong control of the senate and house, i'm afraid of what types of justices get appointed to the supreme court and other federal courts. it might take a long time to undo that damage.
and of course stu can complain. his vote for nader wouldn't add legitimacy to his complaints any more than spending a whole day watching the election unfold. or sleeping, for that matter. you always have the right to disagree with your government and voice that opinion.
and of course stu can complain. his vote for nader wouldn't add legitimacy to his complaints any more than spending a whole day watching the election unfold. or sleeping, for that matter. you always have the right to disagree with your government and voice that opinion.
# posted by : 10:51 AM
: 10:51 AM
Love the blog - at least the two post I have read. I agree that it is a sad day and hope that W will prove us wrong.
I am also linking to you, feel free to check mine out...
http://sorenson.blogspot.com
I am also linking to you, feel free to check mine out...
http://sorenson.blogspot.com
Stu, you are correct, it is your right to vote. And it is your right to make your voice heard. I think that the most powerful way to make your voice heard is to vote. It is more than just the vote for president also, you can leave that spot blank in protest, just vote for the offices where you like a candidate, Obama for Senator maybe. Vote for Cook County Recorder if that strikes you. The problem is that if young people like you who obviously care about politics, are well educated, and have strong opinions on many issues do not vote, there is no hope for mobilizing the youth who either do not understand the issues or do not care.
Dave, I agree that Kerry had better positions on most of the issues that were important to me. If I had it my way, the budget would be balanced, and
Dave, I agree that Kerry had better positions on most of the issues that were important to me. If I had it my way, the budget would be balanced, and
# posted by : 11:10 AM
: 11:10 AM
Stu, you are correct, it is your right to vote. And it is your right to make your voice heard. I happen to think that the most powerful way to make your voice heard is to vote. It is more than just the vote for president also, you can leave that spot blank in protest. Just vote for the offices where you like a candidate, Obama for Senator maybe. Vote for Cook County Recorder if that strikes you. The problem is that if young people like you who obviously care about politics, are well educated, and have strong opinions on many issues do not vote, there is no hope for mobilizing the youth who either do not understand the issues or do not care.
Dave, I agree that Kerry had better positions on most of the issues that were important to me. If I had it my way, the budget would be balanced, and I would pay about $5 in taxes/year. That is obviously not going to happen, so if the budget is not going to be anywhere close to balanced, at least I will have more money. A selfish view, but one that many people agree with.
Finally, having done little to no research on this topic, here is my latest electoral college theory. The states that lost votes are mainly northeastern states, NY, PA, OH, IL, CT, MI, MS, OK, IN, and WI, and the states that gained are all southern and western states, CA, AZ, GA, FL, TX, CO, NV, NC. I think that the states that lost, primarily Democratic states, are either people retiring and moving south and west or people moving to developing cities in the south and west. Unfortunately, these cities and retirement communities are in primarily republican states. Now, I have not done the research, but I wonder if the states that gained electoral votes were closer (more Democratic representation) than in 2000. This would indicate to me that the Democratic voters has not been lost, just diluted into very republican states. Of course, this could still be countered by the large difference in popular vote this time.
And, for all those Democrats who want to move south and west, but worry about going to a red state, there is still Hawaii.
-Derek
Dave, I agree that Kerry had better positions on most of the issues that were important to me. If I had it my way, the budget would be balanced, and I would pay about $5 in taxes/year. That is obviously not going to happen, so if the budget is not going to be anywhere close to balanced, at least I will have more money. A selfish view, but one that many people agree with.
Finally, having done little to no research on this topic, here is my latest electoral college theory. The states that lost votes are mainly northeastern states, NY, PA, OH, IL, CT, MI, MS, OK, IN, and WI, and the states that gained are all southern and western states, CA, AZ, GA, FL, TX, CO, NV, NC. I think that the states that lost, primarily Democratic states, are either people retiring and moving south and west or people moving to developing cities in the south and west. Unfortunately, these cities and retirement communities are in primarily republican states. Now, I have not done the research, but I wonder if the states that gained electoral votes were closer (more Democratic representation) than in 2000. This would indicate to me that the Democratic voters has not been lost, just diluted into very republican states. Of course, this could still be countered by the large difference in popular vote this time.
And, for all those Democrats who want to move south and west, but worry about going to a red state, there is still Hawaii.
-Derek
# posted by : 11:26 AM
: 11:26 AM
We've already gotten in one fight about this, but I don't care. You don't have to be an ass because people call you out for not voting. It's obviously a legitimate argument for many people, (not for you) that not exercizing your right to vote gives you less of a right to complain. Being antagonistic towards these people aint gonna change anything. Vote in 2008 you lazy bum.
Stuart:
the polarizaiton is even more severe than the maps show. If you look at the county-by-county breakdowns, it's even more stark. The Dems power base is almost exclusively in the cities, particularly in urban areas of the northeast, uuper Midwest, and west Coast. Everywhere else the map is red.
That shows the cultural chasm that is separating the country right now.
Several months ago we had some posts about the electoral college, and here is where the strength of the electoral coolege will come into play.
For the Democrats to reestablish themselves, they have to extend their base of support outside of urban areas. If the election were decided by a simple popular vote, they could try to regain power by mining deeper into the cities, magnifying the chasm.
But with an electoral college that is not a viable strategy. To succeed they must broaden their appeal, to represent goups they are currently not reaching.
That is good for democracy, and is a path toward division rather than unification.
Post a Comment
the polarizaiton is even more severe than the maps show. If you look at the county-by-county breakdowns, it's even more stark. The Dems power base is almost exclusively in the cities, particularly in urban areas of the northeast, uuper Midwest, and west Coast. Everywhere else the map is red.
That shows the cultural chasm that is separating the country right now.
Several months ago we had some posts about the electoral college, and here is where the strength of the electoral coolege will come into play.
For the Democrats to reestablish themselves, they have to extend their base of support outside of urban areas. If the election were decided by a simple popular vote, they could try to regain power by mining deeper into the cities, magnifying the chasm.
But with an electoral college that is not a viable strategy. To succeed they must broaden their appeal, to represent goups they are currently not reaching.
That is good for democracy, and is a path toward division rather than unification.
<< Home
