This essay can also be downloaded as a .pdf file from the newsgroup
alt.binaries.e-book. Search for the posting with the subject heading
that begins: "Election 2004: A Referendum on the American People".
==================================================
Election 2004: A Referendum on the American People, or...
Why I'm Switching My Vote From Bush To Kerry
Copyright © 2004 Anonymous
I, the author of this essay, am not in any way affiliated with the
Kerry campaign or the Democratic party. The following essay was not
solicited by or sponsored by the campaign or party, or by any other
affiliated organizations. I received no money to write and post this,
and have done so entirely on my own initiative. I'm a private
American citizen -- a native born American, and a registered
Republican voter -- taking advantage of the Internet to share my views
with fellow citizens, and what follows are my honest personal insights
into our current political situation.
This essay may be freely reproduced and redistributed, in print and
electronically, provided no changes are made, and provided the
copyright notice remains affixed. Please, e-mail to a friend if you
think it will change their vote for the better!
______________________________________________________________________________
I voted for George Bush in 2000, but will now be voting for John
Kerry. For myself, I don't vote based on any one issue; I vote based
on my estimate of a man's overall leadership ability, and his overall
respect for what I see as basic American principles. For example, I
strongly support choice in abortion, yet I voted for GWB in 2000
anyway -- again, because it's not about any one issue. I thought at
the time that Al Gore would over-intellectualize everything to death,
and I also thought George Bush would bring common sense leadership and
dignity to the Oval Office. While I remain concerned that John Kerry,
like Al Gore, will see ten sides to every issue, I've reached the
painful conclusion that George Bush is basically clueless about
everything. I'd rather have a man who sees the multiple facets of an
issue too well, rather than a man who just doesn't get what is going
on.
Yet, this election is not so much about George Bush or John Kerry per
se, so much as about who the American people want to be. To this
observer, it seems that the upcoming 2004 presidential election offers
one of the clearest choices, certainly among the clearest that I've
seen in my life, and I've been around a while. Here are some general
observations that I have about Bush and Kerry, about the comments that
have been made about both men, about the people who support one or the
other, and finally about some of the most volatile issues in the
campaign.
One of the things I notice every time I see news clips of both Bush
and Kerry on the campaign trail is the way the audiences respond to
the two men. Supporters cheer for both Bush and Kerry. But it seems
to me, unless I just happen to be watching a few idiosyncratic news
clips, that the two men get very different responses when they
criticize each other. When Kerry criticizes a George Bush policy, the
cheer comes when Kerry affirms his own alternative policy. But when
George Bush criticizes Kerry-in fact, when he even refers to John
Kerry-the first thing you hear is a loud Boo-ing.
To me, the phenomenon is unmistakable: Kerry supporters regard the
campaign as being about issues, and are cheering for what they think
are the best policies; Bush supporters, by contrast, treat the whole
contest as a sporting event, and are boo-ing against the team they
don't like. It's the eggheads vs. the jocks.
About the military service thing: I don't know what the hell happened
with John Kerry in Vietnam. I certainly don't take the word of these
Swift Boat Veterans For "Truth" guys, that Kerry got his awards for
nothing. If you've seen them interviewed on TV, you can see that
these guys are obviously seething with rage about something, and rage
can distort judgment, honesty, integrity, and memory. As they used to
say on The X-Files, the truth is out there -- somewhere -- but I
certainly don't grant ownership to these swift boat agitators.
On the other hand, it *could* be true that Kerry exaggerated his
wounds and his valor in order to get out of Viet Nam. What I think
about it is this. A young man agrees to serve his country, goes to
war, and finds he is in deep ***** -- a war where even our supposed
allies have little real stake in winning, and where there is
significant corruption around him. So he chickens out, and does
whatever he can to get his ***** out of there. It is certainly
possible, something I can imagine some young men doing under the
stress of war. Right now, in Iraq, we've seen some soldiers do things
that are dishonorable, because it's war -- it's chaos, they are tired
and dirty, scared and confused, and not always getting the best
leadership at multiple levels. If John Kerry did that -- "if", mind
you -- I'm not applauding it, I'm just acknowledging that young men
don't always hold up well under the stress of war.
Still -- and here is the part where I get puzzled -- at least John
Kerry went to war! At least he took the risk in the first place! How
it is that people can beat up on Kerry, for the possibility that
maybe, possibly, like some other young men, he may have covered his
***** once he got into real danger; when, on the other hand,
you-know-who never even went to serve in Viet Nam!?
To me, this just defies all sanity, that so many Americans cannot
distinguish who has shown greater valor. Or, as one pundit supposedly
put it, "Why is it that the American people can't distinguish between
the war hero and the former town drunk?" Who do you want sending your
kids off to war, the guy who at least served, and knows what it's
about to be under fire, or the guy who ducked out at home? So, my
point: American's who cannot understand the difference here between
the two candidates are showing themselves to be strangely dense and
obtuse.
A closely related issue: John Kerry comes under fire as a "traitor"
because he came home from Viet Nam and fiercely criticized the war
effort. In doing so, it is claimed, he undermined the war effort.
Let me say this: When the Viet Nam war was being fought, I was still
a kid; but even *I* knew as a pre-adolescent that the whole war was
somehow wrong and destructive to the American spirit, even if I didn't
fully comprehend the details. I'm a lot older now, and I do get the
details:
The claim is that the war was part of the battle against communism. I
am opposed to communism, and I believe in capitalism (though, I would
like to fine-tune America's version of capitalism, but that's material
for another essay). The question then becomes, what is really wrong
with communism? Is it the economic system per se? Well, the economic
system stinks, we all know that, but that's not the real problem. The
real problem, the thing that makes communism terrible and evil, is
that it is inextricably linked with fascism -- dictatorship.
So, how did our national leaders of that era confront this terrible
political and moral menace? They instituted a draft -- or maybe it
was already in place, left over from Korea -- but however you cut it,
they used young citizens as slaves in the Army. In other words, to
confront communism, they embraced the most barbaric aspect of
communism, which is to force citizens to work for their state against
their will. (And to work in the most dangerous profession known to
man, at that.)
So, our dismally failed, hypocritical leadership of the Viet Nam era
killed 50,000 young Americans, and maimed and injured Heaven only
knows how many more. People of the time rightly stood up in
opposition, although many of them hopelessly confused and garbled the
issue by themselves embracing communism. (The fact is, during the
entire era of the late sixties and early seventies, the entire
American psyche was hopelessly screwed and confused.)
Still, one thing ought to be overwhelmingly clear: If anyone,
anywhere, had a special entitlement to speak out in opposition to the
war in Viet Nam, it was precisely those who did not evade service, and
who faced gunfire in Viet Nam. You can agree or disagree with John
Kerry's stand, and you can even believe that he wasn't as brave in
combat as he claims to be; but it is impossible to deny the reverence
for life, liberty, and the welfare of fellow citizens (and soldiers)
inherent in his famous question: "How can you ask a soldier to be the
last person to die for a mistake"?
I can imagine many possible objections here. Some would say that, as
long as the soldiers are, in fact, at war, it's terrible to not
support them or, worse yet, to condemn them as so many did during the
Viet Nam war. I completely agree; it was profoundly unfair that the
American soldiers in Viet Nam received so much hostility from their
peers back home. That hostility should have been directed exclusively
to our political leaders, not to the hapless kids fighting the war.
My point -- and I think John Kerry's point as well -- is that if it's
important to care about the lives of the soldiers by supporting their
efforts in a war, isn't it even better to care about their lives by
asking if the war is justified in the first place? If not, let's
bring them home, and keep them alive!
And here, I find myself again comparing Kerry and Bush supporters. My
sense is that for Bush supporters, war is kind of like sports. In
theory, it's about protecting ourselves against terrorist threats;
but in reality, at a fundamental emotional and cultural level, being
warriors is viewed as "good," and having a warrior culture is good,
and so being at war really is good, because it lets us prove how tough
we are, and how tough our soldiers are. War is good the same way
football is good, because it proves we are real men. (Ever notice how
much our politicians like to invoke the "war" theme: the war on
drugs, the war on poverty, ad nauseum? How about instead of making
war on everything, we figure out how to actually solve the problems at
hand?)
If I seem to be ridiculing a kind of macho ignorance, it's because I
am. I confess I'm a geek intellectual weenie, and not into sports.
But I do respect the skill and talent, and the plain hard work, that
goes into athletics. I also respect that while I'm not a big sports
fan myself, lots of people take immense pleasure from rooting and
roaring for their favorite sports team, and I think that is fine.
What I don't get is that a great many Americans can't seem to
recognize the difference between a football game, where serious
injuries are extremely rare, and a war, where fatalities are a daily
event. The bottom line for John Kerry, and for many other patriotic
Americans, is that even the most noble, morally justified wars-the
American Revolution and World War II top the list-are to be approached
with ambivalence at best.
I watch the T.V. show "The West Wing" sometimes, and while much of the
politics is way, way too liberal for my taste -- remember, I really
*did* vote for George Bush in 2000 -- there was a line from one
episode that is very compelling. It was a General, speaking out in
opposition to the World Court (another issue where I strongly agree
with George Bush, and disagree with John Kerry). The General was
making the point that almost anyone could wind up being put on trial
in the World Court; and in that context he says: "All wars are
crimes."
I get that. So does John Kerry. So do many other Americans. But
other Americans do not. For them, to say, "All wars are crimes" is
the same as saying, "All soldiers are criminals" -- and of course that
would be a condemnation of all our young men and women in uniform.
But I don't mean that, and I don't think that, and I'm virtually
positive that John Kerry does not think that either. On the other
hand, I do believe that deep down, what George Bush thinks is
something like, "All soldiers are football players, and football is
cool, so let's kick some *****." Or, in GWB's own immortal words:
"Bring it on!"
If saying that "All wars are crimes" still doesn't sit right, think of
it this way: All wars, justified or not, are tragedies. John Kerry's
fence-sitting on whether or not -- if he had been President these past
four years -- we'd actually even *be* in Iraq, is partly a reflection
of that sensibility. Kerry truly supports the soldiers, but mourns
that we are at war at all. Of course, George Bush claims that such a
stance undermines the morale of the soldiers. I suspect George Bush
sincerely regrets the deaths of soldiers, but fundamentally regards
war as a shining opportunity for heroism. That is, other people's
heroism, in whose reflected glory George Bush likes to sun himself.
So it's football, and tanning, and also a Holy Mission, all rolled
into one. One awesome, righteous party, Dude.
It's actually a little bizarre, when you think about it. Most of us
also admire police officers for the risks they take in the line of
duty. Yet, I don't think most people would actively hope and wish
that cops should get shot at and face danger every day. To the
contrary, we'd probably hope that they enjoy a quiet day on the job as
often as possible. If we don't want our police officers getting shot
up, why are we so eager to see our soldiers in the line of fire?
The bottom line here, the true dividing issue, is whether or not it is
patriotic to question America's role in a war. In my view, as in John
Kerry's, it can be one of the very greatest, most fundamental acts of
patriotism to question our choice to go to war, and we can do that --
and often, we should do that -- without in any way expressing
disrespect for the American's who choose soldiering as a career. In
fact, we show deep concern for them, by saying that we don't want to
risk their lives unless it is absolutely essential; and then we
relentlessly examine, and re-examine, whether in fact a particular war
is essential, even while -- *especially* while -- the war itself is in
progress.
And yet, it seems clear, based on the 50/50 split we see right now,
that a good part of the American electorate views it as treason to
question our role in a war. To my mind, what I see, once again, are
that segment of football fans who don't know where football ends and
real life -- and real death -- begins. People who think of war as a
football game would be incensed over anyone who challenges the war,
just as they are incensed over anyone who doesn't favor their favorite
team.
On the other side of the issue are those people who understand that
war kills good people -- in short, that even noble deaths are still
bad deaths -- and so recognize that every war needs to be put under
the harshest moral and practical scrutiny. So, as I say, this
upcoming election seems to me to be very much a referendum on the
American people, and how they think. Or if they think.
Which, indeed, brings us to theology, which for the better citizens
among us co-exists with and is informed by reflection; but which for
others serves as a convenient substitute for reason, judgment, and
common sense. First of all, I'm sure there are some Americans, the
more extreme, dogmatic fundamentalists, who welcome the chaos in Iraq
as a prelude to the ultimate Armageddon, which presages the Second
Coming of The Lord Jesus Christ. I can only observe, in quiet awe and
wonder, how it somehow eludes all these Holy Rollers that, if we in
fact ever have Armageddon, it will be thermonuclear Armageddon; and
as a consequence there will not be enough dust of the Earth left to
even *constitute* a second Jesus, let alone to give Him ground on
which to minister or preach.
The more grave, pervasive issue, however, is the extent to which these
people want to introduce religion into the general culture of American
political life. I heard recently, on one of the many conservative
radio talk shows, a commentator who said that, "Separation of Church
and State is NOT the same as separation of Religion and Government."
Non sequiturs like that can make me unintentionally swerve into
oncoming traffic -- I think I reflexively try to dodge the glare of
oncoming dogmatisms -- so I changed the station, and did not hear the
rest of the argument.
But, it's clear that some Americans have very, very little grasp of
the lessons of European history, including the fact that Europeans
slaughtered each other in large numbers for generations over conflicts
that were equal parts territorial, familial, and, last-but-not-least,
theological. It's precisely for that reason that the Founding Fathers
embraced the separation of Church and State -- which, for the benefit
of any conservative radio talk show hosts and any *other* really,
really stupid people who have still kept reading this far, is
*exactly* the same thing is separation of Religion and Government.
I can understand why people are upset about abortion. If I really
thought that abortions during the first trimester were murder, I would
be upset about them too. And I accept that other people, in their
faith, believe a soul attaches to a fetus at conception, so killing
the fetus is murder. The good news is, those people who believe this
don't have to get abortions.
But I, and many other Americans, don't believe that a fetus in those
first three months is a person at all. I don't care to delve here
into my own faith (or even if I have one), except to say that I don't
accept on anyone's authority a particular time-stamp as to when a soul
attaches to a biological entity. What I believe is that while an
embryo at two or three months is on a journey to becoming a person, it
has a long way to go -- if not a full six months, then at least a few
months. Certainly, in the very beginning -- the first month or two --
it's a clump of cells, and how much reverence to show for that clump
of cells is for a mother to decide, and not for the state to impose.
Now I accept that other people have profoundly, passionately different
views, which gives them the right to make a choice regarding their own
pregnancies. It also gives them the right to attempt to educate
others, both by trying to proselytize their faith (annoying as I find
that to be), and by offering other options, such as adoption, or
abstinence, or whatever else they want to peacefully advocate. But
what I'd really like to hear, just for once, is just one of these
so-called "Pro-Life" advocates come out and say what they really think
about women dying from back-alley abortions.
At my most cynical, I suspect at least some of them are thinking: "I
care deeply about unborn fetuses, which I am positive are people; but
I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that, if we finally make
abortion illegal again, a lot of women are going to drop dead along
with their babies from back-alley abortions; and while I still mourn
for the innocent babies, the women are sinners and deserve their fate,
and I hope and believe they will go to hell."
The more optimistic part of me is reluctant to believe that many
Americans would actually feel that way. But what do they think, that
making abortion illegal will make it stop? (The same way that making
drugs illegal has brought drug usage and drug trafficking to a halt!?)
Maybe these are the same people who believe that if we only had prayer
in public schools, kids would stop being cruel to each other. The
reality is, prayer won't change adolescent behavior, and making
abortion illegal won't stop abortions. However, instituting either
policy will further divide Americans, and in the case of abortions
will only result in many more deaths -- the same fetuses will die,
plus many of the women who choose to abort them will die as well.
This position is "Pro Life"? I don't see it.
(Regarding prayer in the schools, by the way, my position is that we
need more choice in schooling, so that parents can send their kids to
religious schools if they want to, using vouchers if they choose. I
still think prayer in school is ultimately silly -- truly, anyone who
thinks prayer will prevent bullying, or will increase kid's attention
to their studies, or improve their grades, must have complete amnesia
about their own adolescence -- but if parents want their kids to pray
in private schools, that is their choice. More on that whole subject
a bit further down....)
So, once again, this election is truly a referendum on the American
people. It's about whether politics, in the minds of most Americans,
is simply football, or is instead about serious issues and complex
choices; and it's also about whether Americans can grasp that, no
matter how strong their personal faith may be, the best protection for
*all* faiths is separation of Church and state.
As I said at the outset, I don't vote based on any one issue, though
there are so many of interest, and it's so tempting to address a few
more. For example, George Bush has made clear he doesn't give a damn
about the medical welfare of citizens -- he's clearly protecting the
interests of drug companies by preventing drug imports from Canada,
and he hasn't done a thing to address health care costs.
It's not that I'm terribly impressed with John Kerry's promises in
this regard; the truth is, I think the factors behind health care
costs are largely outside the control of Presidents, and I certainly
am wary of a tax-and-spend Kerry Presidency. But Kerry cares, and
George Bush clearly, overtly, transparently does not; and still, so
many Americans are drawn to him because he acts like a halfway decent
high school football coach.
(Brief aside: It's really striking how some American Presidents have
been so clearly suited for other lines of work. "It's hard work",
George Bush kept saying during the debates, after he had run out of
rehearsed lines to say. I can just hear him in the locker room of a
high school football team, telling the boys, "It's hard work. But you
keep at it, boys...." Jimmy Carter should have been a Protestant
Minister. Bill Clinton -- hmm, talk show host, college professor,
publisher of soft-core porn -- the possibilities are endless. And
somehow I see Ronald Reagan as maybe being an actor....)
I voted for George Bush because I really thought he would bring common
sense to bear on the Oval Office, and because I thought he would not
introduce sexual sleaze and personal lies the way Bill Clinton did, to
my total disgust. George Bush has, apparently, held up well on the
family and sex side -- there is no evidence or reports of the sexual
depravity that Clinton dragged into the Oval Office. But instead of
lying about personal issues, George Bush has lied about everything
else, including our reasons for going to war.
Some people would say that John Kerry is a liar, and if not a liar, a
flip-flopper. My perception of Kerry is that -- like Al Gore -- he is
basically honest, but really does see every issue from multiple sides.
Every new piece of evidence is a new nuance to be considered, and for
a leader who constantly weighs these nuances, that can certainly
introduce the appearance of inconsistency, and can lead to paralysis.
These are real risks of voting John Kerry into office. On the other
hand, George Bush's position and policy on almost everything basically
boils down to one of two stances: Ignore it or kill it.
(I am reminded of a famous line from Machiavelli's "The Prince" where
the author, speaking to Princes of how to rule men, advises, in
essence, "Caress them or kill them." [The actual quote is, "men
should either be caressed or eliminated", but I've put it in shorter
form for the benefit of those people who can only handle shorter
phrases -- such as George W. Bush....] Since Bush lacks the finesse
to caress, it's mostly just been kill kill kill kill kill kill.
President Bush's lack of finesse is also why we have essentially just
one significant ally in Iraq, and *also* why we have legislative
gridlock in Congress.)
While I think some Americans are strongly behind George Bush or John
Kerry, I suspect that many Americans -- even those who are no longer
undecided, and have chosen whom to vote for -- are not entirely happy
with their choice. Certainly, I have many areas where I strongly
disagree with John Kerry. Although he promises to never give any
nation a veto over our safety -- and although I agree with him that we
do need stronger alliances -- I really do suspect he will suck up to
the French and Germans, who may sometimes be nice as individual
people, but who are soggy, petulant allies, and crappy philosophers to
boot. John Kerry may very well tax and spend. John Kerry supports
public education, which is in fact a failed, spiritually exhausted
catastrophe.
Now, on the other hand, George Bush promised us educational choice, in
the form of vouchers, and this was one of his stands that actually
made me enthusiastic for him in 2000. Vouchers should be regarded as
a special kind of money, which belongs to the parents, not the state,
but can only be spent on education. In this way, we resolve the issue
of spending "public money" on religion; it's not public money, it's
private money, but by law it's private money to be spent exclusively
on education. We do the same thing with medical savings accounts and
IRAs (it's your money, but only for health or retirement), why not do
it for education?
There are a host of reasons why choice in education would benefit our
kids, and resolving the battle over school prayer is the least of
them. Choice compels schools to be adaptive both to the needs of
individual students, and the desires of the parents for their
children's own education. In fact, the working class and blue collar
supporters of the Bush administration-or, at least, their children-are
precisely the ones who would benefit the most from choice and
vouchers.
But then George Bush bailed out on vouchers, under pressure from the
Democrats -- leaving us with an educational policy that borders on
sadistic in its determination to use relentless testing as a means to
squeeze every last iota of joy and spontaneity out of learning.
Indeed, even if vouchers are finally put into operation at some point,
the merciless test regimen of "No Child Left Behind" will cripple the
efficacy of the voucher program. The whole point of vouchers is to
motivate schools to adapt to the needs-the interests, the learning
style, the learning pace-of individual students. It's hard to do that
when every student is supposed to deliver the same answers to
standardized tests.
It's not that I expect Democrats to be helpful, since they are
hopelessly addicted to the current educational system; but George
Bush failed to implement anything better. In fact, he made it worse,
because the drive for testing shackles our schools with uniformity --
uniformity in content, structure, and method -- when diversity of
approach is precisely what is needed.
Oh, and George Bush claims to speak for American values, but his
Justice Department likes to go stomp stomp stomp all over the American
Constitution and civil liberties. The Patriot Act reeks of creeping
police state policies. And why do George Bush supporters ignore the
fact that Bush's critics are physically sequestered from, or hustled
away from, Bush's public rallies? Oh, yes, once again, I forget:
It's not about the U.S. Constitution, and the freedom to peaceably
assemble and petition our leaders, it's really all just a football
game. Boo on those Bush critics, boo boo boo boo, get them away from
our favorite Coach! Boooo on Bush critics!
So, that's fine, be football fans as well as Bush supporters; but
don't simultaneously wrap yourselves in the American flag and
patriotism. American patriots who fully comprehend what makes our
country glorious and unique in the history of mankind support the
right to dissent and the right to protest, and especially the right to
confront our leaders with criticism.
In fact, its those very freedoms for which American soldiers have
given their lives. Bush spits on the honor of American fighting men
and women with his casual contempt for dissent and protest, and yet he
still has the gall to prattle about the importance of bringing
democracy to the world. I don't think he's a deliberate hypocrite,
though; I think he's just too simple-minded to realize that his
conduct (or the conduct of his handlers) contradicts his rhetoric.
So, I'm switching my vote. Fundamentally -- and I just didn't see
this in 2000 -- George Bush is just too dumb for the job. Ronald
Reagan was no genius, but he had a gut level common sense, and I don't
see it in George Bush. I look in his eyes, and I see the eyes of a
deer caught in the headlights.
There's one other place I see that same look, and it's a really odd
place: talk radio. Because, on talk radio, I can't see the people
calling in, and yet still I can see their eyes. I listen to the
commentators -- Rush, and G. Gordon Liddy, and Michael Savage -- and
these guys are ferocious, complete demagogues, appealing to the most
primitive emotions of fear and anger.
Especially Michael Savage, who is one of the harshest voices on the
conservative talk-radio scene. He reminds me of a gifted child gone
bad -- very bad -- a kind of real-life Lex Luthor, only instead of
hating Superman for making him go bald, I can't figure out what it is
that this guy really hates so much. I will say that he is a very
powerful speaker. If he would put his power of oratory to good use,
imbuing it with kindness, he could be a second Martin Luther King, Jr.
Instead, his biting, hateful diatribes bring to mind echoes of another
famous speaker whose name I am reluctant to even mention, so
profoundly insulting would be the comparison.
Yet, I'm showing here a restraint and a generosity that Michael Savage
himself does not display; the man is not even remotely shy about
comparing people or institutions to the Nazis or the Gestapo. It's
paradoxical, because in spite of Savage's explicit support for Israel,
I hear in the strident cadences of his voice the kind of resolute,
blind, seething intolerance that I associate with the old news footage
of... that extremely evil guy from Germany. Again, maybe I'm a wimp,
but I just don't want to even name it.
One wonders what it says about George Bush that these talk-show hosts
support the President with such unbridled enthusiasm. But, even more,
what does it tell us about Bush voters that these ultra-right wing
media firebrands have such an enthusiastic following?
I listen to the people who call in to the radio talk shows, and I hear
the resonant anger and violence in their voices, like fans at a
football game roaring for their team, without thought, without
reflection -- but what I see is not the exuberant joy of spectators
cheering on athletic heroes at a ball game. What I see are people who
are afraid, and don't know where to channel their fear, and don't know
how to understand their fear, and who are desperate for anything to
distract themselves from their fear. Give me a target for my fear,
they seem to be saying, any target at all. I see this kind of
paradoxical image: Deer, paralyzed by headlights, yet roaring like
lions, as if they could chase away their own terror.
Many of these Bush supporters remind me, of all things, of Marion
Barry's supporters in the District of Columbia. Barry won election
after election precisely because he knew how to channel the anger of a
large segment of the DC black community that felt cheated (by the
system, or the white man, or something). Marion Barry was all about
the "in your face" attitude thing.
George Bush channels that same energy, though of course with a more
WASP-ish overlay -- courteous yet subtly vulgar, carefully straddling
a vocabulary that can be recognized and embraced by both his
working-class blue-collar audiences and his middle-of-the-road
white-collar audiences alike. (Well, sort of carefully; Bush
struggles to frame even simple sentences, yet somehow his hesitant,
fumbling phrases manage to strike the right chord for his intended
audiences. His political speech is an extraordinary, mesmerizing
fusion of ideological ballet and cognitive demolition derby.)
But enough about Bush's fractured syntax, and back to the people who
really matter: Like Marion Barry's supporters, Bush's supporters feel
cheated, too, without realizing that in many respects -- for example,
economically -- they are being cheated by an elite, largely
Republican, screw-the-worker executive class.
I believe in business, but it's not exactly a news flash that many of
our executives are happy to take home fabulously large salaries while
shipping small jobs to India or Thailand or Ethiopia, basically
wherever people are very, very hungry and will work very, very cheap.
The executives at some big companies are equally happy to take your
money for insurance or other services, and then hire an army of
attorneys as part of a dodge to not deliver the service.
That executive class is personified by George Bush and ***** Cheney.
(My God, I haven't even touched on ***** Cheney, the Darth Vader of
modern politics. In preference to him, I'll take Howdy Doody --
excuse me, I mean, Opey -- sorry, what I meant to say was, John
Edwards -- anytime. Though he sure looks like Howdy Doody to me.
Actually, Edwards *also* looks a bit like the donkey from "Shrek" -- I
think it's the teeth -- and he sure talks just as
enthusiastically....)
In any event, a lot of blue collar types are afraid, along with more
than a few middle-income white collar professionals. They are afraid
of being without work, and without health care. I think that at least
some of them are afraid of living lives without a clear meaning or
larger purpose (a void which Bush is eager to fill by making them stay
in the Armed Forces beyond their legal term of enlistment). They are
afraid of seeing their kids grow up stuck in the same grind in which
they are stuck.
The radio talk show hosts play on that, of course. Above, I suggested
that the conservative talk show commentators are stupid, and in one
sense most of them are: In the sense that they, like their following,
don't have a clue about the damage their values do to the American
Constitution and civil liberties. I mean, these guys beat up all the
time on the American Civil Liberties Union. Now, the ACLU has taken
some stands that I don't share -- I believe they support affirmative
action policies and laws, for instance -- but thank God we have a
dedicated team of attorneys whose basic mission is to help safeguard
the Bill of Rights. (Another one of those vital things that American
solders have died to preserve and protect.)
But, getting back to the talk show hosts -- in another sense, all
these guys, Liddy and Rush and Savage and the others, are smart as
hell: They know how to play their listeners, and they are playing
them for chumps.
Most of the people who are calling in to these shows are clearly
working class, and it is their own brothers and sisters who are most
likely to be in the military, and most likely to get chewed up by
Bush's evangelically-motivated, hopelessly misled, fatally
under-equipped, wildly over-committed, idiotically mis-targeted war
machine. (We STILL don't have Osama bin Laden, and there WERE NO
weapons of mass destruction. George Bush has not kept his eye on the
ball.) Liddy and Rush and Savage are encouraging their listeners to
have their own families and friends sent to the slaughter, and urging
them to feel heroic about it -- which might be morally justified if
the 9/11 terrorists had some connection to Iraq, which by all reports
they did not.
The measure of the how demagogic these conservative talk show hosts
are is the fact that, if you listen to them for half-an-hour, you will
hear nothing but a relentless stream of praise for George Bush, and
not one word in favor of John Kerry. In fact, they bash Kerry without
mercy. Who do they really think they are kidding (besides their core
audience, that is)? Even for Bush fans, any fair appraisal will
recognize errors in judgment and flaws in leadership. And likewise,
even Kerry critics must realize that a fair case can be made for many
of Kerry's arguments, and his leadership.
*This* essay -- the one you are reading right now -- at least aspires
to examine both perspectives, as should any fair assessment of both
the issues and the men involved in the 2004 election. But the
conservative talk show hosts are not trying to promote thought, they
are only trying to pump adrenaline. I think that, as loud as they
speak, they silently mock their listeners.
So, like I say, this election is really a referendum on the American
people: can they stop playing football just long enough to vote
sensibly? I'll be interested to see who wins. And I think that, to
the extent we have any collective responsibility, we will deserve
whatever we get.
That is, assuming one party or the other doesn't simply cheat, and
steal the votes they need to win. I have to say, in the 2000
election, I'm not sure what really happened in the Florida voting, but
I supported the Supreme Court decision -- not because "my candidate"
(choke) won the election as a result, but because I genuinely believed
(and still believe) the Supreme Court ruling was consistent with the
law. But I do think it's possible that Republican operatives tried to
keep eligible voters from coming to the polls in the first place, and
I would not put it past them to do that again. I wonder how many of
Bush's supporters would never cheat in a football game -- that would
be dishonorable -- but wouldn't mind in the slightest if Bush and his
team used chicanery to steal the vote.
There is an old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.
With all the people who are foolish enough to still applaud Bush after
four years of inept, ignorant, incompetent leadership, the times are a
little too interesting for my taste. I hope people will do the wise
thing this time, and give someone else a chance.
Kerry is smart, and genuinely dedicated to making things better. That
doesn't mean his policies will be correct, it means that -- unlike
Bush, who has proven himself to be basically a lackey and a front for
the most corrupt side of big business, radical fundamentalist
religion, and assault gun manufacturers -- Kerry is his own man, and
at least has good intentions. Plus, John Kerry can actually complete
a full, grammatically correct sentence, almost always in less than one
minute, and without spraining his tongue. Or his eyebrows.
My one real criticism of Kerry, besides the fact that his is too
liberal for my taste, is that he should have hit Bush much harder
during the debates. He should have said, "Mr. President, you've
casually sent young men and women off to war, you've taunted and
provoked the enemy by saying 'Bring it on,' and yet you have no idea
what it's like to really be under fire. The difference between you
and me, Mr. President, is that if I have to send young men and women
into battle, I will understand the implications of my actions. I can
stand in the shoes of soldiers because I have been there while you,
Sir, in the plainest English I can summon, chickened out before you
even got there."
Well, John Kerry is probably a little too liberal for many people,
including me, and maybe a bit too nice even for my taste. And I think
it should be clear that, in terms of specific values, there are any
number of issues where I lean more towards the Republican position
than the Democratic position. But to put in the final word on this:
As the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush has
been a phenomenal screw-up.
To name just one small example: In the year or so since President
Bush made that beautiful ten point landing on the deck of an aircraft
carrier -- oh, wait, excuse me, that was the jet's *pilot*, maybe we
should nominate *him* for President (though I thought the actual
President looked real GQ in that flight suit) -- but ever since
President George Bush made the carrier landing, and cockily announced
that hostilities in Iraq are over... the hostilities in Iraq have not
been over. In fact, when the President made his speech, things were
really just starting to heat up. They've gotten hotter ever since.
The President made the decision to get us into this mess, and I can
personally argue both sides of whether or not that was the right
choice. But now that we are in, the President was supposed to foster
peace, not chaos. He might have started with firing Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld after the humanitarian, moral, military, legal,
spiritual, political, diplomatic, and public relations catastrophe of
Abu Ghraib. Some of our youngest soldiers are going to prison for Abu
Ghraib, even though the stage for events at the prison was set by
people much, much higher in the food chain. Our soldiers-our
neighbors-are getting blown up daily, along with the Iraqis whose
hearts and souls we are trying to win. Yet Donald Rumsfeld is still
in office. President Bush should not be.
You may like George Bush better than John Kerry. I admit that I think
Kerry is an okay guy. Still, I'd also admit that I like my auto
mechanic better than I like John Kerry (my mechanic is a really cool
guy), but that doesn't make my auto mechanic the better candidate for
President. Do you feel safe with George Bush in office? I don't,
because while some people are concerned that Kerry might go too easy
on terrorists -- a concern I frankly don't share -- I see George Bush
as provoking them even further.
Do you feel safer on the streets with George Bush in office? I don't,
now that George Bush has allowed assault rifles to run lose again. Do
you see the economy thriving? It's limping, at best. Do you feel the
U.S.A. is on financially secure ground, with a budget deficit the size
of Neptune? Are your civil liberties secure? Not with John Ashcroft
as Attorney General. Does the guy at the helm even understand what's
going on? George Bush's fumbling answers in the debates suggest
otherwise. Is he really running things, or is he being run by those
around him? (Hint: "B")
It's really time for a change, and Kerry is a plausible candidate.
Will he be a good President? Not clear. But it should be clear that
George Bush has shown himself not up to the task, and he's trying to
cling to office by playing to the side of Americas that likes to root
for football teams, rather than the side of Americans that can discern
and respect a genuinely capable manager and leader.
George Bush *believes*, while John Kerry *evaluates*. George Bush
believes, and believes passionately, and that feels good, it gives
people an anchor. John Kerry evaluates, and that feels tedious and
troubling and uncertain. But George Bush clings fiercely to belief,
without understanding or reflection or insight, and in spite of his
best intentions that makes him dangerous and irresponsible. Kerry has
judgment, and is our better chance for good leadership for the next
four years. And if he can't cut it -- well, there's another election
in 2008.
So, American people: Who are you, and how smart are you? And, can
the worst, most fanatical, most demagogic parts of the Republican
party, in concert with a bunch of pit-bull radio talk show hosts, keep
playing you for chumps? They got me, once, in 2000, but they won't
trick me again. How about you? Guess we'll find out on November 2nd.
.
|
