This morning, I'm somewhere south of angry
Nov. 3rd, 2004 01:23 pmETA: Because this really isn't an us v. them post, and it is not intended to suggest that people who voted differently from me do not have moral values. I know they do, and that they follow them accordingly, and often, they aren't that different than my own, varying in direction and degree in ways I respect if not agree with. Only that the smug announcement of Bush winning because of the category "moral values" makes me angry, makes me defensive.
I'm not cutting this. I don't call anyone names. I wish I could give this a soundtrack though. You know it'd be Bob, and probably, it'd be Masters of War. It's a dammed good pissy song.
It is disheartening to wake up to see change rejected by the majority of voters. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I think the majority bought the spin, bought what they knew as opposed to what they feared. Fear's always going to be stronger, and the arguements about sustaining a leader, a united front, well, they make a weird amount of sense, even though all I can see is the glitter and the spin. That, this morning, is not my problem. This is:
I listen to the radio, hear the propoganda "moral values" spouted, with a sort of sickly sweet pride, and it makes me ill.
My moral values? They involve tolerance, acceptance, social responsability for each other, marrying who you love, fucking who you want, being responsible for your own body, supporting national health care, education, taxation because yes, taxation is a moral value and I support it dammit!, and an end to a misguided and costly war.
Am I bitter that my candidate lost? Yes. Do I know Republicans, Independents, and possibly a few Democrats who voted for him? Yes to that as well. I understand the conviction that drove the vote. I think.
I understand, and respect for the most part, the conservative values. And while I may not agree with them, I'm old enough to not denigrate them. Scott Simon talked to two women bowling in Wisconsin who'd been friends for years, who cancelled out each others votes, and who'd stayed friends because of love and respect. It can be done, and I hope that we continue to work towards that point.
But moral values? All of you out there sporting the blanket statement of "Moral Values" as your reason for voting this man into office for a second term, you can bite my shiny metal ass.
What, exactly, is immoral, amoral about John Kerry? Or Democrats in general?
I think we misjudged things on a frightening scale, and I agree with
sabine101 that in many ways, the loss of Tom Daschle is more crucial than the election of the Man Who Would Be King (sorry, the snottiness will stop now). I believe that Congress must be balanced to be effective, and the legislation passed there is the legislation that effects all of us. This is the place where we all - conservative or liberal - must focus our efforts on making sure our representative make good, representative decisions!
I'm disappointed in the states that banned gay marriage and civil unions. I'm gloriously pleased with Illinois, and I want to stick my tongue out at Mel Gibson and say nyah nyah because Stem Cell research will be pursued in California, and it makes me love my home of fruits and nuts, and shake my head at The Terminator, who says it Caleeeforneea. Snort.
But, dude, record turnouts and I'm proud of that, even if their voices didn't swing my way because people involved will hopefully lead to people informed, people caring about the things beyond their fear and their front porches.
And the Democrats? I'll only say it once. Liberal is not a dirty word!! It's something to fight for and be proud of and if you don't figure that out soon, you're going to alienate your supporters. Education is not something to hide, intellect is not something to play down, and taxation - god, save me - taxation is not the root of all evil, so get your frelling acts together and make a stand!!
Oh, and
rubberneck, I'm writing you porn from the Ghost Story. I need a little exorcism, dammit.
I'm not cutting this. I don't call anyone names. I wish I could give this a soundtrack though. You know it'd be Bob, and probably, it'd be Masters of War. It's a dammed good pissy song.
It is disheartening to wake up to see change rejected by the majority of voters. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I think the majority bought the spin, bought what they knew as opposed to what they feared. Fear's always going to be stronger, and the arguements about sustaining a leader, a united front, well, they make a weird amount of sense, even though all I can see is the glitter and the spin. That, this morning, is not my problem. This is:
I listen to the radio, hear the propoganda "moral values" spouted, with a sort of sickly sweet pride, and it makes me ill.
My moral values? They involve tolerance, acceptance, social responsability for each other, marrying who you love, fucking who you want, being responsible for your own body, supporting national health care, education, taxation because yes, taxation is a moral value and I support it dammit!, and an end to a misguided and costly war.
Am I bitter that my candidate lost? Yes. Do I know Republicans, Independents, and possibly a few Democrats who voted for him? Yes to that as well. I understand the conviction that drove the vote. I think.
I understand, and respect for the most part, the conservative values. And while I may not agree with them, I'm old enough to not denigrate them. Scott Simon talked to two women bowling in Wisconsin who'd been friends for years, who cancelled out each others votes, and who'd stayed friends because of love and respect. It can be done, and I hope that we continue to work towards that point.
But moral values? All of you out there sporting the blanket statement of "Moral Values" as your reason for voting this man into office for a second term, you can bite my shiny metal ass.
What, exactly, is immoral, amoral about John Kerry? Or Democrats in general?
I think we misjudged things on a frightening scale, and I agree with
I'm disappointed in the states that banned gay marriage and civil unions. I'm gloriously pleased with Illinois, and I want to stick my tongue out at Mel Gibson and say nyah nyah because Stem Cell research will be pursued in California, and it makes me love my home of fruits and nuts, and shake my head at The Terminator, who says it Caleeeforneea. Snort.
But, dude, record turnouts and I'm proud of that, even if their voices didn't swing my way because people involved will hopefully lead to people informed, people caring about the things beyond their fear and their front porches.
And the Democrats? I'll only say it once. Liberal is not a dirty word!! It's something to fight for and be proud of and if you don't figure that out soon, you're going to alienate your supporters. Education is not something to hide, intellect is not something to play down, and taxation - god, save me - taxation is not the root of all evil, so get your frelling acts together and make a stand!!
Oh, and
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 09:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 09:45 pm (UTC){{hugs}}
Date: 2004-11-03 10:02 pm (UTC)There's already been a bit of Dem vs. Rep dissent in my journal this morning, and while my feelings tend to fall into the Dem camp, I also appreciate seeing balanced kind representations of this side, as opposed to simple recriminations and "are people stupid?" type comments. This was a complicated campaign, and I really feel for your country as you try to sort things out -- a sentiment I would have felt no matter who was elected.
Another staunchly democratic friend (a lawyer, who used to work with folks in the Indiana legislature) posted a set of inspirational quotes to help her get through the day. I thought you might be interested, too.
Also, I was pointed to an interesting article: on why Kerry lost, and Bush won
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 10:17 pm (UTC)My moral values? They involve tolerance, acceptance, social responsability for each other, marrying who you love, fucking who you want, being responsible for your own body, supporting national health care, education, taxation because yes, taxation is a moral value and I support it dammit!, and an end to a misguided and costly war.
I just... I am just having this same semi-argument with my very conservative parents, and it's so infuriating--just because my morals don't correspond to yours doesn't mean I don't have them. Maybe this is an area in which a lot of "liberals" (and yeah, when the fuck did that become a dirty word? it means "generous"!) are at a disadvantage... a lot of us don't belong to organized religious groups, so it's easy to say that we're dangerous, godless heathens.
Actually, it seems to me that this is yet another terrifying by-product of Bush's continuous smearing of the line between church and state... the assumption that if you aren't religious, you aren't moral.
And this: Education is not something to hide, intellect is not something to play down, and taxation - god, save me - taxation is not the root of all evil. I was interspersing my election coverage monitoring last night with bits of the West Wing marathon on Bravo, and I just kept thinking, as I've been thinking this whole campaign... why should being educated and intelligent be a negative thing? (I don't know if you're a West Wing fan or not, but this very question came up as Bartlet was running for re-election.) This has been said a thousand times before, but I don't want my president to be just like me--I want him to be smarter, more experienced, more articulate, more thoughtful, more passionate, more reasoned. To me, Bush is the ultimate champion of mediocrity... I mean, the guy turned "French" into an insult, and people bought it. Here's a wealthy man from a wealthy family whose every move is dictated to ingratiate him with his wealthy friends, and somehow he's the man of the people? I just don't get it.
Anyway. I agree in that I can respect most conservative values. But to claim the moral high ground, and tell me that I'm immoral/amoral because I believe all of what you articulated so well above? No. Just, no.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 10:23 pm (UTC)I couldn't have said it better myself!
Re: {{hugs}}
Date: 2004-11-03 10:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 10:30 pm (UTC)Interestingly enough, I (and I'm Canadian, so an outsider in this) too was watching TWW last night. I ran across "A Proportional Response" on an old tape and was sucked in. What was compelling about the ep to me was how relevant it is today. Especially given that it was produced BEFORE 9/11 and the whole war on terror. The president's desire for a non-proportional response, for what amounts to revenge that would, in theory, protect American's everywhere, and the balancing influence of Fitzwallace's (*sob*) explanation as to why a proportional response works, well, it all said a lot to me.
In part, Bartlett's response in this ep helped me to understand Bush's actions. And his staffer's response reminded me how much it is a team that runs your country. And it also helped me to think about the ways that Kerry himself, for all that I think he was the better choice, might have been hamstrung by where the country is at, and most importantly, that there are no simple answers and that you can only do your best on any given day.
*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 10:36 pm (UTC)That's one of my favorite moments, when Bartlet defends his intellect and intelligence, when he refuses to downplay it. When the good old boy governor loses because HE"S JUST NOT AS SMART. Sorry, pushes a loooot of buttons.
But exactly, morality is about conviction, about kindness and tolerance, and I know many Republicans who inhabit those values, as well as many Democrats who could use a good lesson in what those things mean. It's the coopting of the idea and the term that offends me.
And yes, it does feel like a blurring of that church/state line, and that is also frustrating.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 10:38 pm (UTC)Yes, to all of this.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 10:54 pm (UTC)You are certainly right in that there aren't any easy answers, and I certainly wouldn't want the responsibility of being president and having so many lives in my hands, especially at a time like this. And you may be right that Kerry's hands would have been tied to an extent, and Iraq and the economy and healthcare are huge messes that anyone would have a tough time cleaning up... still, as strange as it sounds, what I found most appealing about Kerry was not what he would do, but what he wouldn't do. No constitutional amendments based on personal religious beliefs. No melding of church and state. No deals that benefit big business at the expense of the middle class. No ruining our credibility with the rest of the international community.
Most days, I don't think that Bush is a bad guy--I think he's doing what he thinks is right. I just think he's way, way too stupid and inarticulate to lead a choir, much less my country. On the other hand, you can't accuse Cheney of being stupid, which is good except he scares the holy hell out of me.
So you're right... it's not easy. And I think that the vast majority of people who turned out yesterday were truly voting their consciences, which is what's supposed to happen. I'm just having a lot of trouble understanding how people could think that Bush is the answer.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 11:03 pm (UTC)Actually, I've thought of TWW constantly during this whole process (up to and including the fact that it made me incredibly sad to watch Bartlet winning all these states that Kerry was losing). One of my few criticisms of Kerry was actually the Uncle Fluffy thing--I think he bought into the argument that being too smart is bad, and so in the debates he tried to dumb himself down a bit, and it just didn't work.
Also, I keep thinking about Ritchie and the 10-word answers, and how effective that sort of thing obviously was in this campaign. The Slate article someone linked to above actually made a lot of sense to me... and I agree that Edwards is good at that kind of thing, and I'm sorry that he ended up being the campaign's bulldog (largely in response to Cheney) rather than really getting to let his clarity and energy shine the way it could have. I actually wonder if the election would have gone differently had it been an Edwards/Kerry ticket, rather than the other way around.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 11:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 11:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 11:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 11:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 12:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 12:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 12:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 01:16 am (UTC)*weeps with joy* I've finished picking songs for the Haunted Detox Clinic mix, I only need to arrange them in the right order.
I took tomorrow off to help Mom spring Dad from the hospital, but it turns out he's already home (and feeling post-op sore but much, much better--yay! now pardon me while I throw up with relief). In other words, I'm going to spend tomorrow twitching and decompressing from various and sundry.
need a venue. you got lucky ;)
Date: 2004-11-04 06:46 am (UTC)And while I agree with her that the name calling and childish stomping that has gone on in some quarters is troubling, at best, I simply can't agree with her perspective. And sadly, because she has responded to the childishness in kind, I don't feel I can say this to her directly. But I want to say it, and so I will say it here. If she finds it, (unlikely) so be it.
Basically, this person voted for Bush because she agrees with him on a certain number of amorphous issues (I am honestly NOT sure precisely what they are, as she has not said). I totally agree that she has the right to vote for whomever she please. That is the wonder of democracy (and for some reason Churchill keeps whispering in my ear tonight). Personally, I find the war in Iraq somewhat troubling, and I question the choice to enter into this foray without UN sanction. I also find the ways that civil liberties have been curtailed under Bush problematic -- and this is an issue that DOES affect me, as a Canadian, should I ever choose to go to your country, or even just pass through it enroute to somewhere else. I also find Bush's fiscal policies somewhat contradictory.
However, all of that said, what troubles me most is that this friend said the following:
"there are definitely things that he supports that i don't. his views on abortion, gay marriage, etc for instance. however, i don't believe that he will be able to affect those things. he's not the be all end all to laws that are passed in this country. that is why we have congress. "
Because I think her view is naive at best. The gay marriage issue seems to, from what I understand, be dealt with at the state level, but the president's opinion on issues like this carries weight. As for abortion, well, I think that a number of women may be rudely awakened on that one.
In my own country, I have voted for fiscal conservatives in the past, and I MAY again in the future. But if so-called "fiscal responsibility" ever comes at the cost of my rights (which was a real concern in recent elections, and caused me to shift to the left in my voting; though education also played a role there), then it is simply not worth it to me.
My question for Americans, especially, but not exclusively, those who voted for Bush is the following: is it worthwhile to you to successfully (whatever that means) conclude the war on terror, to make the US "safe" again, at the cost of all you have held dear? Is supporting your right to worship in a Fundamentalist Christian Church worth curtailing someone else's right to worship in a Mosque? Or, for that matter, is it worth curtailing someone else's right to publicly state their atheism?
Ok, I have rambled on here, and possibly digressed. But I think what it all comes down to is that democrats fear that the simple, clear message Bush has used to get elected may hide an agenda that may be troubling to many of the very people who elected him. And this worries me. And it helps me to understand why otherwise apparently rational people have responded so vehemently today -- they share these fears. And if I was an American, my response may have been more vehement, too.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 11:22 am (UTC)*beats head against wall*
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 12:37 pm (UTC)You know, you hit the nail on the head with what you said. I cancel my hubby out every time I vote, yet we continually remind each other that underneath all the stupid bluster about "morals" we both want the same things--peace, health, education, and fairness and it is the tactics to get there that we disagree on.
My mother-in-law has been sending me "End of the World" emails from Emily's List. I can't hate people who voted Republican. They are welcome to their views as long as they don't get mean about the opposition (ala Rush Limbaugh's screeds).
I agree that I am really worried about the right-ward tilt of the Senate and House and what that means when those guys get frothy at the mouth. I remain a Liberal too. It is not a dirty word. Thanks for voicing this so eloquantly.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 05:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 05:58 pm (UTC)Yep, and this is something I understand, and respect. As well as the sentiment of respecting their opinions, if not agreeing until they get mean about the opposition.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 06:01 pm (UTC)Re: need a venue. you got lucky ;)
Date: 2004-11-04 06:09 pm (UTC)Sigh.
Re: need a venue. you got lucky ;)
Date: 2004-11-04 06:12 pm (UTC)and just for the record -- I am not a conservative, either :D.
And yes, eliminating taxes will work wonders, because all the countries in the world that have no taxes and are bigger than an island work so. well. *eyeroll*
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 06:15 pm (UTC)So glad your dad is home!!! Relax, unwind, drink beer and read porn and just sort of take it easy. Huge hugs for you honey pie, and check your inbox:)
Re: need a venue. you got lucky ;)
Date: 2004-11-04 08:53 pm (UTC)No harm to this person, and if I'm right in who I think she is I like her a great deal, but the President nominates Supreme Court judges and a Republican-dominated Congress is unlikely to block his choices. There may be up to three vacancies on the Supreme Court within Bush's next term. I hope from the bottom of my heart that I'm wrong, but I think abortion rights are gone.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 09:03 pm (UTC)Re: need a venue. you got lucky ;)
Date: 2004-11-04 09:08 pm (UTC)I'd very much like to say you're wrong, but it's such a possibility. So much at stake there with the supreme court, but I'm not completely sure that he could get a judge appointed that had a firm anti-abortion stance.
Re: need a venue. you got lucky ;)
Date: 2004-11-04 09:09 pm (UTC)I'd very much like to say you're wrong, but it's such a possibility. So much at stake there with the supreme court, but I'm not completely sure that he could get a judge appointed that had a firm anti-abortion stance.
Re: need a venue. you got lucky ;)
Date: 2004-11-04 09:27 pm (UTC)