queerbychoice (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
queerbychoice) wrote2004-11-03 03:45 am
queerbychoice) wrote2004-11-03 03:45 am
Reasons to Go on Living
It seems that ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
insipidity (and some of the rest of you too) needs some reasons to go on living listed right now, before the election is officially called either way. So, okay - here I come. Let us make an effort at counting our remaining advantages.
1. We may be stuck with a warmongering president, but at least he's a warmongering president who's intensely loathed by something close to 50% of the nation (I suppose not every person who voted for Kerry did it from intense loathing, but I think it's fair to say a substantial majority of the people voting for Kerry did). The fact that Bush got away with so much in the last four years has MUCH to do with how limply the Democrats fetched or rolled over and played dead in response to all his warmongering after 9/11. In a second term, it is very clear that the Democrats are going to be a hell of a lot angrier. (Unless, I suppose, Bush can manage to induce bin Laden to kill a bunch more people. That'd probably being Bush's best interest.) Although the Democrats do not have a majority in Congrees, there've been a significant few Republicans speaking out against Bush this past year and it's not at all inconceivable that enough Republicans in congress would vote against many of Bush's plans to make the Democrats' noncooperation a deciding factor.
Read this annoying LJ comment left for me byarctangent, a Republican for Kerry. "I'm voting for Kerry *because* it will sap the energy of the anti-war protest movement, and hopefully actually push more anti-war activists into the moderate camp. One of the reasons I don't like Bush is that Bush is *so* hardcore right-wing and *so* very very bad at courting his political opponents that he's energized the annoying far left a lot more than I or the DNC are comfortable with." If Bush wins, arctangent doesn't get what he wants.
2. Look, Iraq is a disaster and inevitably, that's just going to become clearer and clearer in the coming presidential term no matter who's president. If Kerry took over, Kerry would be blamed for the disastrousness and the Democrats would still have to choose Kerry as their candidate in 2008. They would lose. (Admittedly, the American population is awfully dense about noticing disastrousness in Iraq, but I think four years from now it's going to be even 25 times more glaringly obvious than it already is.) This way, in 2008, the Democrats can choose an actual antiwar candidate who people will really feel like voting for.
3. The U.S. government is hated all over the world. But how much more would the American population as a whole be hated by people whose friends and family members had been murdered by members of both major U.S. political parties? This way, it's still possible for people from other countries to live under the delusion that it's not the entire U.S. that wants to murder them, it's only a 51% majority of the U.S. If you were contemplating becoming a terrorist, the idea that 49% of the people you'd kill wouldn't actually be evil would be harder to rationalize as acceptable collateral damage than the 2% of third-party voters would have been.
4. There's a reason that conservative publications like American Conservative and The Economist endorsed John Kerry. The reason is that George W. Bush's total lack of any diplomatic sense has cost the American government its allies in other national governments, which seriously hampers the ability of the American empire to continue bullying any country it likes. Many people who stand to profit from American imperialism recognize that American imperialism would stand a better chance if it were led by someone like Kerry who doesn't alienate so many other nations' governments. (Most Bush voters are not CEOs or anyone else who stands to benefit from American imperialism, but rather rural Christian fundamentalists who do not care how many enemies Bush makes as long as he prays a lot and hates queers.) Personally, I don't want American imperialism to stand a better chance, and I hope you don't either.
5. There is a provision in the U.S. Constitution for impeaching a president. If anywhere close to 49% of the nation wrote letters to their congresspeople demanding that they impeach Bush, I think the Democrats would be in a position of having to actually try. Without control of congress, they're not likely to succeed, but they can still make Bush's life massively unpleasant. This is important. WRITE TO YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES TODAY ABOUT THIS. Better yet, write to them every single day nonstop for the next four years. Frankly, the Democrats should have been calling for Bush's impeachment all along, simultaneously with the election, and it would have improved the election if they had. Unfortunately, Al Gore is the only one who actually did. It makes me wish this hadn't been an election year at all, because if it hadn't have been, the rage against Bush might have manifested as a mass movement call for impeachment long before now.
6. Try for a moment to put aside any anger at Nader voters (one in ten registered Democrats voted for BUSH! those people made a MUCH bigger difference!) in order to read a compilation of survey responses from a survey that asked Nader voters in swing states to explain why they were planning to vote for Nader, and give yourself a chance to actually believe in their arguments. They're optimistic (in their own way) about a second Bush term, and if you can find any agreement with them, you might feel better yourself. For example:
My favorite excerpts:
insipidity (and some of the rest of you too) needs some reasons to go on living listed right now, before the election is officially called either way. So, okay - here I come. Let us make an effort at counting our remaining advantages.1. We may be stuck with a warmongering president, but at least he's a warmongering president who's intensely loathed by something close to 50% of the nation (I suppose not every person who voted for Kerry did it from intense loathing, but I think it's fair to say a substantial majority of the people voting for Kerry did). The fact that Bush got away with so much in the last four years has MUCH to do with how limply the Democrats fetched or rolled over and played dead in response to all his warmongering after 9/11. In a second term, it is very clear that the Democrats are going to be a hell of a lot angrier. (Unless, I suppose, Bush can manage to induce bin Laden to kill a bunch more people. That'd probably being Bush's best interest.) Although the Democrats do not have a majority in Congrees, there've been a significant few Republicans speaking out against Bush this past year and it's not at all inconceivable that enough Republicans in congress would vote against many of Bush's plans to make the Democrats' noncooperation a deciding factor.
Read this annoying LJ comment left for me by
arctangent, a Republican for Kerry. "I'm voting for Kerry *because* it will sap the energy of the anti-war protest movement, and hopefully actually push more anti-war activists into the moderate camp. One of the reasons I don't like Bush is that Bush is *so* hardcore right-wing and *so* very very bad at courting his political opponents that he's energized the annoying far left a lot more than I or the DNC are comfortable with." If Bush wins, arctangent doesn't get what he wants.2. Look, Iraq is a disaster and inevitably, that's just going to become clearer and clearer in the coming presidential term no matter who's president. If Kerry took over, Kerry would be blamed for the disastrousness and the Democrats would still have to choose Kerry as their candidate in 2008. They would lose. (Admittedly, the American population is awfully dense about noticing disastrousness in Iraq, but I think four years from now it's going to be even 25 times more glaringly obvious than it already is.) This way, in 2008, the Democrats can choose an actual antiwar candidate who people will really feel like voting for.
3. The U.S. government is hated all over the world. But how much more would the American population as a whole be hated by people whose friends and family members had been murdered by members of both major U.S. political parties? This way, it's still possible for people from other countries to live under the delusion that it's not the entire U.S. that wants to murder them, it's only a 51% majority of the U.S. If you were contemplating becoming a terrorist, the idea that 49% of the people you'd kill wouldn't actually be evil would be harder to rationalize as acceptable collateral damage than the 2% of third-party voters would have been.
4. There's a reason that conservative publications like American Conservative and The Economist endorsed John Kerry. The reason is that George W. Bush's total lack of any diplomatic sense has cost the American government its allies in other national governments, which seriously hampers the ability of the American empire to continue bullying any country it likes. Many people who stand to profit from American imperialism recognize that American imperialism would stand a better chance if it were led by someone like Kerry who doesn't alienate so many other nations' governments. (Most Bush voters are not CEOs or anyone else who stands to benefit from American imperialism, but rather rural Christian fundamentalists who do not care how many enemies Bush makes as long as he prays a lot and hates queers.) Personally, I don't want American imperialism to stand a better chance, and I hope you don't either.
5. There is a provision in the U.S. Constitution for impeaching a president. If anywhere close to 49% of the nation wrote letters to their congresspeople demanding that they impeach Bush, I think the Democrats would be in a position of having to actually try. Without control of congress, they're not likely to succeed, but they can still make Bush's life massively unpleasant. This is important. WRITE TO YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES TODAY ABOUT THIS. Better yet, write to them every single day nonstop for the next four years. Frankly, the Democrats should have been calling for Bush's impeachment all along, simultaneously with the election, and it would have improved the election if they had. Unfortunately, Al Gore is the only one who actually did. It makes me wish this hadn't been an election year at all, because if it hadn't have been, the rage against Bush might have manifested as a mass movement call for impeachment long before now.
6. Try for a moment to put aside any anger at Nader voters (one in ten registered Democrats voted for BUSH! those people made a MUCH bigger difference!) in order to read a compilation of survey responses from a survey that asked Nader voters in swing states to explain why they were planning to vote for Nader, and give yourself a chance to actually believe in their arguments. They're optimistic (in their own way) about a second Bush term, and if you can find any agreement with them, you might feel better yourself. For example:
"I think the best we can hope for is to make the Democrats lose because they have moved to the right. Although I think life will get slightly better in this country under Kerry, it will not get enough better to make it worth supporting him. I hope he loses."
"Kerry has campaigned as a Reagan era Republican. I understand the dangers of a Bush presidency, but Kerry hasn't really offered an alternative. NAFTA went through on Clinton's watch, Kosovo, Sudan, etc... And Kerry is backing away from the 'liberal' Clinton and regressing us to Reagan?? Bush would be worse in the short term, but as Rummy would say, 'Freedom is messy.' Bush would further distance our allies, will probably end up creating an alliance between Russia and China as a counterweight to US Hegemony, and through his rough 'hard Imperialism,' grind the empire to a halt. All the while governing a populace that is growing more and more critical of their government."
"Using our power as potential spoilers is a strategy that WORKS! We know it works, because the right wing uses it to great effect. The religious right, in particular, is not afraid to torpedo any conservative politician who doesn't toe the line on their pet issues (abortion, guns, prayer in schools, etc.) allowing this constituency to exercise power greatly out of proportion to their actual numbers. Do you think George W. Bush really gives a rat's ass about abortion or gay marriage, or anything except making money for his corporate buddies? No, but he feels the need to placate the religious right on these issues. Why? Because they've made it a non-negotiable condition of their support. Meanwhile, we give our support away for free, settling for empty promises and the shaft every time. As they say in AA, you keep doing what you always did, you'll keep getting what you always got."
"The costs of a Kerry presidency are no less. He will merely prolong the decline of the empire. Bush has accelerated it, the one positive thing that has resulted from his horrific policies."
"Are Kerry liberals aware of the cost of sanctioning the friendlier face of American Imperialism? Bush is hated now in the Middle East. Kerry's approach is not one whit different, but plenty of liberals have sown illusions that Kerry feels the pain of the ordinary Arab under occupation. These illusions will be shattered and along with them any goodwill that allegedly comes from ousting Bush. On an issue like healthcare, the costs of Kerry's ideas would guarantee the system stays in private hands, where insurance companies have jacked up premiums and profits while 45 million go without consistent health care. Is that a cost Kerry voters have thought about? I doubt it since Nader can't debate with Kerry and Bush and expose how similar their positions are."
"A Bush victory might not be ALL bad. There's a chance Bush could be impeached in a 2nd term, leading to reforms in executive power, voting procedures. Bush could be gun-shy on further wars where Kerry might feel the need to be a tough guy (remember Clinton bombed Iraq almost the moment he was inaugurated)."
"I'm more concerned with the cost of a Kerry victory. We've all seen the ABB crowd roll over and support Kerry even while saying they are against the war. Well, the day after the election of Kerry, most of the ABB folks are going to go into hibernation and despite their rhetoric, are not to going to challenge him about the war or much of anything else. We've seen this behavior before, when Clinton won the presidency and sold out the progressives with an imperialist war in Yugoslavia, so-called 'welfare reform' that destroyed what remained of the safety net for the poor and his support for NAFTA. In some respects the NAFTA sellout was the worse since it went against not only progressives, but even the more conservative Dem supporters -- labor unions. Clinton knew, just as Kerry will know, that unless the progressives are going to support a third Party, and by definition, ABB's wont do that, they simply have nowhere to go and are locked into supporting him and the Dem/DLC agenda. Period. Why should Kerry listen after the election when he didn't listen before the election."
"I think war against Iran is more likely under Kerry than Bush. Just listen to what Kerry, Edwards, and the Democratic platform are saying about Iran. This would be a perfect opportunity for John 'Reporting for Duty' Kerry to prove how macho he is, expand the American empire, please the Israeli government, and help out U.S.-based oil companies. In the second debate, Kerry was specifically asked how he would handle Iran if they don't stop working on their reputed nuclear program. In typical fashion, he gave a mealy-mouthed answer but ended up saying, 'If we have to get tough with Iran, believe me, we will get tough.'"
"We need to raise our sights and seek a higher ideal of what it means to be a citizen and what it means to lead. If my standing up for these values means that Bush will become President, then so be it. That only means that we in America are in need of a lesson in responsible citizenship. I think Bush will teach us that. He inspired me to stop trying to grow my business and to put my attention instead on being a citizen first. I have children and grandchildren who I love. We need to do what's important first."
"I find it very ironic that the current ABB crowd accuses ME of not fully appreciating the costs of another Bush presidency. Where were all these people over the last four years when I was out in the streets getting tear gassed? In January 2002, not 4 months after the 9/11 attacks, I was one of the organizers of a protest against a visit by the Commander in Thief to my hometown of Portland. An ABBer I work with attended the same event--except that he had a ticket to Bush's speech, sat in the audience, and politely applauded to show his support for Bush's 'war on terrorism.' He told me afterwards that there were a few points where he withheld his applause to make a point. Yeah, some point! Three years later, he now thinks voting for Kerry is a good way to make his point.
There is a fundamental incoherence in the ABB mindset, which is the proverbial elephant in the living room that nobody wants to talk about during this election. On the one hand, we're supposed to believe that George W. Bush is the Worst President Ever, qualitatively and quantitatively worse than anybody who has gone before, and single-handedly responsible for everything from global warming to the heartbreak of psoriasis. On the other hand, we're supposed to accept that it's OK for the Democrats to have supported 90% of the Bush agenda over the past four years. Now, which is it going to be, guys?! If Bush is as bad as the Democrats say, it should be absolutely unacceptable for ANY politician to have supported him or voted with him, EVER. Bush collaborators should be ostracized from public life like the plague carriers that they are. On the other hand, if most of his agenda is something the Democrats are comfortable supporting, then perhaps they should go ahead and admit that the sky won't fall if we have another four years of him.
The Kerry campaign tries to take advantage of this incoherence by playing both sides of the issue. When they aren't lying about his record, or engaging in ridiculous hair-splitting, Kerry's supporters frame his support for most of the Bush agenda as a GOOD thing. He's 'moderate.' He's 'electable.' He can appeal to those quasi-mythical 'swing voters.' At the same time, I'm supposed to believe that not voting for Kerry is tantamount to heresy, because Bush is poised to become the next Hitler. Well, which is it?!
A realistic appraisal of the consequences of another Bush term starts with an accurate understanding of the last four years. The last four years have been VERY frightening, no question about that. But these frightening developments have all been logical developments of late-stage imperial capitalism, and have all followed on very specific foundations laid during the Clinton years, with welfare reform, NAFTA, his 1996 'anti-terrorism act,' etc. (Not to mention Clinton's Iraq policy, which killed 6,000 innocent people per month for 8 straight years.) Bush is not a historical aberration, nor is he a mad emperor. He did not, and could not have, accomplished any of his nefarious deeds without a huge degree of Democratic collaboration. If we want to defeat Bush's AGENDA, it will not suffice to replace him with another carbon-based life form who supports that agenda. We need to hold the Democrats accountable.
Should the progressive vote for Nader indeed prove to be the decisive factor in this election (very unlikely to happen, but I can dream) the next four years might see some significant brakes being put on the Bush agenda. Democrats in Congress would see the writing on the wall, and realize that from now on, being a real opposition party will be a condition of keeping their jobs. Bush's next war resolution won't sail through nearly so easily. His next violation of our civil rights won't pass nearly-unanimously. His next grossly inflated military budget won't be rubber-stamped.
Compare this with the likely scenario if Kerry wins, with no more of a mandate from us than to be a 'better' version of Bush. The former scenario might actually be preferable."
"Coming from a Democrat state [WV] in which Republican governors have twice in the last 20 years seen their increases in AFDC/TANF rolled back by subsequent 'Democratic' governors, I cast a cynical eye on these offerings. Anyone living in southern or border states should be a little leery of the Democrats being cast as the progressive alternative. Don't forget that Jimmy Carter endorsed George Wallace over Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and George Wallace won less than 50 percent of the Georgia vote, making the 'tactical necessity' argument a little lame. BTW, this Democratic Grinch governor in WV also reduced the per needy child annual clothing allowance from $150 to $100, again rolling back the increase of the previous Republican administration."
"[T]hough I don't advocate voting for Bush I see a silver lining: Bush is the most inept handler of US imperialism in our history. Kerry actually wants to rescue US imperialism. Our horrific foreign policies and budget-busting military budgets will come to an end sooner under Bush's mismanagement."
"Because Kerry would be merely a smarter and more effective manager of the empire, I have no misgivings about causing him to lose the election. Again, though, I would not be voting for Kerry even absent Ralph's candidacy. Just as in 1996, I abstained from voting rather than vote a second time for Bill Clinton, in whom I was sorely disappointed."
"There's something else that too many progressives are not considering, and that's the longer term possibilities of another Bush win. Things may have to get worse before they get better. I don't like this prospect, but it may be truthful."
"I am a voter from Michigan and I will not vote for Kerry even if it means Bush gets elected again.
Remember the Clinton years? Jackbooted government thugs, Ruby Ridge, Waco all sure to convince loyal Republicans that the Big Bad Government was out of control and nothing this immoral and threatening had ever come our way before.
Now the Democrats are doing it to their own. The sky is falling, the spawn of Satan is in the White House and the world cannot survive another four years of this irrational destructive policy.
The preemptive strike policy has been around long before Bush and used by Clinton in Afghanistan and the Sudan. Bush is just more in-your-face about it. Clinton bombed Iraq for 8 years and pulled the inspectors out as they were close to lifting the sanctions. Kerry wants 40,000 more troops and maybe can get them home in 4 years."
"Kerry might be a more dangerous president. At least the liberal groups will fight Bush. They've made it clear in this election that no matter what Kerry does, they will line up behind him in the next election."
"Bush is not the real problem any more than Hitler was the real problem in Germany. The problem is the drift into fascism, which has continued unabated at least since Reagan. Militarism, war, and the increasing corporate control of everything is the problem, and Nader is the only person articulate on this subject."
My favorite excerpts:
"Actually I think we are better off with Bush as the winner. Let's face it, membership in progressive organizations like the ACLU and environmental and anti-war groups has mushroomed under Bush. Compared to the Clinton years when the war on Yugoslavia was met with support by progressives -- I remember some progressives talking about the need for 'humanitarian bombing' -- virtually everything Bush does is opposed by progressives. Even where Kerry and the Dems would (and did) do the same thing (eg, the war, the patriot act). This is important because you have to remember that Bush's action in Afghanistan and Iraq were supported by the Democratic Party in the house and senate, with very few exceptions. Ditto with the Patriot Act, etc. You have to remember that real leadership in the country does not consist of Democratic or Republican 'leaders', but rather by the people who go out in the middle of February and protest the war, people who go to the inauguration and throw eggs at the presidents car are the real leaders. And it is of foremost importance that these people keep doing what they're doing after the election is over. And, under Kerry, they won't. It will be hibernation time for at least a year, probably more. If Bush wins it obviously won't be a decisive victory, there will be a lot of squabbling about election reform and the need to make some changes, he will be facing calls for his impeachment, for war crimes trials, etc. People will be pissed and the pre election fight will continue -- unlike a Kerry victory. We need the rabble to keep rousing. They won't under Kerry."7. Perhaps the most important reason of all to go on living: GIVING UP WOULD MAKE BUSH HAPPY. You don't want Bush happy, do you? No, I didn't think so. So we need to keep making him unhappy. We need to follow him to every public appearance he tries to make, interrupting his speeches, marching in the streets daily, and writing to our senators and representatives daily to call over and over for Bush to be impeached. The media will have to cover it, and the Congresspeople will have to consider whether their next campaign seasons can afford for them to continue showing allegiance to Bush as the situation in Iraq continues getting worse and worse.
"All throughout history it has been people that have *forced* change upon society. Look at the abolitionists, women's suffrage, labor movement, civil rights movements, Vietnam anti-war movement, and more recently (until the democrats effectively shut it down) the gay marriage movement. The politicians in power are largely irrelevant in this context. However, when we allow ourselves to be manipulated by fear into voting for the lesser evil and abandon these movements we abandon progress. Voting and working within the system is important, but it will never be more important than organizing and putting pressure on the system from the outside."
no subject
and then this thought makes me so mad - that the born-again christian, white farmers of the midwest get to decide what'll happen all over the world based on their votes. the injustice of it!! actually what'm'i saying, it's not just that section of the people, it's all the american people. as citizens of a world that is so deeply affected by the States, we should all be allowed to vote, dammit. but i'll stop, because i've already ranted about this on my page, and i'm feeling annoyingly repetitive.
uuurrrgggghhhh. so upsetting. SO upsetting.
but just wanted to say, thanks for attempting to keep people's hopes alive, we need that right now!
no subject
Thousands and thousands of lives would have been lost under Kerry too; I'm not convinced it would have been any fewer. If Bush were to be impeached in a clear statement of antiwar sentiment, certainly more lives could still be saved under Bush than under Kerry. So it's all just a matter of the American public caring enough to agistate strongly enough for that impeachment. And if more of them would read the online journals of people like you in Pakistan and other countries, maybe they'd start being motivated enough to do that.
no subject
Kerry had one major flaw as a candidate (despite the lack of personality, about which, I will probably rant in my own LJ later). He voted AGAINST the 1991 war which was supported by the UN and a large percentage of the country, a war that was a response to an invasion. He voted FOR the 2003/2004 quagmire which is, in my mind, one of the least justified wars ever.
Switch those votes around, and Kerry could have won it; as it was, I think that many voters in Florida and Michigan and other swing states felt that Kerry's seesawing on these issues made him someone who could not be trusted.
The Democrats had other candidates to offer the country: Wesley Clark, who never voted in Congress, so a pro-war vote could not be held against him; Howard Dean, who spoke against the war; Lieberman, who at least had a more consistent voting record. (Not that I would have been thrilled with the last choice.) Instead they picked Kerry.
The big picture here:
Iowa needs to stop being the first primary state.
We need much stronger third party representation (which is why I'm glad you voted the way you did.)
We need national primaries, so that the major parties have a chance to pick a candidate that appeals to the entire country, and not just Iowa/New Hampshire and so on.
no subject
no subject
And I'm scared, because being British at the moment feels a lot like being an American who isn't allowed to vote.
no subject
But with the amount of misery some people are buried under right now, I felt that if I didn't try to find some bright sides to at least some issues, the population of sane people in the U.S. was going to start shrinking not due to emigration, but rather due to suicides and people going insane. And that certainly owuldn't improve anything.
no subject
no subject
no subject
The thing that saddens me is that the Republicans have gotten a majority in the Senate and the Congress. And Bush has gotten not only the electoral vote, but also popular vote. Can some of the Americans here explain? Does this mean that Americans generally approve of the actions of the Bush administration over the last four years?
I hear even Hispanics and other minorities voted for Bush, although they traditionally vote for the Democrats. Is that true? What went wrong with the Democrats?
no subject
2) One major problem: Kerry voted against the 1991 Gulf War, which most people in the U.S. supported, and voted for the 2003/2004 whatever-it-is-we're-doing, which many people (including me) saw as a cynical nod to patriotism and a refusal to stand up to the Republicans.
So many people felt that Kerry was not a trustworthy candidate.
3) I know at least some people voted for Dubya since they felt that this was the patriotic thing to do -- to stand behind the president after we had been attacked.
4) Kerry has the personality of a carrot.
no subject
they're colourful, sweet and crunchy...excellent with ranch dressing...and extremely low in calories....
but now that you mention it, he does kind of look like a carrot. yeah i mean i hate hate hate to say this, but if i were to put myself in the mind of a hay-chewing stupid white farmer man, i can see the appeal of bush over kerry. he's decisive. he's direct, no meandering. he speaks in short sentences (no comment). he seems to know what he wants and exactly how to get it, at least in terms of the "war on terror." i think in some ways, osama's video did damage to the democrats, because it proved that "terror" is still out there, and bush knows how to deal with it. why trust a new guy over someone who's seen it before, is working to keep america safe, and knows exactly what to do?
no subject
And then I also wondered whether Osama did that on purpose because he was actually more afraid of Kerry.
no subject
no subject
That said, however, there are many Americans who do approve of the Bush administration. There are also many Americans who extremely strongly disapprove. The Americans who approve of the Bush administration are overwhelmingly from rural areas rather than urban areas, white, not in possession of a college degree, and attend church every week. Their church tells them they must support Bush to save their country from irreligious immorality like queer sex. Their TV tells them they must support Bush to save them from the scary brown-skinned non-English-speaking people and that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were best friends and they both had nuclear weapons. They believe this, because they aren't the types of people who ever read anything. (In America we technically do not have widespread illiteracy like Pakistan, but in a practical sense we do have widespreas illiteracy, in that most people, although they know how to read well enough to pass basic standardized tests, do not know how to read well enough to not find it immensely frustrating to bother trying to read anything that challeneges them to actually think. Actually they hate to listen to any verbal discussion that challenges them to think too, but they're especially averse to reading.)
As for minorities - it depends on which minorities. 90% of African-Americans voted for Kerry. That's an overwhelming percentage. Hispanic voters are divided largely according to their country of origin - voters who are from Cuba or whose families are from Cuba usually left Cuba (or their families left Cuba) because of a strong dislike for living under Fidel Castro's government. So they tend to be very right-wing in reaction to Castro. The other Hispanics are less right-wing, but they do usually go to church, and their churches tell them that they must vote for Bush to save the country from immorality and queer sex. Some of them buy into this. Not all of them, though - I doubt that a majority of non-Cuban Hispanics voted for Bush.
There are many pockets of the country, usually in big cities, where you could stand on a streetcorner and look around you and no one in sight would be a Bush voter. Only 16% of voters in San Francisco voted for Bush. That's overwhelming. A city should nto have to be ruled by a government that 84% of its population voted against. But that's the way the U.S. government is designed, and the angry San Franciscans just haven't figured out a way to do much about it yet.
no subject
I'm also of the opinion that whoever is elected for 2004-2008 will be completely fucked because Bush has gotten America into a completely fucked up situation, so if Kerry were elected, then he'd be blamed for all the shit that Bush has set up for him, and no one would vote Democratic for a good while. It would be a big loud TOLD YOU SO THAT THE LIBERALS WERE WEAK kind of thing. Whereas now Bush has to clean up his own mess, and people will hate him even more, so we can more likely look forward to a Democrat in office in '08. But sadly, '08 is in a dreadfully long time. :(
thanks, special car twin
no subject
no subject
But thankfully I'm getting my wish; the Kerry loss is prompting Democrats to ask what they've been doing wrong in terms of playing loyal opposition, not turning into black-clad anarchists who throw bricks and shout "DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK SO LET'S FUCK IT ALL!" As evidenced by the fact that the Swattie now universally dubbed "Some Asshole" put up posters advertising a post-election anti-Bush protest/riot (yeah, it literally said "Bush Won: Time to Riot") all over campus and most students responded with apathy and disgust.
What helped was that this election was both legitimate and close, while still being a loss -- people saw that working hard to play the game worked, but not quite well enough, without any ammunition being given to the camp that says the game is crooked and we might as well not play it (as there would've been had we had another Florida). Now we might actually get some attempts at consensus-building and uniting-not-dividing and such.
no subject
no subject
Right on. Remind me never to make you the campaign manager for anything.
I've said it on my own LJ, but I'll say it again -- if the moral purity that comes from voting for a pro-gay-marriage candidate NOW is more valuable that keeping out of office a candidate who wants to amend the Constitution and make gay marriage impossible FOREVER and if you can't tolerate a decade or so of federal hemming and hawing on gay marriage while the battle is fought in the states, you need to sit back and get some perspective.
Believe it or not I don't advocate moderation on gay rights because I'm a straight guy who gets a kick out of oppressing homosexuals -- I advocate it because there are two possible ways the next 50 years could go, one branch where sodomy laws come back into vogue and massive demonstrations and near-riots start pushing gay people underground again, and one where there's a lot of tension and a lot of wishy-washiness but as the number of openly gay people increases tolerance builds until one day no one sees any reason to not let gay people marry anymore. The version of the next fifty years I don't see is enough voters materializing to shove through gay-marriage legislation at the federal level in the next election, and the hardcore opponents being so convinced by the power of the movement that they turn tail and head home. That's not going to happen, and fantasizing about it and wishing it could happen and *acting* like it's going to happen if you're loud and belligerent enough will only hasten scenario #1.
no subject
The abolition of slavery provoked an angry backlash in the form of a massive wave of lynchings. Somehow I've never heard any record of African-Americans having called for slavery to be re-instituted in order to quell the lynchings. That's because ANY time that progress is made, one has to persevere through a backlash, and backing down in response to the backlash only means that you have to start all over again from the beginning later.
no subject
Anyway, the main flaw in your argument is simple: We *haven't* yet made the progress. The progress counts as having been made when it actually becomes law and most people live by it. That never happened; legal gay marriages were a short-lived phenomenon created by a few activist judges. We're not talking about going backward. We're talking about choosing not to attempt a Great Leap Forward. And yes, every activist movement in history has had to make choices like that, viz. Northern carpetbaggers and Jim Crow laws. (If you're also going to be one of those people who would have advocated massive political purges and dealing with low-level guerrilla warfare for decades in order to force the South to desegregate in the late 19th century, then I think we just disagree about everything.)
And I don't ask queer people to fight for the Democratic party because it's the Democratic party and queer people have to fight for it. If the *only* thing you care about is queer rights and you want to start an issue-based third party on the issue, or support the Greens or the Libertarians from now on based on that issue, be my guest. There's a hell of a lot of reasons for me and, I think, for everyone to think that Democrat policies are better than Republican ones in a lot of ways that have *nothing* to do with queer rights. We have a choice: give the gay marriage fight a rest and consolidate the gains we've made so far on that front, or risk throwing away everything else -- welfare for the poor, sensible tax policy, a sustainable war against terrorism -- to preserve ideological purity on that issue. Do what you like, but I'd rather have hardcore gender-politics activists call me a hypocrite than have them like me while my country is completely going down the tubes.
And I hate to say it but I'm not a Democrat because of gay marriage, and if everything else were to stay the same except that suddenly the Republicans favored gay marriage, I'd still be a Democrat. (In other words, I'm never gonna vote Libertarian.)
no subject
My friends
If you feel that the Democratic Party is so important that queers should sacrifice our marriage rights to fight for it, then you have a duty to sacrifice your own marriage rights as well. To do otherwise just makes you a hypocrite who believes you havem ore right to marriage than we have. If all the heterosexual Democrats in the nation did simultaneously give up marriage and all loudly announce that they were doing so in solidarity with queers, the sight of so many heterosexuals "living in sin" could probably scare the Bible thumpers into gigantic concessions in no time.
As for the abolition of slavery, I referred to it only as being another movement for civil rights that resulted in backlash. This does not imply the slightest suggestion that being a slave and being unable to marry are equal.
no subject
in all fairness, i dont think counterpunch, or the author of that piece is promoting homophobia. i think his political analysis is somewhat simplistic and jumping to hasty conclusions, because it doesn't take into account many other huge issues that could just as well be the cause for democratic defeat. but then counterpunch, much as i dig their politics, do have a tendency towards bad jounalism, and even bordering on crass sometimes.
as for gay rights, black rights - i agree completely. the point is not to compare the two (how do you do that, anyway?) and make value judgements on which is worse. the point as you said, is that both were civil rights movements with great similarities - massive power imbalances, fucked up systems of heirarchies, institutionalised prejudice and great inequality. and i really believe that injustice is injustice, it doesn't matter what shape colour or form it takes. it's dangerous to say which is more or less important, because ultimately, we need to be out there raging against it all. it is counter-productive and even dangerous, i think, to be ranking which injustice is "more important."
no subject
no subject