DISUNITED STATES:
I’ve got the right to say “I told you so”. Politically, I consider myself to be an independent semi-liberal, or perhaps a liberal-sympathizing moderate. So, this blog is a more-or-less liberal blog, even if it’s not always political. This past Tuesday evening (Election Day), most of the high-volume political blogs (like Daily Kos, Wonkette, Andrew Sullivan, Eschaton, etc.) had latched on to some dubious exit poll numbers published in Slate around 3 pm; these numbers bode well for Kerry. A feeling of euphoria had developed across liberal cyberspace by 4 pm; voter turnout was up, the stock market was down, and the end of the W era seemed in sight. Pollster John Zogby released his final prediction at 5 pm saying that Kerry would gain over 300 electoral votes that night – quite enough to make him the 44th President. By 7 pm, Kerry and campaign manager Bob Shrum were working on a victory speech (not that Shrum had written many of them in his time).
But if you checked out my blog that evening – and admittedly, almost no one did – you could have read what turned out to have been the truth. Kerry was on his way to defeat. It took another 8 hours or so for that to sink in amidst the liberal optimists.
I’m still pondering what it all means. Are we really a divided nation, two nations with irreconcilable visions of the future? Or was Kerry’s defeat just another melange of incidental factors that don’t really add up to anything significant, as with most elections?
Unfortunately, I think there is something to the blue zone versus red zone notion. I myself mostly agree with the true-blue New York Times agenda, i.e. that a certain amount of government involvement in our lives is a necessary evil, e.g. to make affordable health care widely available; and that it’s best to find ways to make government work better rather than to throw it out; that religious belief is fine, but don’t mix it with government activities (e.g., no prayer in the classroom – although I myself liked the short-lived compromise of having a moment of quiet meditation each morning); and furthermore, that gays should be allowed to form family units and raise kids, so long as they love their kids and take good care of them; and finally, that our foreign policy must be based on alliances and not on go-it-alone strategies. And it scares me just how much the red zone people seem to revile these ideas.
It also saddens me that the heartland folk just can’t see the sense and the long-term vision behind all of this, especially in a world of increasingly scarce resources. Personally, I like most of the heartland folk that I’ve interacted with. The other day I had a chat with a guy who still farms land out in western New Jersey; he told me that he voted for Mr. Bush because Bush seemed like the more honorable and morally-grounded person. I didn’t take any offense at his opinion; instead I admired his concern for the inner values of whomsoever should be our leader. It was typical of the common sense, no-BS approach of Middle America. If you were out there driving silly and got your car stuck in a ditch, they’d come with chains to tow you out. And then they wouldn’t take the money that you offered them in thanks. Something like that actually happened to me once. It saddens me to think that people like this can’t agree that gays were put here by God and not by The Devil, but do agree that most any war that the President wants to fight is a good war.
There ain’t gonna be any quick way of healing this division. Maybe Mr. Bush will grow up and forsake some of the growing acclaim from his supporters so as to heal the divisions and take account of both the New York Times and the Fox News agendas. I truly hope so. But for now, I’m not holding my breath (but neither am I applying for citizenship in Belgium or Denmark, tempting as it sometimes seems). And I’m also making a prediction or two. First, John Kerry will be the last Democratic nominee for the Presidency for a long, long time who hails from a blue state. Over the past 40 years, the only Democrats who were voted into the White House have come from red states. The only kind of Democrat who the heartland folk seem to listen to is the kind who grew up with them and still lives amidst them.
Second prediction: Hilary Clinton ain’t got a chance in the 2008 primaries. She’s definitely too blue now; you can’t go home again to red-land.
But if you checked out my blog that evening – and admittedly, almost no one did – you could have read what turned out to have been the truth. Kerry was on his way to defeat. It took another 8 hours or so for that to sink in amidst the liberal optimists.
I’m still pondering what it all means. Are we really a divided nation, two nations with irreconcilable visions of the future? Or was Kerry’s defeat just another melange of incidental factors that don’t really add up to anything significant, as with most elections?
Unfortunately, I think there is something to the blue zone versus red zone notion. I myself mostly agree with the true-blue New York Times agenda, i.e. that a certain amount of government involvement in our lives is a necessary evil, e.g. to make affordable health care widely available; and that it’s best to find ways to make government work better rather than to throw it out; that religious belief is fine, but don’t mix it with government activities (e.g., no prayer in the classroom – although I myself liked the short-lived compromise of having a moment of quiet meditation each morning); and furthermore, that gays should be allowed to form family units and raise kids, so long as they love their kids and take good care of them; and finally, that our foreign policy must be based on alliances and not on go-it-alone strategies. And it scares me just how much the red zone people seem to revile these ideas.
It also saddens me that the heartland folk just can’t see the sense and the long-term vision behind all of this, especially in a world of increasingly scarce resources. Personally, I like most of the heartland folk that I’ve interacted with. The other day I had a chat with a guy who still farms land out in western New Jersey; he told me that he voted for Mr. Bush because Bush seemed like the more honorable and morally-grounded person. I didn’t take any offense at his opinion; instead I admired his concern for the inner values of whomsoever should be our leader. It was typical of the common sense, no-BS approach of Middle America. If you were out there driving silly and got your car stuck in a ditch, they’d come with chains to tow you out. And then they wouldn’t take the money that you offered them in thanks. Something like that actually happened to me once. It saddens me to think that people like this can’t agree that gays were put here by God and not by The Devil, but do agree that most any war that the President wants to fight is a good war.
There ain’t gonna be any quick way of healing this division. Maybe Mr. Bush will grow up and forsake some of the growing acclaim from his supporters so as to heal the divisions and take account of both the New York Times and the Fox News agendas. I truly hope so. But for now, I’m not holding my breath (but neither am I applying for citizenship in Belgium or Denmark, tempting as it sometimes seems). And I’m also making a prediction or two. First, John Kerry will be the last Democratic nominee for the Presidency for a long, long time who hails from a blue state. Over the past 40 years, the only Democrats who were voted into the White House have come from red states. The only kind of Democrat who the heartland folk seem to listen to is the kind who grew up with them and still lives amidst them.
Second prediction: Hilary Clinton ain’t got a chance in the 2008 primaries. She’s definitely too blue now; you can’t go home again to red-land.