November 03, 2004

Feeling an Electoral Hangover

Today's Musical Selection: "How Blue Can You Get" by B.B. King

So, how did you like that Election Night?

How is everyone? I've been better. Suffice it to say the electoral results didn't make me very happy. I think "crushed" would not be an inappropriate term. "Dumbfounded" might be more appropriate. I thought we had this one. I thought it'd be close, but in 2000 the momentum was clearly breaking to Bush, and I sensed he'd win. This year, though... the indicators were swinging our way. At least I thought so. Obviously, I was wrong.

So instead, I put up with Slate's maddeningly inaccurate exit polls (hey, Jack Shafer, thanks for nothing) and over 6 hours of CNN's hugely disappointing coverage. I'm not sure what bothered me more about CNN's shebang: the fact that they stopped every 15 minutes to pat themselves on the back for refusing to call any states that might be even remotely controversial, the fact that the guy operating the video screen was 30 seconds behind the anchors, the shifting-with-the-wind tone of the coverage (most notably Bob Novak, who is hereby dubbed "Weathervane" for his tendency to tailor his remarks to the trend of the electoral results), the fact that no one on CNN's political staff appears to know which senators represent which states, or the general presence of Larry King. (When King put his hand on Carlos Watson's shoulder and left it there, I cringed.) Considering the result, and the fact that I'm never going to get those hours of my life back... well, you'd be down, too.

But just because I'm down, that doesn't mean I have to be graceless. It wsa a great night to be a Republican, and my conservative friends deserve a chance to rejoice and be happy. So have your celebration. You've absolutely earned it. I'm not sure what you did, but you notched an impressive victory, not only on the presidential level but in the House and Senate races as well. Take a bow, Republicans.

That goes for you too, President Bush. I've ridiculed and derided you plenty over the last four years, but you not only won, but notched a solid, no-doubt-about-win, for which I commend you. I wish you the best of luck in your second term, and I pray that you have the wisdom and foresight needed to guide us through a very difficult chapter in our history. You've defied the skeptics and made yourself a legitimate president. I probably still won't agree with a lot of your actions, but I respect you and pledge to keep the "loyal" in the loyal opposition.

John Kerry did a good and classy thing by conceding this morning. For any Republicans who might be tempted to sneer, "What choice did he have?", I'd point out that he could have picked a legal fight in Ohio, one he might not have won, but one which other candidates in his shoes might have chosen to fight. And had he done so, he would have solidified the dangerous precedent of having all close elections decided by lawyers and courts. Al Gore opened Pandora's Box in 2000 during the Florida fight, and if Kerry had done the same, we might never have seen the end of it. But Kerry knew he was beaten, and he handled the end gracefully, for which we should all be thankful.

He also did a grand thing in calling for unity in his concession speech, in asking his party to support the country and recognize the legitimacy of the president. This was something I don't believe either Gore or Bush could do. In 2000, you got the impression that the two of them really disliked each other. I don't think Bush and Kerry necessarily like each other a whole lot better, but Kerry showed a lot of class in his defeat, much as George H.W. Bush did back in 1992. By behaving so well in the spotlight, Kerry has set the stage for better partisan relations in the coming years, and he deserves to be commended for it.

Again, I can't picture Gore doing the same in this position. He's too willing to put personal ambition ahead of the national interest. As the recount wore on, I got the impression that he would rather be president than have an outcome that the nation could feel comfortable with. (I felt the same about Bush, for what it's worth.) Whether he wanted to be that president that badly or was just that appalled by Bush, I'm not sure. But his bulldog insistence on victory was evident, and I think his stature in the party has been damaged as a result. By all rights, Gore should be a Democratic elder statesman and power broker, but I don't think he ever will be. Kerry, on the other hand, has an excellent shot.

That's the other reason I'm happy he went down with class. As I've said before, I really like and admire Kerry. He ran the risk of going down in history next to McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis, admirable men who tarnished their reputations with crushing presidential defeats. Or he might have taken a seat next to Gore, remembered primarily as being angry and bitter at his loss. Instead, he's positioned himself to be remembered along with men like Hubert Humphrey, men whose virtues shine brighter and flaws grow dimmer as the years pass. In time, I think Kerry will receive the favorable judgment of history, in a way he might not have even if he'd won. I hope this is true, because he does deserve it. He may not be the ideal candidate, but he's a fine statesman.

Jeff Jarvis was circulating a pledge for partisans before the election that went like this:

After the election results are in, I promise to:
: Support the President, even if I didn't vote for him.
: Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him.
: Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better.
: Unite as a nation, putting country over party, even as we work together to make America better.

That's a pledge I'll gladly take. I have one of my own:

For Democrats: I won't get bitter. I won't pout. I won't scream. I will let go of this idea of President Bush as a sub-literate mouth-breathing frat boy who became president by accident. I will learn what "majority" means. I won't go down the Michael Moore road. And I won't give up on politics or on America.

For Republicans: I won't gloat. I won't try to rub the Democrats' noses in the dirt. I will learn that Democrats love this country too, and are just as interested as I am in maintaining America's greatness in the future. I will learn the difference between a victory and a mandate. I will learn the difference between a mandate and doing whatever the hell I want. And I won't treat opposition as unpatriotic.

For everyone: I will stop the gotcha game. I will stop keeping track of every little perceived slight committed by the other side and use it as an excuse to abandon civility. I will remember that open and reasoned political discourse is what makes our nation great, and what makes us a shining example to the rest of the world. I will keep that thought foremost in my mind as we determine the future course of our country at a crucial time in our history. And I will remember that if I want change in our country and our political system, the change starts with me. If I can't be bothered to fight for what I believe in, who will be?

And on that subject... we Democrats have a lot of thinking to do after this one. I intend to do my share. I'm not sure exactly what this will entail, but I intend to keep all of you informed about it. Suffice to say that I think the Democrats need a new direction, and I want to have a say in it. Watch this space for further developments.

Programming note: I know Uncle Millie and Aunt Beatrice were supposed to have a column yesterday. But they've been keeping tabs on this election pretty closely, and Uncle Millie's been a little... less sober than usual. (If you can imagine.) Tense situations will do that to him. He needs a little time to dry out, so we're going to see our favorite couple next Tuesday.

As for me, I'll probably be back tomorrow, if I'm feeling better. If I'm not, I hope you'll understand. I am taking this a bit hard. See you soon.

Posted by Fred at November 3, 2004 09:11 PM
Comments

Point of order: Bush is not a conservative. If you have friends who are happy about Bush's reelection, then neither are they conservatives.

The correct term for a candidate or a party that acts without principle to transfer wealth and power from the middle class to the very rich while cloaking themselves with the language of values and the personas of down-home folks is "Whig."

When you look at what Dubya stands for now and what the Whigs stood for in 1840, the similarities are amazing. Protect unearned property at all costs? Check. Tax wages but not wealth? Check. Increase government spending and debt? Check. Run an East-Coast educated aristocrat with a dubious military career who pretends to be a Western simpleton? Check. Engage in loose-money policies that encourage speculation and luxury spending but not sound investment or savings? Check. Refuse to talk about real policy intentions, instead talk about commitment to moral issues? Check. Give massive government contracts to politically connected corporations that engage in bribery and fraud? Check. Favor monopolies and no-bid contracts over competition? Check. Allow corporations to write the laws that govern their behavior? Check. Use churches as political machines? Check. Rely on activist judges to stifle democratic reforms in the states? Check.

It is time we stopped accepting the right-wing radicals' self-description as "conservatives." There is nothing conservative about their record in office or their agenda. They are Whigs reborn, and we ought to refer to them as such.

Posted by: arrScott at November 4, 2004 07:36 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?