Politics Archives
What happens when you help avoid a problem? You don't get any credit.
This morning Rick linked to what must be the first positive editorial about the economy I've read in a long time. Paul Krugman basically says we're still in bad shape, but we've "backed up several paces from the edge of the abyss."
At the end of Rick's short entry, he wrote this about the role of government and the lack of credit when something actually goes right:
Also, by the way, remember acid rain? The government totally got on that and fixed that. Someone mentioned that on the Daily Show last week and I thought "huh. oh yeah. that went away." We should like make holidays or something when the government fixes something, instead of, you know, forgetting completely about it, only to go on to bitch about the next problem.
Immediately I was reminded of a quote from The Black Swan
that I actually blogged about almost two years ago (seeing blog entries written from 2007 and realizing it was two years ago still surprises me). As I explained in the post, the quote is from "a thought experiment that imagines a politician who managed to get a law passed prior to September 11th, 2001 that required all airplanes to have bulletproof locked doors to the cockpit. Taleb goes on to explain:"
The person who imposed locks on cockpit doors gets no statuses in public squares, not so much as a quick mention of his contribution in his obituary. "Joe Smith, who helped avoid the disaster of 9/11, died of complications of liver disease." Seeing how superfluous his measure was, and how it squandered resources, the public, with great help from airline pilots, might well boot him out of office . . .
Now consider again the events of 9/11. In their aftermath, who got the recognition? Those you saw in the media, on television performing heroic acts, and those whom you saw trying to give you the impression that they were performing heroic acts.
No real point here other than to say when you act to avoid a problem it is incredibly unlikely you'll ever receive the credit you deserve since no one can ever know how much you really helped. It's an interesting conundrum.
Leave a Comment
For the first time in a while, I feel good the Wednesday after Election Day.
It's probably not a huge surprise that I'm pretty excited this morning. I don't know that I have a ton to add to the conversation, but I can't resist the opportunity to throw a few things into the commons.
I spent a bit of time this morning reading reactions from the 2004 election. One thing in particular struck me: Positivity. Not just the positivity of the people who are happy that their candidate won, but the general positivity that came from Barack Obama's campaign.
In response to the 2004 results, Jon Stewart wrote, "Oddly, there seems to be more anger and disenfranchisement in the enfranchised. I don't think I've ever seen a time when the party that controlled the Senate, the House, the White House and the Supreme Court was so out of sorts about how little respect they get. At a certain point you want to say, 'OK, Goliath. Stop pretending.'" At times during this election I felt that same way. The Republicans played it angry: They tried to convince the country that despite the fact they'd controlled the White House for the last eight years, they were the underdog.
But the Obama campaign didn't take the bait. They just kept on keeping on. They were focused on hope and change, letting Obama have his own personality, unlike Kerry's reactionary personality of 2004.
And that hope and personality seems to be real. I went back and read Obama's 2004 DNC speech, which by all accounts was his coming out party and the official start of his campaign (though I don't think he expected that campaign to start until 2012). In that speech he said, "My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or 'blessed,' believing that in a tolerant America, your name is no barrier to success." That's not rhetoric, that's truth. He continued, "I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible."
Finally he hit on a theme in that speech that he repeated last night: "Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America. ... In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism, or do we participate in a politics of hope?" Last night he repeated, "It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America."
The way he chose to tell that story was through the eyes of 106-year-old Ann Nixon Cooper. It was a beautiful way to illustrate that our history and successes are not remembered as belonging to a party, but rather to all of us: They're the things that make all of us proud to live in America.
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes We Can.
Enjoy your day.
Leave a Comment
The other day I
wrote about some marketing "blogs" that had no RSS feed. Well, thanks to a hot to from The Reverend, I have another feedless blog.
The thing is, this one isn't a marketing blog, it's a political one. Turns out Illinois Senator Barack Obama has started a blog. In his first entry he explains why:
Today I am starting a new blog that I hope will help you keep up to date on the happenings of Congress and the issues that are important to people throughout Illinois.
Check back to this site regularly for more updates.
Alright, now at least the excuse with a marketing website could possibly be (and I don't condone this) that customers aren't interested in marketing RSS feeds, but Barack and Co., what's your excuse? WHERE'S YOUR RSS?
It's called a blog, it looks like a blog and its express purpose is to keep people up to date. But then he adds the kicker line: "check back to this site regularly." Why should I? Why don't you just add a feed? It would allow your constituents to keep up with what you're doing without requiring them to keep visiting the site. This is why RSS exists. It's a match made in heaven. So where is it?
I just don't get it. Let me reiterate my rule (via Scoble's rule): "If you do a marketing blog and you don't have an RSS feed today you should be fired."
This is even more than just a marketing blog (although that's definitely part of it), it also provides relevant political information. So where's the feed?
Leave a Comment
Just read Mark Cuban's newest blog entry,
"Let the truth be told…MGM vs Grokster" and in it he announces that he is going to be funding the legal defense of Grokster against MGM.
So , the real reason of this blog. To let everyone know that the EFF and others came to me and asked if I would finance the legal effort against MGM. I said yes. I would provide them the money they need. So now the truth has been told. This isn't the big content companies against the technology companies. This is the big content companies, against me. Mark Cuban and my little content company. Its about our ability to use future innovations to compete vs their ability to use the courts to shut down our ability to compete. its that simple.
This seems like a pretty big deal. Maybe it's only because Mark Cuban owns a basketball and has more exposure than your average multi-millionaire, but even so, it's great to see him stepping up to the plate on this. I understand that he is at least in part doing this to protect his own interests, but he deserves to be applauded for standing up for the little guy (and in turn making the little guy much bigger).
He's right, this issue is bigger than just file sharing, it's about big companies being able to control innovation. Just take a look at the EFF list of devices that could be banned if MGM wins and you'll get an idea of the potential impact (and yes, I realize that it's not entirely serious). The list includes devices from the copy machine to silly putty.
As the EFF writes on its Grokster vs. MGM page, "the case raises a question of critical importance at the border between copyright and innovation: When should the distributor of a multi-purpose tool be held liable for the infringements that may be committed by end-users of the tool?"
Anyway, from my very limited understanding and exposure to this, I believe it could be a very big deal and I just want to applaud Mark Cuban for lending a hand (and some dollars).
Leave a Comment
I was just reading
this Guardian article about North Korea's admission of its nuclear arsenal and it included this quote:
"We have manufactured nukes for self-defence to cope with the Bush administration's ever more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the [north]," the North Korean foreign ministry said in a statement carried on the state-run Korean Central News Agency.
That's not good. That's worse than not good, it's really scary. I don't have much more to say other than that.
The article ends with this:
World's arsenal
The United States More than 5,000 strategic warheads, more than 1,000 tactical (battlefield) weapons and 3,000 reserve and tactical warheads
Russia Nearly 5,000 strategic and 3,500 tactical warheads; more than 11,000 strategic and tactical warheads in store
France Approx 350 strategic warheads
China About 300 strategic and 120 tactical warheads
Britain About 200 strategic warheads
India 45 to 95 nuclear warheads
Pakistan 30 to 50 nuclear warheads
Israel Refuses to confirm it has weapons, but assumed to have up to 200 nuclear warheads
Sources: Arms Control Association; Nuclear Threat Initiative.
No comment needed.
Leave a Comment
It's been a while since I discussed politics, but
Rolling Stone has posted an article titled
"The Aftermath" where "Jon Stewart, Al Franken and Tom Wolfe reflect on the race for the White House." This is very similar to what I did on the site, by giving some people space to look back and write about how they feel about what happened on November 2. I'd like to think that Rolling Stone got the idea from me, but I doubt it. Go read the whole thing, each reflection is very short. Here are some excerpts for your reading pleasure:
Jon Stewart
Now I will confess that as a Jewish man living in a city -- New York -- where eighty percent of the people voted for the loser, I could feel a touch disenfranchised, perhaps. But at what point did Jewish people from New York ever feel overrepresented? So I don't feel angry. Oddly, there seems to be more anger and disenfranchisement in the enfranchised. I don't think I've ever seen a time when the party that controlled the Senate, the House, the White House and the Supreme Court was so out of sorts about how little respect they get. At a certain point you want to say, "OK, Goliath. Stop pretending."
Al Franken
There's a lot of comfort we can take in what we accomplished. We did very well in a lot of state legislatures. That's no small thing -- it's building a farm team. In Minnesota, for example, the Republicans had a twenty-eight-seat margin in the House, and it's now only a two-seat margin. We created a base of activists. We created a fund-raising base. We're a lot further along than we were two years ago. Now we have to keep going and apply our energies toward the midterm elections in two years.
Tom Wolfe
Not that many people in America who are registered to vote want to be lectured to by Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi and P. Diddy. If you're living in southern Ohio, and you're against gay marriage because you're religious, these guys make you feel like you're being treating like an idiot . . . worse, like a primitive. Bush, on the other hand, is very good at feeding the impression that "I'm one of you. I can hunker down with you anywhere you want." He's acquired a kind of rural accent. But Kerry is incapable of doing that. Simply as a public speaker, he badly needed a change-of-pace voice, as do all speakers. Even Muhammad Ali, who was a very funny guy, was not funny for fifteen minutes in a row, because he had no change of pace, and the same is true of Kerry.
Leave a Comment
On Election Day, the country held it’s collective breath as the numbers rolled in. No one knew exactly how it would turn out, but early exit polls had numbers skewing towards Kerry. Then as the evening progressed it became more and more apparent that those numbers were incorrect as George W. Bush took Florida and Ohio and won the election to become the 44th President of the United States. Early reports indicated that democrats were disappointed in the youth turnout, an important demographic they were apparently relying on to win the election. News broke that only one in ten youth had voted and it looked more and more like 2004 was going to be another disappointed show for young Americans at the polls. However, it appears that these early numbers were simply incorrect.
“It’s pretty simple actually,� says Mark Lopez, research director at The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE). “Some initial press reports had reported that one in ten young people had voted, when in fact initial exit polls said ten percent of all voters were 18-to-24. The numbers were misinterpreted.� In fact, 10.5 million voters under the age of 25 voted this year, according to CIRCLE. This is a 42.3 percent turnout rate, up from 36.5 percent four years ago. What is more, when you look at the numbers for all young people under 30, those rates go up even more. The 21 million 18- to 29-year-olds who voted for the 44th president represents 51.6 percent. That number is up from 42.3 percent just four years ago.
Those 21 million Americans under-30 that voted in the election skewed to the left far more than the general population with 54 percent preferring Senator Kerry over President Bush. While they may have differed in their party affiliations, the most important issue for them was just the same as the general population, with “moral values� topping the list for 22 percent. However, their values clearly differ from the general voting population. When asked whether they favor gay marriage 41 percent said yes versus 25 percent of all voters.
Not only did 18- to 29-year-olds differ in the political leanings from the general population, but also from their older siblings in Generation X. For example, under-30 voters were 12 percentage points more likely to identify themselves as liberal as those between 30 and 39. “Why do we actually see this?� asks Lopez. “It might be the time you’re politically socialized. For 30- to 39-year-olds, some of their first political activities might have revolved around Ronald Reagan and some of the issues that were prevalent in the 1980s. If your formative years were when there was a Republican administration in power that was a well-liked and popular, you’re more than likely going to lean that way later in life. What we think is happening to young people today, the 18-29 year olds, is that they grew up during the Clinton years which is an entirely different time and they may be reflecting that more than their adult counterparts.�
No matter what their political affiliation may be, it’s an important to see young people getting out to vote. It is they who will lead this country in the years to come and early involvement in politics is a positive step.
Leave a Comment
By Jeff Hughes
Editor's Note: I was sent a letter from a woman calling herself A Very Sad American outlining why she voted for George W. Bush. She asked me to post her letter and I only chose not to because she refused to give me her real name and I believe that anonymity is counterproductive in debate. It’s hard to take someone’s position completely seriously if they refuse to stand behind it with their real name. I asked Jeff to read and respond to A Very Sad American’s “Open Letter to the Democratic Party.� I urge everyone to go read the letter, it's thoughtful and well written.
Well, in the spirit of Noah Brier, I have decided to address each of the Very Sad American’s points in an attempt to dismantle more “myths� of the Democratic agenda.
First, let me do as she does and explain who I am. I am a 22 year-old musical theatre writer. I won’t be seeing the new Chucky movie. Harry Potter bores me and I don’t really need a car, so the SUV question doesn’t come up. I believe not only do gays deserve the right to be married, but I find the idea of debating the issue physically revolting. How dare we say who can love who? How dare we deny a lover a hospital visit? How dare we do as the president begs and ask the heterosexual world to determine what is right for the homosexual world?
I am pro-choice in all cases at all time. It boggles the mind how a political party can spout a pro-life mantra and then spend the other hours of the day attempting to defeat welfare. I guess it’s better to have poor families and damaged communities then to upset the baby Jesus.
So I’m over there. On the left. And very proud to be there. I don’t have any money. Don’t have a job. Don’t have healthcare. Now you know me.
I’d like to start by saying that I have trouble taking any remarks seriously when they come unsigned. Apply your name to everything you write. For an election so based upon accountability, I find it somewhat disconcerting that you’d take them time to organize your opinions in such a thoughtful manner and not take personal responsibility.
So now, your points. I think they are well-written, intelligent and obviously passionate. However, passion does not make up for what I find to be several fundamental flaws in each of your arguments.
1.You didn't give me clear positions on the issues.
Response: Did John Kerry give clear positions on the issues? Not as clear as I would like, no. But this argument can not be sustained as a reason for choosing George W. Bush over John Kerry. “Flip-flopping� has another name in circles of mature adults: admitting mistakes. John Kerry supported a war we all supported under false pretenses. He then, as you yourself pointed out, voted against an unruly amount of money asked for by a president out of control. I ask you this: Has there been any greater flip-flop in the history of American politics than W’s reasons for the Iraq war? A flip-flop that has cost the lives of a 1,000 American soldiers and – according to the New York Times – 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Would you rather a flip-flopper or a president declaring victory before a war is won? John Kerry’s belief that this is the “wrong war� doesn’t undermine the concept that the war must be completed, hence his plan to send in 40,000 more troops.
2/3. You didn't convince me that you would defend America against the threats of terrorism. / You insulted my intelligence by the constant mantra of Kerry's service in Vietnam.
Response: First, you’re insulting the man if you actually believe John Kerry didn’t understand the ramifications of 9/11. Second, you can not say that Kerry did not prove his ability to defend the nation and then complain that he ran on his war record. You champion a heroic war record when the presidential contest is focused on a counter-terrorism effort and an ongoing war. You make a false claim that Kerry did not believe 9/11 deserved a military response when he – in fact – greatly supported the attack on Afghanistan. You remember that attack? That was when we attacked those responsible. The Bush Administration has continued to flip-flop on the relationship between Iraq and 9/11, best seen in Dick Cheney’s tripping over his own words during the Vice Presidential debate. Cheney said in his opening statements, “and he [Hussein] had an established relationship with Al Qaida. Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director's testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked about a 10-year relationship.� Later in the same conversation, Cheney had this to say: “I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.� Being that Al Quida was responsible for the attacks on the Trade Center, doesn’t that reach as contradictory. I don’t blame John Kerry for not understanding a position on Iraq because we have no definitive reason for being in Iraq. As president, he would have been caught between Iraq and a hard place (you like what I did there?).
4. Your constant references to the opinions of the rest of the world scared me, and I'm not talking about the "global test" comment. I don't care what Europeans think about me or my country. I learned in high school that living my life with one eye on the opinions of everyone else leads only to unnecessary turmoil and pointless pain. Why didn't you?
Response: I like the rest of the world. I like the rest of the world a lot. I believe in the ability of America not to be an isolated superpower, but an international leader. You can not cite self-esteem realizations from your high school years. They just don’t apply. When you isolate in international politics, you make yourself a target. There’s a reason the United Nations was created. This is an opinion issue so I can’t call you wrong. But I’d bet you’re not someone who does a great deal of traveling. Because as much as you might not care, it’s disheartening to be so proud of your country and yet feel so embarrassed abroad.
5. You disturbed me with your demonization of the rich.
Response: Liberal democrats do not demonize the rich. We demonize unfair tax breaks given to the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. John Kerry never hid from being a billionaire and he laughed at the notion of receiving a tax breaks. With so many in this country hungry, lacking health care and out of work – how can any person think it morally correct to give back to someone making a million dollars a year? Maybe I’m just a crazy lefty…
6. I could not stomach to listen to your incessant hatred of President Bush. Bush is stupid, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is a Nazi . . . Bush should be impeached, blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Response: Idiot/Dumb. Same thing. Hitler/Nazi. Degrees of the same thing. So basically you’d not like to have Bush called a dumb Nazi. I have never called Bush a Nazi and I don’t know of many non-extremists who have. What Hitler did and what Bush has done are not comparable in any way. Is Bush an idiot? Yes, absolutely. But I have never made this my basis for not voting for him. You should be not be citing extremist liberals in Union Square Park and for that in the same way that I will not cite Mel Gibson or the pulpets of Bible Belt. It’s a give and take. As for the impeachment issue – DON’T GET ME STARTED!!!!!!!!! THESE PEOPLE TRIED TO IMPEACH OUR GUYS A FEW YEARS BACK. FOR WHAT? For a blowjob.
7. I don't think you really want my vote. I actively sought out your perspective. I tuned in regularly, for months, to your biggest media project, your serious effort to get your message out: Air America Radio.
Response: Air America Radio is not our biggest media project. Like it or not, Michael Moore is our biggest media project. Air America radio is a station designed for people of the left. We don’t listen to Bob Grant and Rush Limbaugh. We listen to Al Franken. Air America Radio is not attempt to spread the message but an an attempt to simple give liberals a place where their views can be showcased. Now I do believe that the liberal left has demonized religion a bit but it’s not for the reasons you give. The Right has decided, with the gracefully evil aid of Karl Rove, to attach itself to its base – the Christian Right. We have a separation of church and state – at least for the next few weeks – and this administration has done everything possible to erode that gap. The left sees this as a Constitutional abuse and so we attribute a great deal of animosity to “religion.� I don’t believe we discount the religious, just the power of Fundamental Christians in this administration.
Also, let me ask you this: how many speeches did George W. Bush give in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California in the last few months. As many as Kerry gave in Georgia? The divide is there and neither side is trying to puncture. This is what the Electoral College creates. When there is so much importance placed on “battleground� states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, why would candidates waste time in states they have very little chance of winning?
Final Points:
You’re central ideology: I voted for Bush because he has values and doesn’t waffle on them is disheartening and very, very scary. This will upset you and its melodramatic, but would you then have voted for Hitler over Kerry? He had values and didn’t waffle.
John Kerry is a man of conviction. A man who fought in a war and then stood alone in front of his government and testified to the horrific situation in Vietnam. I would love to have your vote, but I want it because you believe this country can be better. I want your vote if you believe George W. Bush has been a disaster as a president and the ramifications of said disaster may not be truly felt for a decade. You ask me to treat the president with respect and I simply can’t. I’m sorry. I can not respect a man who so arrogantly and blatantly destroys the heart of this country. I can not be civil to a man who believes you retaliate for 5,000 deaths by murdering 100,000 civilians in a far-off land. I can not respect a president in bed with the moral underbelly of society: the Christian right. I believe the Bush Administration is fond of manipulation and my respect has to be earned…it can not be manipulated.
I’m sorry to say this but when a gay marriage ban is supported overwhelmingly in 11 out of 11 states, I can not believe this country is in the right place. The religious preach love and vote for intolerance. The red states claim moral vigilance and commit social genocide. If Roe V. Wade is attacked, I will stand in front of the Supreme Court and scream at the top of my lungs until no one will listen.
I believe in America. Just not this America.
Jeff Hughes always takes credit for his work, even though roughly 90 percent of it is offensive.
Leave a Comment
By Alexis Bohan
Editor's Note: This is the 13th in a series of thoughts on the elections. Thanks to all those who submitted and if you want your voice heard email me at writing@noahbrier.com.
There is so much I want to say that it is hard for me to even organize it into a comprehensible mess. I can honestly say that I am heartbroken. I can’t think of anything I’ve believed in so strongly that has failed. And as we all know, belief is what it is all about in this country right now.
I am disturbed by the fact that Bush proclaims his Christianity. I am a Christian who strongly believes in the separation of church and state. His enormous arrogance in aligning himself with Christianity and becoming the poster boy for fundamentalist conservatism has turned not only foreign, but also domestic issues into a ridiculous holy war. In a holy war, you are never wrong. Everythingâ€â€facts, odds, rational thinking, anythingâ€â€can be against you but it doesn’t matter. It’s the scariest thing of all. It’s what makes our country so afraid of foreign religious fanatics, and what makes 51% of our country so supportive of domestic religious proponents.
I’m an optimistic person but right now it’s very difficult for me to imagine how this country will turn things around. Of course we will strategize over the next few years and try to figure out how we could possibly have lost this election, and what we can do better next time. The fact that we have a ‘next time’ is encouraging alone. But the crux of it is faith. I hate generalizations, but for the sake of figuring this out I’m going to make some. Knowing that it was “moralâ€? issues that decided the fate of this election, I’m going to assume that for the most part, those who voted for Bush share his faith (meaning they believe he is a good Christian and is doing the right thing). By equating that belief with the Republican Party, he sealed his victory and illuminated America’s diametrically different sides. Republicans (in general) yearn to believe in somethingâ€â€they lead a faith-based existence. Democrats, on the other hand, by nature yearn to question things. Unity is easier through faith, more difficult through doubt. The Republican Party only has to present a few moral tenets and a lot of people who have already organized their hearts and lives around those same tenets jump on. Even more simplistically, for some people it really only takes one wordâ€â€Godâ€â€and they will jump on. Democrats, I think, are different (again, my apologies for generalizing). What is the overarching guiding force for the party? Civil liberties? Freedom of religion? Gay rights? I just don’t think there is one. There may be a Democratic mindset, but it’s nowhere near as strong as a religion that is 2000 years in the making.
As long as Bush aligns himself with the Christian viewpoint on the “moral� issues that decided the outcome of this election, those believers will stand by him, despite all of the things horribly wrong with his leadership. They will not waver. It’s extremely demoralizing to me, because I know some of these people very well. A lot of them are good people. And although apparently they (and Bush) believe in the same God I do, I have never felt more different from them. I desperately want to understand how we could hold the same things so dear and yet come to such a different conclusion when it comes to Bush, or politics in general.
I hate to bemoan a problem without offering an attempt at a solution. I’m not sure what we, the defeated, should do right now. I know we can’t be discouraged to the point of hopelessness. I don’t mean to suggest by all of this that the conservative Christian majority will always dominate politics with Republican policy. I’m a Christian, and not a Republican. There are other people like me in this country (yes we do exist). So obviously it doesn’t have to be an automatic association. But people think it is. How many times have people learned I was a Christian and gave me an indignant “So you like Bush?� Thankfully I could reply with an emphatic “No�, but despite my answer, the condescension and haughtiness was already present. You will never win people over like this. You will never succeed in trying to convince people that their religion is bullshit. And, if you truly do believe in the freedom of religion, you wouldn’t even try.
To me, the Democratic Party is supposed to be one of inclusion, not exclusion. This means everyone should be welcomed regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. It’s about not letting talking heads divide us through our differences. This party needs to be the living example that people who may seem extremely different from, or even polar opposites of, each other (Atheist and Christian, for example) can coexist in a mutually respectful, positive way. I honestly believe this is possible, and I hope that we as a party really do too. Beliefs aren’t just about religion. As Democrats we should never stop asking questions, but we should never be afraid to believe passionately in something either. The most powerless thing in a nation of believers is a faithless party.
Alexis Bohan maintained morals despite four years of business school and now has "tipping point" in her job title.
Leave a Comment
Below you will find a point-by-point breakdown of Josh's statements followed by my responses.
1. Don't blame the republicans because the world hates us. The world hates us because they are jealous of what we have.
Response: This is silly and naive. What do we have that Europe does not? Their money is worth more than ours. They have free speech and democracy. They are not jealous, they hate us because we have, thanks to the policies of George W. Bush, become an egotistical nation who believes they can take on the world without any help. Going into Iraq without any coalition was a huge mistake (and yes I know about Poland). We have alienated our allies at a time when they were behind us completely (after September 11th when we invaded Afghanistan the world stood by our side).
2. As far as the Arab world is concerned, they will always hate us as long as we support Israel.
Response: While part of the disdain for America comes from our relationship with Israel, that is not why the whole Arab world hates us. In fact, before September 11th, there was only a small faction of radical Muslims that truly hated us and instead of killing them (Osama bin Laden is still at large), we decided to begin the process of bringing democracy to the Muslim world.
3. The best way to undermine that hate is with education.
Response: I don't completely disagree with your point on education. But what about us? Maybe if we had a better understanding of their religion and culture we'd be able to get along better. How much do you know about Islam?
4. The main problem is that the Arab people have been secluded from the rest of the world.
Response: Josh, we are secluded from the rest of the world as well. Have you noticed? We have alienated our allies and we essentially stand alone at this point in our beliefs.
5. Once they are exposed to modern culture they will adapt and embrace it. When you have a group of people that is born to hate, you need to do something.
Response: It is not our duty to expose other cultures to modernity. They will not adapt and embrace it because it is a foreigner coming in and telling them how to think. Don't you understand that this is just how extremists feel? They are trying to bring Islam to the uncultured world (America). What right does either side have? Why are you right and they're not? They believe they've got God on their side too.
6. As far as you worrying about your safety in New York, we probably have never been safer.
Response: First off, do me a favor and don't tell me how safe I feel. I am more scared to be living here now than I have at any other point. I live here, I saw September 11th and I don't feel safe. If I didn't love this place so much, I probably wouldn't be here.
7. The reason 9-11 happened is because the previous administration was far too passive in dealing with the terrorist threat. You can't tell me that 9-11 was Bush's fault.
Response: There are a lot of reasons that September 11th happened. I am not putting all the blame on Bush. Osama bin Laden was given weapons by the United States in the 1980s (Reagan's reign) to fight the Soviet Union. That is part of the problem. However, Bush ignored evidence that there was going to be an attack. It says so in the 9/11 Commission Report.
8. He is the perfect remedy. The only thing the Arab world has understood up to this point is force, so force they will get until it is safe in the world. You can't sit back and hope that peaceful diplomatic solutions will work. You need to be on the offensive, and John Kerry was not the leader to do that.
Response: What evidence do you have that the Arab world has understood force? There are suicide bombers blowing themselves up practically everyday, what do they care about force? Why do you think young people in the middle east are willing to blow themselves up?
9. Since 9-11 there has not been a strike here at home. That is a promising thing.
Response: Between Pearl Harbor in 1941 and September 11th in 2001 there had not been an attack on American soil. You're celebrating that we've gone three years without one? What about the attacks around the rest of the world? In Spain, for example, where 191 people died in an attack on a train by Muslim extremists. This world is a more dangerous place and it's just a matter of time before they come back to get us.
10. After a few years of introducing democracy in the Middle East and education, things will be much safer.
Response: I disagree that bringing democracy to the Middle East is the answer. I believe that this will only bring more resentment and create an even more dangerous atmosphere for Americans, both at home and abroad.
11. There is no quick fix, it is a process and will take time.
Response: Finally, we agree. Although I don't agree with the way you believe it should be handled, there is no quick fix to terrorism and thanks to the situation that Bush worsened, it is a long road ahead.
12. Our country and our interests world wide will be better off because of this war.
Response: Our country and our interests will be in great dangers because of this war. Also, while we're on this war, why is it justified? Iraq was not a Muslim nation, in fact Saddam Hussein fought to keep his country non-secular. Now what we've done is create a place for Muslim extremist to congregate and fight an enemy they hate even more than they did before.
13. If the rest of the world doesn't like it they can fuck off.
Response: Have you ever left the country? Do you know how it feels to have someone walk up to you and ask you who your country thinks they are and have to explain that you didn't vote for George W. Bush? I do. I love traveling the world, seeing other places and now that is harder than ever because of the image we've created for ourself abroad. Moving on from my personal problems here, telling the world to fuck off is not a smart political move. We hardly have enough troops to fight the war we've started in Iraq, how do you propose we fight all these other countries? We need the world on our side to fight terrorism and they would be if we weren't so busy being missionaries.
14. We should also pull any aide that we provide to them as well.
Response: First off, we don't need to piss anyone off any more than we already have. Pulling aid would be political suicide, not to mention the effects it would have on our economy when they retaliated with their wallets.
15. They don't seem to mind when we interject to assist them, but when it comes to freeing a people of a murderous dictator people get their panties in a wad.
Response: They were not behind us in Iraq because we had no right to be there. It was never our foreign policy to strike first and then we lied about our reasons for doing it. Hussein never had nuclear capabilities and we knew that. I understand that Hussein was a murderous dictator, but that was not the reason we attacked Iraq. Whatever you say, the official reason given for attacking was that we were in danger, which has since been proven to be a complete lie.
16. All the democrats did this election was complain about what is wrong with this country. You know what is wrong with this country?? Too many people complaining and not enough people doing something to change it.
Response: Josh, I am not going to argue that this campaign was run perfectly by the Democrats. I have said myself that they needed to state their policies and intentions more explicitly. However, saying that the problem with this country is too many people complaining is absurd. All these people are complaining about the things that George W. Bush is doing throughout the world. They have a right to complain and we did our best to change things by changing leaders. Unfortunately, when it came time to choose a leader a large portion of people let their religion guide their choice, despite this country's constitutionally mandated 'separation of church and state.'
17. If anything Bush has set forth what he believes will solve some of the country's problems, Kerry just pinpointed what the republicans were doing wrong.
Response: I agree that Kerry may not have set forth enough strategies, however, many of his plans were to reverse the damage that Bush had done. Yes he pinpointed what Republicans were doing wrong, but that was so that he could fix it. Kerry saw the problem, Bush didn't. When asked if he would invade Iraq again, knowing what he knows now, he said yes. How can you explain that?
18. If you don't like the way things are in this country I hear that Fallujah is nice this time of year. Just remember that the people over there this time a few years ago had no influence on who ran their government, now they are having elections. I'd say those are some impressive strides for a country that has been supressed for several decades. If that is not progress in the right direction I don't know what is.
Response: Thanks, I'll go check out Fallujah, I appreciate the open invitation. As for the elections, they are hardly legitimate, at best. Iraq is in far worse shape then it was before we went in there. That's not to mention the over 100,000 civilians that have been killed at the hands of the United States. I'm not going to disagree that Saddam Hussein was a dictator and a murderer, as well as a very evil man. However, we have made that country a more dangerous place and it doesn't seem to be getting any better. How do you propose we finish this? If we leave there and pull our troops the situation will deteriorate more quickly than it is now. If we stay, extremist from around the Arab world will continue to travel to Iraq because we've created a place to fight against America. Don't you get it? We've made this situation worse.
19. A toast to four more years of moving in the right direction.
Response: I'm sorry that you believe this is the right direction because I believe the opposite. On November 2nd the United States had a chance to reverse our course and try to find the right direction but the wrong man was elected. Now we find ourselves heading down a long and dangerous path without the assistance of anyone. We stand alone and I fear our safety. To quote something my mother wrote, "I'm beginning to think that our history of wealth and power has blinded our citizenry to the kinds of immorality that bring down civilizations." We can't afford to be a nation of chest thumping cowboys anymore because there are a lot of people in this world with a lot less fear of death than we have.
Leave a Comment
Hi, I'm 