What happened? Election analysis

College Confidential Community
141

<p>Well, to me the interesting thing about Iran, where I once worked for the Iran-America Society (the nest of spies - and it was) and paid by the CIA, is that over the past 24 years, it has had the freest democracy among Islamic states in the Middle East. Multiple parties, different parties with radically different views of the world, and differences in actual policies, have held power. Noisy press with very diverse views expressed, students and women protesting in the streets, human rights and women's groups operating, lots of pushing and shoving in their executive branch, legislative branch, education system, and foreign policy - though all pretty much united in the view that America is the Great Satan (based on their history, it is not hard to understand why.) Yes, there are mullahs - some of them with radically different politics from each other - the decentralized nature of Shia Islam virtually assures that (and, in fact, always has.).</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong - it is no paradise. The country is very conservative theologically (though how that is to be expressed varies quite widely). Yes, it harbors and funds terrorists - from its point of view, it is the Iranian version of funding foreign military forces (as the U.S. does in Pakistan). Nasty stuff. </p>

<p>But if you were to read the Iranian press, you would be quite shocked to see (for a theocratic state) how open a society it actually is. </p>

<p>Create "democracy" in Iraq? It will look much worse than Iran. Ayatollah Sistani will end up running the country through his supporters in any case (it would be the democratic will of 60% of the population). It's why I think Kerry was so wrong-headed. The U.S. could easily cut a deal with Sistani, setting up permanent military bases in the north (and control of the northern pipelines, which is what Wolfowitz said the war was really about to begin with), dicker as best we can for human rights and Baathists, and begin to leave in 60 days. All hell would break loose - all hell will break loose anyway, but they wouldn't be aiming at us.</p>

142

<p>ID, do you see Bush as moderate?</p>

143

<p>First, I don't think we have any intention of leaving Iraq anytime soon (decades). I believe that one of the reasons for the invasion was to establish permanent military capability in the region.</p>

<p>Second, I see Afhghanistan as a fairly minor issue. It is a country that is so backward that it is not going to be a player in the world economy for a very long time. Iraq, on the other hand, has a highly educated (and Western) population and the resources to become a prosperous economy in fairly short order. Iran, too, BTW. What Saddaam did to Iraq and the mullahs did to Iran was unconscionable.</p>

144

<br>


<br>

<p>Right. That's why I fundamentally view the whole situation as one of military power. At the end of the day, that is really the only currency that has any meaning. The mistake Kerry makes is failing to understand terrorism as a military endeavor. We have cruise missles, they have suicide bombers. They'd rather have cruise missles, but until then, they'll just keep strapping bombs around the wastes of their sons and daughters until somebody makes them stop.</p>

<p>If that is the game being played and those are the stakes, then we have to put some chips on the table -- something we have certainly done by positioning a substantial chunk of the US military in Iraq.</p>

145

<br>


<br>

<p>Not moderate enough on social issues for my taste, no. However, I have to give him credit for successfully walking a fine line by throwing just enough red meat to his fringe constituency while governing in a fairly centrist manner -- both in Texas and in the White House. </p>

<p>He's done a more skillful job at keeping the hard-core fringe from undermining his electibility than the Democrats have. If you notice, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Rush Limbaugh haven't been getting too many invitations to the White House.</p>

<p>Of course, it's really hard to really judge. Following 9/11, his presidency has become a one-issue affair.</p>

146

<p>Lizschup -- You asked me to explain a comment I made about representation of Christians in the media. First of all, I apologize for my stilted, rather pompous way of putting it -- I am an ex-academic, after all! Carolyn said it simpler and better.
I can't give you fully cited books or articles here, no. And someone who really makes a study of this could probably refute me, if they so chose. But in the mainstream media -- newspapers, TIME/Newsweek, network nightly news -- the discussion of the religious experience in America is hardly nuanced. You get the Bible Belt; you get an amused, dismissive reference to New Agers and celebrity Kabbalah; you get passing references to the diminishing numbers of mainstream Protestant congregations; you get cult stories; and you get Catholics only in terms of abortion and sex scandals.
When did you ever see a thoughtful piece about the difference between second and third generation Catholics and recent Catholic immigrants? When have you ever seen an article talk about what pastors in New England churches are doing or saying? I have learned more about the Society of Friends from Mini than I ever have from my general reading.
And as for personal experience -- I grew up first generation Polish-American Catholic in Chicago, working class parents. When I went to the Ivy League for graduate school, there was no respect whatsoever among trust fund liberals for the experiences of my parents and others like them. I have always voted Democratic and always will, probably. So I am close to your views on this election, I imagine. But I do know many, many, many church-going families where I live who feel religious equals conservative and that those of us who do not think so have somehow slacked off in our religious beliefs.<br>
It's interesting to me that Catholics are often seen as very conservative in their beliefs when actually the Catholic experience in this country has not generally gone hand in hand with a privileged lifestyle. I attended Catholic schools up through my BA and was always struck with the way my theology and religion classes could be interpreted as calling for a liberal political agenda. If the Pope were not so hung up on abortion and women priests, he would be seen as a leading voice for the poor, anti-death penalty, and more.</p>

147

<p>Patient said:
"Ah.....it's the draft after all. Mark my words. How many of you advocating this have sons of draftable age? Those of us who do are absolutely terrified that our children will die in this generation's VietNam."</p>

<p>When there is another crisis, say in North Korea, and the US is forced to strike where will this administration find troops? I am terrified too. None of us can say with certainty that a draft will not happen. No matter what Rumsfeld says now about draftees not being good soldiers.</p>

148

<p>It's not just sons of draftable age that are of concern; it's the daughters too. I'm terrified; she's terrified.</p>

149

<p>When they start the draft and I beleive they will, I do not believe they will limit the draft to men, nor should they.
But why aren't we pulling troops out of areas where we aren't needed/wanted like Okinawa, instead of forcibly extending tours of soldiers who have already put in their time in Iraq?</p>

150

<p>Thanks Kiddielit. I have a couple more questions. Are you still Catholic and where do you live? My husband is an ex-catholic so we have had many conversations about the subjects you mention. I'm pretty intrigued by different faiths and how they affect people culturally and pyschology. I do see an emphasis in the media on the evangelicals because they are a growing sect of the Christian tradition and the most conservative. I believe the fastest growing of all of them if I remember correctly. But I still have to disagree that that translates to a dismissive tone in the media to all other church goers.</p>

<p>ID, I believe it was you that made the comment that you didn't see that the country was getting any more conservative. I have to strongly disagree with you and suggest that your perception that it is not, may have something to do with where you live. Minnesota has traditionally been a Democratic state. in the past 10 years it has leaned Republican in its governors , it's legislature and the senators and representatives it sends to Congress. I have seen a cultural shift as well. I have seen relatives in Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois who were moderate but very loyal Republicans become extreme in their political views. Many of them cling to the Republican ideology that they are the superior party when it comes to morals and family values. My mom just can't understand how my husband who is against abortion (I am not) can call himself a democrat. My mom who worked with black kids as an aid in our public schools was an advocate for civil rights in the 60's but now wonders if gays are morally wrong according to the bible. I don't think many of you that live on either coasts truly understand that a more right leaning conservatism is taking hold in the midwest and the south. True they have always been conservative but my sense is that it is changing. I believe much of that shift has to do with the right wing media because I see a strong correlation between the shift in attitudes and the time those news outlets started to gain popularity. If you wonder why I am a relentless and rabid Fox critic, you should know that it is personal and deep for me. And Newt Gingrich and Rush may be out of sight but they are in the background silently doing damage. I cannot tell you how many gossipy conversations I overhear around here about politicians. One day I heard conversations about how Kerry had gotten a sprayed on tan or been to a tanning booth. I thought, what a lame and petty thing to worry about. Once I heard the same thing repeated in totally different circles I realized it was probably coming from Rush. Sure enough.</p>

151

<p>The NYT article below seems to agree with you. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/04assess.html?pagewanted=1&th%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/04assess.html?pagewanted=1&th&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I woke up again feeling awful, and scared, and like a broad swath of our country has essentially been told that we are no longer welcome to participate in shaping this country's policy. Of course, then I quickly realized that perhaps that is what the broad middle of our country has been feeling like for years as well.</p>

152

<p>This is a great thread. I wish I had found it sooner. A couple of thoughts:</p>

<ol>
<li>One of the key things that cost Kerry the election was the venom that the Democratic Party used in this election. While both sides were venomous in the general election, it was the 12 months or so of the Democratic primaries (when Bush was attacked using language and claims that set a new low for the last 50 years, and largely could not reply to the attacks) that really caused this. Look to Terry McAuliffe.</li>
</ol>

<p>If you doubt this, just ask yourself how a voter who likes and respects Bush, but might have been open to voting Democratic, reacted to Michael Moore. Voters are not dumb, and they recognize crude propaganda when they see it. And they don't like it. They also don't like venom coming directly from the candidate (hence the Dean defeat...even the Democratic primary voters eventually figured this out).</p>

<p>My interpretation is that all of this venom results directly from the extreme frustration that many on the far Left feel about the rejection by Bush of their fundamental view of the world. And these people on the far Left have used the Democratic Party as their tool to reflect (and attempt to reverse) Bush's policies. But the American electorate strongly endorsed the Bush policies over the far Left policies of the last campaign. Whether Kerry would have governed as a far Left President is doubtful, but this is the decision that has just been validated at the polls, not a question having to do with religious moral values, IMHO.</p>

<ol>
<li>The general sequence that happens after a painful loss (for either party is):
A. Blaim the candidate, or discuss the lousy campign he ran, or his lousy VP, etc.
B. Blaim the voters as too stupid, or religious extremists, or as being so dumb that they vote against their economic interests, or as being dupes of powerful forces or disinformation...
C. Internecine war in the party between those who espouse the "we should have been more extreme" viewpoint (in this case, the unreconstructed Deaniacs) and the "let's traingulate back to the center" guys (in this case the "I liked Lieberman, but no one would listen to me" guys).</li>
</ol>

<p>After the dust has settled, the Democratic Party is going to need to change it's policies. Not just reach out to religious organizations, not just spin their policies differently, not just look for better candidates. The Democrats are going to have to Change. Issues they support strongly today must be abandoned. Policies must be reversed. It is not enough to continue the futile pattern of speaking more slowly and more loudly so the stupid voters can finally understand about the fundamental correctness of the Left's doctrines. The voters hear the Left just fine, understand it, and reject it.</p>

<p>This is why Kerry lost.</p>

<p>This is why the Democratic Party has been a shrinking percentage of the electorate for fifty years.</p>

<p>To win, Democrats need to believe in, and then to articulate, something different than they believe in today.</p>

<p>This is going to take a while.</p>

153

<p>Patient, the daily show had a very funny skit last night making fun of the red states vs the blue, pointing out the irony of the red state fear of being attacked by terrorists when there chance of being attacked is slim to none.</p>

154

<p>reasonabledad, The extreme frustration that Dems, and I am a progressive dem not an old school liberal, is that Bush said he would be a uniter and not a divider. He was anything but. His policies are NOT centrist or moderate. The 2000 election WAS decided by the Supreme court and their was no mandate, consensus. or majority vote for Bush but he acted as if there was one.</p>

<p>As I ask everyone, where are you from? Many midwesterners that I know do not look at these issues in the same intellectual and thoughtful way that posters on this board do. There is a HEAVY concentration on this board of east and west coasters with PHD and professional degrees who are well read and articulate.</p>

155

<p>Yes, one of my daughters taped it and all the election night coverage by Jon Stewart. I loved Sharpton and Weld. I don't know anything about the latter but I found myself thinking I liked him better than Kerry, maybe that's the Massachusetts person we should have had running.</p>

<p>It is simply far too soon to draw any firm conclusions, I know, it is just that I am so afraid for us. Time will tell. </p>

<p>I don't think that I have ever tried to tell others how to live their lives, and what scares me is not that the religious right wants to be allowed to express their beliefs and be respected for them, but now clearly wants to impose them on everyone else. There are certain universally shared values and there are others that are by no means universally held. I truly do fear that they will try to legislate their values on those who do not hold them. For example, permitting abortion is not ordering someone to have one--it is simply protecting a right to choose. I truly do fear that this country is tilting in a way that is too reminiscent of regimes through history that have gone on to do great evil in the world. And yes, I am seriously thinking of leaving. </p>

<p>But time will tell. Another terrorist strike on our soil--which could leave many of us dead anyway--and everything could change again. Every presidential election produces a honeymoon period but this is a very big country with many diverse views and it seldom remains putty in the hands of any leader, right, left, or centrist. If the economy doesn't improve, if Iraq continues to be the quagmire it is, if there is an epidemic in this country--watch those approval ratings plummet, and republicans and democrats alike in congress will be told in no uncertain terms by their constituents to change direction.</p>

<p>I am sad about the drilling in Alaska which is now pretty certain to happen.</p>

156

<p>Liz, I am a native Californian, who has lived in LA, SF, and then in Chicago, Boston, and now Pennsylvania. Like those liberals you mentioned, I have been educated beyond repair...but I retain my moderate outlook.</p>

157

<p>I agree with you whole heartedly on that patient.</p>

158

<p>reasonabledad, my point of asking where you live is that I believe moderate is relative to where you live. I don't think some of you moderates that live in blue states understand just how conservative the right is in certain parts of the country.</p>

<p>I could really use the input of some more midwesterners. I suggest a book I haven't read but my son has. He's the intellectual in the family. It's called "The Right Nation" and its written by two authors from the Economist.</p>

<p>Quite frankly, I understand the midwest intimidation and consequential isolation from the educated elite. It can be very intimidating to argue with a bunch of PHD's when you just have a little old BA from a midwest state school and never took a damn writing course. Lots of science and art.</p>

159

<p>Right, again reasonabledad, what do you think are "moderate" views and do you think Bush is a moderate?</p>

160

<p>And I have certainly known Catholics who also considered themselves born again--there is a certain amount of Protestant-Catholic cross-fertilization on these concepts.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>This really interests me Patient because being "born again" goes directly AGAINST traditional Catholic teachings. And in fact most "born again" Christian's I know consider Catholics akin to heathens. There is NO cross-over among the Catholics and born again Christians I know.</p>