Rather synchronistic to have to teach Malamud's "Angel Levine" this morning. No better day to talk about suffering, and faith, and God's Plan. No better day to discuss free will and the soul. Malamud's story is basically a rehash of Job and "It's a Wonderful Life." After reading it I come back to something I thought of at the Halloween party. T's wife, after he and I had our fight about Bush, asked me "why did I marry him? Why did I marry such a knucklehead conservative?" My answer: because he's a good father, a good provider, and completely trustworthy. Next to that stuff what does politics matter?
Of course, this humble attitude--enflamed by literature and a discussion of Pascal's Wager and the way God treats Job--will fade again as I decide what I'm going to do politically the next four years. Throw the game and simply accept that outside a few small blue oases in a desert of red I have nothing in common with most citizens of my own country? Try and agitate for change? Give up on politics altogether? The message of Job and "Angel Levine" is not dissimilar to Buddha's assertion that we are the cause of much of our own suffering. Politics complicates our lives instead of simplifying it these days. I know it complicates mine. Should I say "fuck it"?
I'm suspicious of "conventional wisdom," but I completely agree with many of the blowhards on cable this morning that Democrats have absolutely no understanding of Nascar/country music/Evangelical social conservatives. These are the folks who Rove mobilized to not only defeat Kerry, but to spank his ass badly--all this with an incumbent with shocking negatives.
Goodbye Daschle, you simpering asswipe. Ditching guys like Kerry and Dashcle might be exactly what they need to reinvent themselves--if the party is worth saving. James Carville was frank early on CNN last night. "We got beat. Ain't no sense in spinnin' nobody now. We've got some introspectin' to do."
All day yesterday Cha and her Green chums worked their assess off to build an alternative to the wishy-washy Democrats--they got some significant votes in many races, but no where near enought to challenge at least locally here. Still, they're happy to have had an impact and to have gotten their message out. I think back to when the religious right was a fringe group, and how quickly they developed into the major political movement in the country. Is it possible for the Left to do the same? How? Social issues seem to be backfiring--regardless of economic interests or the war people will vote for a "conservative" simply because of abortion or gay marriage. How can the Democrats chisel away at the red states without alienating people?
When will we get the official concession from Kerry? Will he drag this out? Should he? Job asked God why he had to suffer and got a bullshit arrogant answer, but one with a sick logic. There's no logic out there. No meaning. I DARE the Dems to nominate HRC next time. She'll go down to ignominous defeat as well. Who can they run?
8 comments:
Winning is it, but numbers are interesting. In terms of the popular vote, W at 58,362,682 is the all-time champ, even outdoing the former champ Reagan'84, who had 54,455,000. But Kerry is now SECOND all-time, at 54,843,976, (also outdoing Gore 2000).
Kerry lost (barring unforseen circumstances) but he didn't get trashed. Where he won, he won decisively. That means the Dems have shown real strength (even though winner takes all). That bodes well for the future.
Have you looked at Bush/Dukakis? Duke only carried 10 states, only carrying NY,MA and RI IN HIS OWN REGION! He couldn't even carry CA! He was TRASHED!! (Congress was Dem then, though) And Clinton won 4 years later.
It won't happen, but if a foul scandal or severe setback hits Bush soon, the Electoral College could elect Kerry. In fact, nothing final really happened last night! The Electors meet (I think) in early Jan.
It's ludicrous that Rove et al were pining for the networks to crown Bush, as if that were the constitutionally approved method. I like Kerry's refusal to concede because it highlights the fact that election day is only the beginning of the official process. He doesn't HAVE to concede anything election night if victory is still mathematically possible. It doesn't matter how squirmy in his chair W gets.
(In 1988 an elector from WV voted for Bentsen for Pres, Duke for veep - that's in the official record)
The silkiest silver lining here is that as Iraq implodes, the Abu Garaib investigation looks at higher-ups, the Haliburton criminal probe gains steam, the deficit balloons, etc, it will be Bush who will be dragged through his own dung.....and the Repulsicans will have run things for long enough that they won't be able to blame Democrats (who will quite possibly look like SAVIORS!!!).
I vote for "fuck it." Lets unplug our computers and watch movies and read books for the next four years. Though I should be exited about the sadistic pleasure of watching W try to manage Iraq, I'm so disappointed in my fellow Americans right now I can barely speak. I mean...they LOVE him.
Mark Crispin Miller said it best: Fascism rides into town wrapped in the flag. It is usually welcomed with open arms.
I agree there are positive indicators for the Democrats, but they're deceptively positive. Kerry and candidates like him don't generate enthusiasm for themselves, they can only generate an object of support for those who enthusiastically DON'T like the other guy. Kerry didn't gain anything, and barely held easy Gore states, and got--let's be honest--smashed in Florida compared to Gore, and smashed nationwide compared to Gore. The Dems have to look at how they do business. Get rid of McAuliffe, and stop being the guys who simply stand against things and figure out what they want to do. The more centrist they act the more they get spanked. How many times do they have to learn this lesson? Kerry is a little bit right on a whole lot of issues, and he pussed out on Iraq and Abu Ghraib and didn't pounce out of fear of offending people. Meanwhile, Americans love W. because he doesn't care about offending people--that's why the Right has taken off the last twenty years. Americans love "in your face" and "fuck you" politics. The Democrats can't bring themselves to play that game. They'd better learn.
I can see taking a sort of sick glee in watching W. try and fix his various messes, but I can't hope things go badly in Iraq--it's exactly the sort of morally reprehensible "win at all costs" tactic I ascribe to Karl Rove. The Dem party needs a shake-up. Clinton will get destroyed if she runs. If gas goes up further, if the new economy continues eating old jobs, if inflation blows up because of the deficit, if there's another terrorits attack--these things will bring Democratic votes. But can they continue to run a party whose only true slogan is "vote for us, we're not quite Republicans"? They need re-tooled messages, re-tooled leaders, and urgent "introspectin'."
Kerry did the right thing today. End the agony.
I'm with the first noter -- no way did Kerry get "spanked". A wartime incumbent is no pushover, no matter how much like a simpering monkey he may look.
Liberals DO have to wrest control of the nation's "morality" from the conservative's hands, I think, if they want to move forward.
Personally, as doom and gloomy as the library is today, I feel all fired up. I'm mad that Kerry conceded so early.
If I'm not mistaken the first commentator was The Earl of Pembroke.
Seems silly to debate this--we're all basically on the same team. BUT:
I think it's a "spank" when all incumbent indicators are negative--job approval under 50, more than 50% against the war, more than 50% think the country is on the wrong track, more than 50% have serious economic concerns, there are numerous scandals and examples of cronyism and conflicts of interest and the biggest margin of victory since Dukakis gets opened up all over Kerry's ass (I can't imagine using a Dukakis comparison as "good" news. Look! Kerry did better than Dukakis! Uh, not impressive. He lost by a similar margin in the popular vote. Sure, Clinton won four years later, but only because Perot ate up 19,000,000 red-staters and left GHWB in the lurch). Not only did Kerry lose by a big margin (granted small as a percent of total votes, and close electorally), but his crew LOST seats in the House and Senate at a time when the Supreme Court is prime for the stackin'. I'd say that's a good old-fashioned red-state whompin'! He should slink back to the Senate and hide out for a while. Some seats lost were to scary extremists, too--Thune, Coburn, deMint. Those dudes are out there. Yeah, Salazar and Obama are really great news--and each are key to re-energizing lefties down the road. We need new, passionate, articulate blood to bring this group of pansies along.
There are what, still five Senate races pending? Let's pray for miracles.
Your point about Perot is right on - he took votes from GHWB, giving that election to Clinton. Then C faced a lame opponent in Dole.
I only mention Dukakis to evoke the Dems under Reagan/Bush. Dukakis got 111 electoral votes, but Mondale only got 13!! He was CREAMED!
The Dems consistently do better than that now. Kerry got almost 4,000,000 more votes than Gore, though he only got 252 electoral votes, to Gore's 266. (I'm not sure what the difference is, since Kerry picked up New Hampshire compared to Gore. Maybe Gore had Iowa?)
Today the media was full of "morality" as a deciding factor in the election, but they seem oblivious to the electoral maps of both Gore and Kerry. Regional character seems paramount, with the sophisticated northeast, great lakes area, and pacific coast against the meatbrain south and vacant west. Guess they can't point that out.....
It may be that the American Christian mindset puts a person beyond the pale of reason - how could ANYONE prefer W's false, self-decieved "certainties" to Kerry, even with his faults?
There's a lot of bullshit psychoanalysis of the electorate going on. CNN and MSNBC were bloviating about how the people in blue states only "look down on" people in the red states when they fly from the Northeast to the West Coast for elite vacations, and that the red states were getting revenge for being second class citizens for so long.
What? Since when have the red states gotten a raw deal? They get much more federal money per head than any of the densely populated rich states on the coasts. They get much more terrorism money in Wyoming per capita than in likely targets like NYC--all of this is bullshit. I KNOW red-staters; they're in my family. THEY look down on US.
Charlie Cook said Kerry has no idea how to hang out with NASCAR folk, but NASCAR folk fully understand blue-staters and elites. WHAT? That's all bullshit. There are many red states that are only a few percentage points from blue--the Dems (or another progressive party preferably) need a whirlwind out of the dustbowl a la Bryant or Eugene Debs; someone who can talk to the salt of the earth without bullshitting them about the true conservative ideology, someone who can do so without acting pompous and elitist and disparaging people's Flat Earth or Creationist beliefs.
I worry the Senate could completely go off the rails in '06, and I know the Dems are going to be WAY cautious about standing up now, and that really frightens me.
Harper's had an article calling for the abolition of the Senate and the electoral collge. I'm for it. We'll see how long red-staters would vote Repug without their lavish subsidies--BTW, since when did the Repugs become the Kings of Porc? The entire political spectrum is all fucked over.
Oh--the difference between Kerry/Gore--Nevada and New Mexico at least turned red this time. I didn't hear if Iowa and WI were called either way yet.
Post a Comment