Like so many others in the blogoverse, I am bummed by the outcome of the Presidential election. As a historical libertarian-leaning Republican, it was not easy for me to say that I supported and voted for John Kerry. However, in the choice we had available to us in this election, I believed he was clearly the better choice that reflected my ideals. An intrusive, moralistic government racking up runaway deficits and reversing a trend towards freer global trade and engaging in willy-nilly diplomacy (where they engaged in diplomacy at all) were not qualities of which I wanted to see four more years. Well, we have four more years of George Bush, so what kind of presidency will his second term represent?
NPR’s Morning Edition has been running a series of stories on how the religious right played a major role in the Bush victory. Evidently the larger Republic majority in the House and Senate is even more conservative. The Washington Post ran an article this morning on the question of what role moral values played in the election. The Post seems to speculate that those in Washington missed the importance of same-sex marriage for that 20-plus percent of voters for whom “moral values” were the deciding factor. There are a number of leaders of religious right organizations quoted in the article, and in general many have a sense that these people are going to look to collect from President Bush during his second term for their support. With more conservative legislators behind them, this concerns me.
This is the deck of cards weve been dealt by this election. Rather than continue to cry about it, we need to pick ourselves up and articulate our issues and our concerns better. For one, the scare quotes around moral values are accurate, because I dont hold for an instant that anti-abortion, anti-gay religious leaders hold a monopoly on morality, which is unfortunately something we are ceding to them in our choice of language.
Secondly, I really feel like this issue is bigger than simply Democrat or Republican. I dont like the ideological tilt that either parties are taking. The middle has continued to suffer during the past election cycles as moderate Republicans are picked off by the Democratic base and vice versa. Were losing the great middle in both parties that enables problems to be solved by reaching across the aisle.
The middle needs to stand up. How are we going to do that?
I think we’re living in dangerous times. The problems we are facing a large, almost overwhelming. Since nobody can offer a convincing solution to them, the vote is evenly split – no candidate will get a true majority unless his solutions offer a real advantage over the other guys that (and that’s the kicker!) the average Joe can understand. So what works if you can’t convince people rationally? Emotional arguments. Polarizing people. Unfortunately, the historical situation that is closest to this seems to be Germany in the 1920′s. The only difference is that Germany had more than two parties – but all the same, nobody could win a clear majority. There are other similarities, too – the educated population is being marginalized and clams up. Lots of ordinary citizens engage in politics. The economy is in trouble. Poverty is on the rise. The thing that scares me most is what happened then. Large businesses picked a candidate that seemed good for them, and backed him relentlessly. It all sounds eerily similar. And the only thing that *might* get the middle back is telling them that this time, we’re walking this path knowing where it leads. We need to stand up for our beliefs and make sure that the middle, not the fringes, control the destiny of the United States. (Then again, I’m a born pessimist. Things might not be quite as bad as I make them out – but at least that shakes people out of their lethargy)
Robert Kaiser, the Associate Editor over at the Post, said something that I had not thought much about, but I think helped cause the big Democratic losses in the South. He said that Bill Clinton basically ruined things for the Dems. He noted that Clinton will never be a “Ronald Reagan for the Dems”. Reagan became an icon for people to rally around, while Clinton became an embarassment for the party, so much so that Al Gore had to basically run against him in 2000. I know Erksine Bowles lost the North Carolina Senate Race in part because of his connection to Clinton, and I think as much as Clinton helps in the “blue” states, he hurt Kerry a lot in the “red-leaning” battleground states. I mean if anyone is a symbol of moral decline, it would have to be Bill Clinton and by connection, the Democratic Party. And apparently morality was the big issue this year. Now mind you, I do not blame Clinton for Kerry losing the election. Kerry probably did the best he could given the circumstances of the race, and a number of factors that did not favor him like the quasi-wartime atmosphere we are in right now. I am not dissapointed in the same way you are August. I certainly did not like the harsh anti-gay tones the Senate races in Kentucky, Oklahoma and South Carolina took, and it bothers me a great deal that people like that are Senators now. However, I never was that wild over Kerry. President Bush was my governor before he was President, and I have to say that I respect him a great deal. He truly did work with the Democrats to draft legislation, and got along with them fairly well. I think he has made some serious mistakes as President, but I hope now that he will take the time to correct them. No matter what his second term is going to be hampered by the huge deficits of the past few years and some raw partisan feelings on both sides. I am reserving judgment until I see how he decides to govern and whether he truly wants to bring the parties together and perhaps at least try to tamp down on the very rightward leanings of some of the Republican members.
I finally tricked Scott into commenting! “Patience. Climb the ladder, Monty.”