|
We’ve all been hearing and reading a lot since
last Tuesday about the “liberal elite”.
Even liberals are throwing the phrase around, as if
it’s a given that liberals—who favor lower
tax rates for the poor, higher tax rates for the rich,
equal rights and opportunities for people of all colors
and sexual orientations, and a government that stays
out of religion—somehow think they’re
better than everyone else. Do I even need to point
out that “liberal elite” is a contradiction
in terms?
The idea that Blue States are elitist for being intolerant
of intolerance is mind-bogglingly dense. The only
elitism in the Kerry campaign was a failure to address
this distortion because they simply did not believe
that a certain portion of the voting public is capable
of rational thought. In all fairness, to some degree,
they were right. But coupled with a fear of scaring
off undecided voters, this allowed Bush to galvanize
his other base (you know, the not-elitist one that
thinks people who don’t practice their faith
burn in hell for all eternity), and more than counteract
the flood of new Democratic voters around the country.
Liberals: Get the hell over it. We, as a political
body, are our ideas, our hopes, and the future of
this country. There’s only way to get over the
great ideological slump that we’ve fallen into:
Admit that we’re right and work to convince
voters. Thinking that your ideas are right isn’t
elitism. Believing it’s not worth trying to
convince others is.
While the endless parade of Cable TV pundits that
have effectively destroyed rational discussion in
this country drone on and on about the “liberal
elite,” they let it be taken as a given that
the “moral majority” in the red states
are somehow not elitist. We have come to believe that
people who think that the rich should pay lower taxes,
gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married (even
in other states… but otherwise they’re
for states’ rights), that those who do not share
their religious convictions are immoral—and
who just 40 years ago were rioting over having to
share the sidewalk with a Darkie—could never
be accused of elitism. What could possibly be more
elitist? Oh, that’s right. John Kerry getting
a haircut. Yet, you can almost see those red states
thumbing their noses: “So you’re too good
to think everyone should be a white, straight Protestant.
Oooh la la!”
And thumb they did. While the outcome of this election
was close in terms of electors, the difference in
the popular vote was incredibly high. Given the doubts
already raised, unless there is a serious investigation
right now, historians aren’t likely to view
this election as any more legitimate than 1960 or
2000. So the good news is that we won’t all
look dumb in the history books; just complacent. The
bad news is that they are likely to agree that Bush
did indeed win the popular vote by a wide margin.
John Kerry would have had an easy walk to the White
House, if this race were decided by politics. But
it wasn’t. It was decided by Evangelical Christians,
many of whom went to the polls with decidedly elitist
world views. “When you say 'radical right' today,”
Barry Goldwater once said, “I think of these
moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson
and others who are trying to take the Republican Party
away from the Republican Party, and make a religious
organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss
politics goodbye.” In 2004, the South and Midwest
gave politics in America the kiss of death. It’s
a sad state of affairs in this country when even liberals
look to Barry Goldwater for inspiration.
Bush managed to end politics as Goldwater knew it
by uniting already solidly Red States against the
solidly Blue ones. In other words, the man who ran
as a “Uniter, not a divider,” has successfully
divided this country more than any time since the
Civil War. More shockingly, he has gleaned all of
this support from non-issues—policies that the
executive branch have no direct say over.
Democrats in this campaign made a fundamental error,
but it wasn’t in being out of touch with the
problems of the average voter. It was a failure to
even attempt convincing voters to see things their
way. Or as I call it, “Practice leadership.”
Rather than disagree with popular opinion on issues
like abortion and gay marriage, arguments they could
easily have won, they chose to sidestep them in favor
of another round of “It’s the economy,
stupid.” Clinton politics somehow didn’t
work in a race with right-wingers portraying John
Kerry as Jane Fonda’s main squeeze and George
W. Bush as Jesus Christ’s chosen one.
Had John Kerry come out (pardon the phrase) and pointed
out the fact that many, many churches and Pastors
in America—including some within the President’s
own Methodist church--were already performing gay
weddings, and that nobody is standing up for their
rights, he may have deflated Bush a little. If he
had pointed out that no American church has ever been
forced to perform weddings for, say, someone not baptized
in their faith, he may have changed some minds.
If he had pointed out that one in nine verses in
the Bible is about the treatment of the impoverished,
and that George W. Bush has done nothing but increased
their ranks while turning his focus to a handful of
questionable verses about homosexuality, he might
even have won over some hearts. But more than that,
these things would have made John Kerry, in the eyes
of the voters, a strong leader and a man of conviction,
even if they disagreed with him. And, since we were
apparently electing a religious leader and not a President,
it would have made him look more Godly, too.
If John Kerry had pointed out that abortion had actually
increased under Bush (after falling dramatically under
Clinton) because of increased poverty and an incredibly
misguided abstinence-only sex education programs,
he might have changed some minds about how to curb
the number of procedures. Clinton used say that abortion
should be “Safe, legal and rare.” Under
Bush, it’s become more dangerous, more likely
to become illegal, and much more common. Give the
man another four years and you won’t be able
to walk a back alley without stumbling over a set
of forceps.
If he had subtly argued that Bush’s strict
respect for human life seems to end immediately after
delivery, he may have taken some steam out of his
support. But, more importantly, these would have shown
John Kerry to be a good, practical leader, contrasted
with an ideologue with negative real-world results.
Since Bush’s stance on every other issue seems
to have been, “Yeah, I’m wrong. But I
know it, and I’m not gonna change,” this
probably would have worked to Kerry’s favor.
But Bush knows how to win anything that isn’t
a rational argument. And he had plenty of prejudiced
(Dare I say, elitist?) rhetoric burning up the campaign
trail. It’s difficult to have a serious policy
discussion while managing to work into every sentence
“Senator from Massachusetts” or “The
Liberal Senator from Massachusetts” as a derogative.
If Kerry made one big mistake during the Presidential
debates, in my opinion, it was not addressing the
President’s cynical and sly attacks on Kerry’s
home state.
When Bush pulled that tired old line out during the
third debate, John Kerry should have said firmly but
politely:
“I would like to remind the President that
he, too, represents the people of Massachusetts, and
tell him that I, for one, find it offensive that he
repeatedly uses its name as a negative. Where would
we, as a country, be without the state of Massachusetts?
I have great respect for your great home state, Mister
President, but there’s a reason they didn’t
call it the Austin Tea Party.
“I also have a message to his supporters carrying
signs that say ‘Taxachusetts:’ Only fourteen
states have a lower tax burden than my home state.
But mostly, I want everyone to know how proud I am
to represent the great state of Massachusetts, and
how unfortunate it is that the President would turn
his back on a state that has given so much to this
country, and that he is supposed to represent, simply
because they didn’t vote for him in 2000. As
President, I plan to represent and respect every state
in the union.”
If you look at Bush’s rhetorical pattern, it
is clear that he repeatedly derides those who disagree
as divisive or “complainers” while simultaneously
viciously dividing the public about non-issues. Finally,
he seems to answer logical arguments with “Can’t
we just disagree?”
Kerry’s reaction should have been a resounding
“No.” If you’re wrong, you can’t
just go on acting like you’re right. At least
not if you’re running the country. And Bush
was wrong about virtually everything.
But this ran a small chance of making undecided voters
uncomfortable, so instead of doing so, John Kerry
decided to stay “Above the fray.” Undecided
voters, however, did not decide this election. Evangelical
Christians, icked out by the thought of boys holding
hands, decided this election. Right-wingers who believe
that abortion is wrong, but that the death penalty
and invasion of Iraq are somehow right (or just less
wrong,) decided this election. Voting machines that
magically gave the President many, many more votes
in precincts without a paper trail decided this election.
If the High Road worked, Karl Rove and George W. Bush
would both have been out of a job a long time ago.
Liberals don’t answer many right-wing arguments
because they simply don’t see the logic behind
some of their right-wing values (largely because there
is none). That’s not elitism. What is elitist
is thinking that people can’t change their minds,
or support a candidate who doesn’t always see
things their way. When, Kerry repeatedly chose the
tactic, “Let’s agree to disagree,”
He allowed voters to fill in the next bit: “And
also, that I’m wrong.” Well, I’ve
got news for John Kerry: you were right.
But if you’re right, you have to stand up for
the facts, not cower away from them. That only works
for Republicans.
|
|
