Once, a group of us were out in the desert plinking at cans and bottles. One newer member who had borrowed a pistol said he was out of ammo and was going back to his truck. Another shooter pointed out that the slide on his pistol was all the way forward, instead of locked back, indicating there was still a round in the chamber. The kid said it was empty and holstered his weapon, which promptly discharged and put a bullet in his foot. Sometimes we ignore the advice of experts at our own peril.
After the election, I tried to make sense of the results. I knew it would be close, and thought Bush would win again because of the poll results. I understood that Karl Rove did a great job of getting out the conservative vote. I didn't believe in security moms, or the moral issue. What I wanted to understand was how Middle America voted against it's own economic interests and kept Bush in power.
I think Bush supporters come in three basic groups; Vested interests, - those that will profit from a Bush Presidency. This is almost all big business, owners of media, defense industries, lobbyists, insurance and drug companies, military leaders, etc. Next were ideologues - staunch Republicans, Neo-cons, fiscal conservatives, generally, people that believe the government should not be involved in sweeping social programs, and that capitalism works best with minimum restraint, and that the best national defense is a strong international offense. Then there is the religious right, what the media have named Evangelicals for convenience. They have more complex motives, and were harder to figure out than the first two groups. Many voted for Bush simply because he went to Christian church, prayed regularly, and talked the religious talk. That was the only thing that mattered to them.
Others saw Bush as a man to bring America back to what they considered to be it's traditional roots, the days of the Eisenhower presidency, when workers were hardworking and loyal, when a man stood on his own two feet and didn't accept government handouts, etc., when the government didn't waste taxpayer's hard earned money coddling lazy bums that didn't want to work for a living. When people went to church, and obeyed the law, and were patriotic. When police protected citizens against prostitutes, gamblers, drug dealers, pornographers, pedophiles, and homosexuals. When doctors were prosecuted for performing abortions, and killers were arrested, tried convicted and electrocuted within a year or two. The good ol' days.
Still others saw Bush as the man to bring about the Second Coming of Christ; The Rapture, Armageddon, the End of Days.
Fear of terrorism, fear of poverty in retirement, fear of unemployment were powerful motivators for Americans. Both parties used fear extensively. The Republicans were better at it. Also, Kerry was an enigma to many Americans. The Bush persona was a familiar, known quantity. Many Kerry supporters said they were not happy with Kerry, but they were firmly opposed to Bush. Voters that did not delve into the issues deeply took the safer course and kept Bush in.
Clinton had campaigned on the economy issue, and won. The economy was going downhill when Kerry ran, but for some reason, many Americans seemed willing to accept a poor job market, high medical expenses, huge deficits, a disastrous war, a huge loss of world prestige, federal regulation of school teachers, lower wages, loss of overtime pay, less bankruptcy protection, more power to HMO insurance carriers, and drug companies, etc. These issues are usually vital to the middle class, but not this time. WHY?
I have read of some changing demographics in the US. The Evangelicals are moving out from the suburbs around the cities, and building their own communities that appear to be self-sustaining. Raising their standard of living no longer seems very important. They seem willing to live at a lower standard economically, in order to reinforce what has long been considered traditional family values. These have often been compared to such 50's TV families as the Cleavers, of Leave it to Beaver, or the Andersons of Father Knows Best. We didn't know what the fathers did, they went to work at the office in the morning, and earned a living. Their careers didn't seem important, or the money. They would come home every evening to their real job, which was to raise good kids with the help of the mother, who stayed home and took care of the housework, shopping, cooking, and child rearing. The husband/father was the leader of the family and the repository of wisdom, like the old tribal chieftains or clan leaders.
This idealization of American life takes place in the nuclear family, rather than the extended family, which seems to contradict social theory. The traditionalists don't seem to be bothered by this contradiction; they seem confident that they can recreate the 50's now that they have the brute political force to legislate morality.
Is this such a bad goal to work towards? Wouldn't you rather have the Cleavers and the Anderson's as your neighbors? I know I would rather have them than, say, crack-heads or bikers. Maybe this movement is a good thing after all. Is it possible to remake America into the TV fantasy life of the 50's? Wouldn't we all be better off if we worked to improve the quality of our lives instead of working to make the Almighty Dollar?
Jesus told us that it is foolish to lay up treasures on earth, and forget the Kingdom of God. - Luke 12. Even if we don't believe in the same scripture as our neighbors, we would be better off if we devoted more time to our own personal and spiritual growth, and less time to supporting the economy.
It's The Economy
But we do need to make money. Many of the things we need can be obtained by exchanging money for them. But do we have to continue exchanging money for things we don't need, or even want? For example: Go into a department store before Christmas, and look at the temporary displays. The goods are no longer displayed by product, We see different kiosks mixing electronics, audio, video, personal items, clothing, toys, gag gifts, etc, all together.
There are different kiosks all over the stores. They are grouped by two common factors. The first one is price. One stack is priced at $19.95, another at $29.95, another at $39.95, and so on. The second factor is that no one really needs any of these items. People could spend their lives without them and never miss them. Or they wouldn't miss them if the advertising industry didn't remind them all day long of how inadequate and empty their lives are without these products.
But these products are not for the shopper. They are intended to be given away. They are grouped by price because so many of us buy gifts not because we want to enrich someone's life, but because we "owe" them a gift, and we know how much we want to spend on that person; we have placed a cash value on their worth.
I know that talk like this is anti-business and anti-progress, but must we make and buy and give junk to each other just to keep our economy going? Most of this junk comes from Asia, and does not help the US economy anyway. Why must we buy, buy, buy to keep the wheels of industry turning. We end up chasing the buck, and staying permanently in debt, and never getting ahead because we have to buy a bigger car and a bigger house and more junk to put in it.
The Andersons and the Cleavers didn't chase the buck and obsess about money, because they weren't real people, living in a real world. But their audience lived in the real world, and often commuted to jobs they hated, and were in debt and argued with their spouses and kids, and drank too much, and got addicted to drugs, and got abortions, and got sick and got fired, and God knows what else.
Who wouldn't want to live in TV land? So if we can do it, more power to us. If we want to vote for politicians that will promise to stop abortions, and keep homosexuals out of the Boy Scouts, and crack down on pornographers, and make sure families are headed by a man and woman that are married to each other, and let our kids say the Pledge of Allegiance and prayers in school, I say go for it. We have a right to pursue our dreams, even if the results are contrary to our own economic self-interest.
But do we have the right to harm other's economic interests when they don't want to pursue our dreams; if they want to pursue their own goals, even if they are secular and not directed towards the fantasy world of 50's sitcoms? We believe in majority rule, but we also believe in minority rights. At least, we used to. Why should a group decide on the lifestyle and income level of people outside the group?
The Moral Issue.
Red Staters say the election was decided on morality and character. The winner, George Bush, embodies the morality of the majority of Americans, so they say. They have given him a mandate to enforce morality not only on the 48% of Americans that voted against him, but on the rest of the world as well. What are some of these moral issues?
That no woman may have an abortion, or use birth control that damages an ovum.
That no one receiving funds from the Federal Government may tell any person in the world anything about birth control except to abstain from sex.
That it is a crime to tell a teenager medical facts about sexually transmitted diseases.
That government officials who sanction torture and murder of prisoners should be rewarded with medals, honors, and high government jobs.
That the church can force public school to teach intelligent design, but the public cannot force parochial schools to teach evolution.
That booksellers and librarians can be forced to give government officials lists of books read by our citizens, even books that are legally published and legally obtained.
That any law passed by the majority cannot be challenged by the people, or overruled by our courts.
That the entire Earth and all it's resources are the sole property of the present generation, and that future generations have no more than a token right to any of it.
That two men cannot live together, or two women cannot live together with the same legal rights enjoyed by a man and woman living together.
That journalists can be imprisoned for refusing to reveal the name of government officials that broke the law, but government officials cannot.
That any government official or lobbyist, or corrupt businessman can escape punishment simply by saying, "I don't remember."
That the government can fine a company for blatantly lying about its product, but a politician can lie whenever he wants to without fear of legal consequences.
That complete strangers, with no medical knowledge whatsoever, may decide whether or not a person in a vegetative state may live, or be allowed to die in dignity.
That insurance company clerks may decide who will get medical treatment, and who will not, and who shall live and who shall die.
The Brains Issue
But that doesn’t explain why people voted against their own interests. Is it possible that despite of the concerns of intellectuals, Americans felt rich enough and safe enough to pursue the ideal society?
Or were they just plain frightened of the future, and wanted prevent it from happening?
It has been said that conservatives are pessisimistic about the future, and liberals look forward with optimism. Is it that simple?
Or is Ron Suskind correct with his famous quote from a Bush aide (rumored to be Karl Rove)?
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' - NYT Magazine, Oct 17, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=7&ei=5090&en=890a96189e162076&ex=1255665600&partner=rssuserland
Could Rove, Bush, Cheney et al. truly have created a new reality? One that was utterly unpredictable because old style fact-based logic was operating on an entirely different set of natural laws? It seems like fantasy, but Bush did win a second term.
The most likely explanation is much simpler, and one almost everyone seems to accept. That Bush was elected to office because he wasn't smart. He was not the boring, smarty pants Al Gore, or the boring, smarty pants John Kerry. He wasn't smarter than the average voter, so he made them feel comfortable. After all, wasn't the central issue of both of his campaigns that he was the kind of guy you would want to sit down and drink a beer with? Isn't that why he "won" the "debates"? He was a regular Joe like us. So what if he went to Yale and Harvard, he didn't do well at either. So what if he ran businesses and baseball teams, he screwed those up and had to get bailed out by his daddy's rich friends. If the voters wanted to elect a drinking buddy to be the President, then by God they would, and they would show up those elitist lefties at the same time. So they did.
11/23/04
