I know there have been a lot of calls from the Republicans and faux-Democrats to the Democrats and liberals to work “with” them, and many of these calls have been legitimate; unfortunately for the Republicans who are fair-minded and really want to work with the left to maintain at least a semblance of fairness, those in charge don’t give a damn. This call was also given out in 2000, and the Democratic party leadership, despite warnings from their base, followed almost lock-step. To repeat this mistake again would be foolish. President Bush has already declared that he will work with the people who “share his goals.” erm… doesn’t this mean only 51% of the people who voted? Just a tip: Yes, you won the election; yes, you gained the most votes of any president-elect; on the other hand, more people voted against you than any other sitting President, and you won by the narrowest margins of any sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Don’t get too cocky about your “mandate“.
Now, what sparked this entry? It wasn’t the “share my goals” thing, or the mandate thing, or Bush applying a 1 question rule at his press conference; it was this little gem that Atrios dug-up. Now, I read the whole thing, so I understand it is partly tongue-in-cheek; but the author admits ” it is nevertheless serious in pointing out the cancer that continues to threaten our body politic.” What is that cancer, you might ask? Why, it’s liberals of course! Yes, the same liberals who apparently have captives and only represented about, oh, 49% of the vote. Granted, the guy who wrote the “expulsion” thing isn’t serious about the expulsion, but combine that with his admission that we are a “cancer” on culture and the calls to have “the Democratic Party virtually obliterated and left as a rump of people like Stephanie Herseth who both mostly agree with us anyways and are easy on the eyes.” (also from Atrios)
I would be happy to work with anyone (Republicans, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Democrats, Greens, Communists, Socialists, whoever), but this eliminationist attitude from the right makes it impossible to approach or compromise without looking over my shoulder for the coming knife in the back.
Oh, and one last thought, from the Human Events article:
* BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering “yes, ma’am” and “yes, sir.”
* GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers.
ok, let’s make sure we get this straight: whites good, ethnic diversity bad; Protestants good, religious tolerance and diversity bad; vigorously heterosexual (and forcing that on others) good, sexually liberal (or allowing others sexual liberty) bad; single-family farms good [note: i agree with this, but most farming in this country is now run by corporations, so this is just a stupid argument], condos bad, expensive real estate bad [you mean like Bush’s ranch?!], public sprawl bad [I agree, but his apparent solution to this is to get rid of the people there, while people on the left have actually advanced ideas to try and solve the problem]; economically sound good [like Ohio! er… wait… Mississippi! wait no, they’re almost 3rd-world… ok, I have no idea wtf he’s talking about], cyber business bad [i guess that’s why he posted this ON THE INTERNET!!!!]; English speaking good, other languages bad; respect good [like saying “yes sir”, “yes ma’am”, and “go fuck yourself”!], loud talking bad [like Zell Miller!].
Not only is this bs (as well as intolerant), it’s also disparging towards a large number of Bush voters. What about the minorities who voted for Bush? What about the non-Protestants, or the gays, or the business leaders who’ve driven their companies into the ground and need Bush’s high tariffs, or the suburban voters, or people without respect, like Dick Cheney and Zell Miller? And you wonder why we won’t work with you? You don’t even respect or work with the people who vote for you!
UPDATE: David Neiwert has an excellent post on the subject.
Respecting those from rural areas, those who hold deep religious beliefs, doesn’t force progressives to compromise their own beliefs or standards. It simply means being part of a democracy, which is enriched by its diversity. Certainly traditional rural values should have a place among all that diversity that liberals are fond of celebrating.
I second that.
Share This
Loading ...