|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5810 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bush Mandate: reality or manmade myth | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you could be right. I was just talking to a bushie, and he said that Kerry went too negative in the campaign and turned people off.
the mental disconnect with reality is stunning. I thought when Al Qaqaa came out that it was over for them, as there could be no question on the lack of plan and lack of follow-up and it was Kerry "denigrating the troops" ... ? but there is only so much of this that people can take. I have to believe this. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Read this:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1108-34.htm bit of deja vu? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6465 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: I don't know. I would like to believe it also but I don't. Most people are selfish and unless something directly affects them, they won't lift a finger. In the case of 40% of eligible voters in the US, they can't even lift their asses to vote. It would probably take a massive attack on various freedoms i.e. overturning Roe v Wade, complete government sponsored religion, instituting the draft to go to war with Iran etc. to really push people to react. Look at Ohio. Even though they were economically hard hit in terms of net job losses relative to other states, they voted for Bush mostly because they are so concerned about gay people getting married. How stupid is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well thats hard for me to really suggest as I am not there and not directly familia with the actual conditions on the ground, only the general case. But to expand: There is not the slightest prospect that any state or coalition of states bar China would have any realistic prospect of confronting the US militarily. The US also has a free nuclear first strike policy these days, also thanks to Bush, so in a very real sense we already have a gun to our heads. It is likely that China will have aircraft carrier task groups in the Atlantic in the next 2 or 3 decades, but it is not likely that China will seek to pick a fight with the US, mostly because it is not likely to consider such necessary. On the economic side of things, I think you over-estimate the hegemony of capitalism. The competitive ethic in capitalism means that dog-eats-dog necessarily triumphs over most capitalist solidarity. It is definitely true that presently existing formal methods have a tendency to be suborned to american interests, but this is only a temporary phenomenon; as in so many other wars, if a serious break occurred between the US and other states, the capitalists in those other states are highly likely to themselves fall back on local nationalism. Nobody from out side can really influence the domestic US political process, and may even aggravate the situation (as per Guardian letters to clarke county). The American left has to reconsitute itself, and it seems to me that this will first require the american left be destroyed. At the moment the democrat-headed left is operating on a tight United Front principle seeking to unite all anti-republican strands into one movement. This is often a sound strategy, but a united front can also backfire by diluting its own argument. This appears to me to be the present situation; in the face of a prospective Nader candidacy, rather than engage with Naders positions and attempt to win those voters over to the demoracic platform, they merely asserted that this candidacy was irresponsible for weakening the United Front. In effect, the American left has been reduced to trailing the agenda set by the right. The dogma of winning in the centre has lead to such a moderation of criticism that Deomcrats cannot present a real political narrative, cannot present their own PURPOSE. Such debate as exists on these topics inevitably seem to revolve around interpreting the holy scripture of the constitution and the declaration of independance, and thus advancing a claim to "true" American values. But in so doing the rights argument to American exceptionalism and manifest destiny is strengthened, because this is all inward- and backward-looking, reinforcing America's self-perception as the perfect state. The American left has to be brave enough to challenge American truisms not on the basis of American purism but on the basis of actual political criticism. It must pursue goals other than merely the seizure of state power; it must seek to actually persuade, to project its argument, to make an actual argument that theirs is the better way and why, to change the locus of the political centre rather than to pander to it. -- As an aside, I know that Trotsky wrote some pamphlets on America, having been active and Philadelphia, and os went lkooking for any interesting remarks he may have made. This strikes me as an interesting perspective on the problems of American working class consciousness, as exemplified by people pointing out that many of Bush's supporters are probably voting themselves out of jobs: This from a speech in 1940 on 'Some Questions on American Problems':
quote: This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-10-2004 10:31 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, he wasn't judged on his political record, he was judged on his moral record. Exit polling, if they are assumed to be accurate, put "moral values" as the number one issue. The number one issue was not the economy, the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national debt, lowering/raising taxes, etc. It was whether or not the public thought one candidate had better morals than the other. As long as rural America can outvote urban areas this will continue to be the trend. The Republicans have done a "good job" of distracting rural America from the real issues and caused them to focus on such things as the "evil liberal media", "activist judges", "gay marriage", "third term abortions", etc. This was not a vote on political prowess, but on moral agendas and religious affiliation. Talking to many christians here in Idaho, sermons from the pulpit swayed as many votes as rhetoric from the stump.
quote: Actually, the country is pretty much 50/50 on whether or not Bush's "achievements" are good. The "moral" vote is what pushed him over the edge, not his foreign and domestic strategies.
quote: I agree, Bush has a right to do anything he wants within the law. However, should he? What he does following this elections speaks to the character of Bush rather than the powers of office. Even after this election, it is easy to see that the nation is divided right down the middle, both ideologically and geographically. A president should reflect the condition of his country while representing the majority. We'll see what happens.
quote: Yep, this is an interesting time indeed. The question that lingers is if the far right/neo-cons can beat a liberal moderate. And even a bigger question, can you be a liberal moderate in today's world without being labelled a far-left liberal by the Republican smear campaigns. Is there a way to portray a moderate position from either side in todays divisive political culture? I don't know, but I for one hope there is. Right now, I would even support a moderate Republican if that would result in better foreing and domestic policies.
quote: It may not matter. Other countries will be subdued under Bush's policies whether they like it or not. Just ask Iraq how this works.
quote: The irony is that Bush will not bend to the will of the UN, and yet one of our reasons for invading Iraq were UN resolutions. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander, it appears. If Bush has been given an overriding mandate, then the American people have also bought into this hypocrisy (unfortunately).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5810 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I thought your post was well written and to some extent thought-provoking, but I did not come to agree with it as much as Mammuthus.
Bush certainly does have a valid and powerful mandate at this point. I think you are overstating this. He has a mandate just as every president does. And his mandate is clearly more secure than it was after the previous election, since last time it appeared fraudulent. The point is members of his administration are using this "mandate" term as if he was just recognized king by the vast majority of americans and anything he says goes. When in actuality he merely has a clear mandate to be their representative, unlike last time, and due to a paucity of third parties broke 50%. In addition, the republican party as a whole got a clear mandate from the american public to be the representatives of this nation. Yet this does not translate to widely or overwhelmingly popular, it was simply a clear majority. There is a difference. People opposed to Republican representation alone is quite sizable. I mean 49% of the voting population is not small. And furthermore while the Reps have been given a mandate to represent our interests, there was NO mandate for any specific policy. If one looked at the wide field of candidates and policies offered, there was quite a divide within the Republican Party itself. Indeed in the other Bush threads you can already see some Reps stating that they wanted Bush for X, but are going to fight against him on Y. There are the traditional Reps and the neo-con Reps. While banded together they ensured a Rep victory (mandate for representation), internally they will have to fight it out on specific policies, (thus robbing policy of any secure mandate, much less a popular one).
With its high levels of homophobia, racism, imperialism and narcissism, Bush is a truer representation of the actuality of American politics. Delusional Americaphiles need to start dealing with the US as its behaviour shows it to be, not according what it's rhetorical self-image claims it to be. I don't want to restart an argument we had earlier on the nature of america, but I will say this is another overstatement. In all of this you have laid on a bunch of moral negatives, and act as if the fact that 51% of a population voted Republican, it proves those negatives are real for that population. Voting republican does not mean anything in and of itself. It is clear that there are a number of people with the characteristics you described. But you cannot say that all 51% have them. The reason is that you missed something on that list: political expediency. While that is perhaps a moral failing it is more the failing to correct a potentially harmful issue, than one of going out and hurting others by choosing to enact harmful legislation. There were many who voted Rep just to make sure their party won, despite heavy reservations regarding the actual policies of this administration. Log Cabin Reps are a great example. So are John McCain and Schwarzenneger who Bush had as his main get out the vote guys. They are clearly opposed to Bush's moral policies (Schwarz even getting a bill passed during the election that is 180 degrees opposite Bush policy). What you saw in this election is that there was a huge number of people that were apathetic to voting (40%), and out of the remaining voters 49% clearly opposed Republican representation and Bush's policies in specific, while 51% supported their party right or wrong. How many actually support neocon policies versus traditional Rep policies remains to be seen. It should be very interesting to watch the fight. In the end I was more dismayed with the amount of apathy and selling-out of principle for party, than the general support of ultraright agendas. That is because the former two allow the latter to make headway it would not see otherwise. This message has been edited by holmes, 11-10-2004 12:28 PM This message has been edited by holmes, 11-10-2004 12:35 PM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
But I thought he was heterosexual. Ya never know, huh?
Dog is my copilot. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3918 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
*insert something about manifest destiny and missionaries and such*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
heh
stuart carlson:
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}} |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
contracycle writes:
quote: Like hell they must. The point of being the loyal opposition is to be in opposition. If Bush is going to take his re-election as license to do whatever the hell he wants and completely wreck the very idea of what it means to be an American, then it is up to those who oppose him to stand up to him and fight against him, to convince those in the majority that they have backed the wrong horse. Otherwise, what's the point of having anybody else in government? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Loudmouth writes:
quote: Um, it's those same "exit polls" that said Kerry won the election. If they were absolutely wrong about who the voters voted for, why would they be right about why they voted? If you look at the states that had the huge "moral value" on the ballot (and let's stop beating around the bush...we're talking about equal rights for gay people), Bush did not do any better this time around than he did last time. Let's stop blaming gays for everything, shall we?
quote: Bullshit. Assuming the vote is valid (and from what I am hearing about discrepancies regarding the black-box voting that took place, I'm not so sure it is), it was a vote about terrorism. The term "moral values" means absolutely nothing. There was no breakdown about who these "moral values" people voted for, only that that's why they voted the way they did. And since those same exit polls showed Kerry winning, then we can reasonably conclude that they were voting for Kerry's vision of American where gay's aren't equal but at least aren't villified, abortion is legal, etc. You can't cherry pick the results you like and ignore the rest of the context. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, I agree with that. But you must understand, it doesn't matter at all. You say that the Republicans distracted the public to moral rather than political issues; this is true, but no doubt some Republicans would have argued the exact opposite, that "evil liberals" are trying to distract the discourse away from moral issues. Standing on moral principle is the central claim of Conservative politics, the most famous in recent british political history being John Majors return to "family values" - and yet we have learned a decade later that he was simultaneously carrying out an affair with Edwina Currie. A central Conservative argument across time and georgraphy is that modernity is corrupt and we should return to the good old days of strict public morality and discipline and short military haircuts. It is not good enough to merely assert that this argument is not a legitimate political topic; that idea is itself a political position which must be presented before the electorate.
quote: Thats true, but implausible. This same political strand has persistantly argued against affirmative action on the basis that it subordinates the majority to the minority. So, there does not seem any prospect at all that Bush will feel at all beholden to ethically represent the ideas that the public voted against. If they were willing to slander Kerry's military record, the very thing that should have procured him legitimacy in conservative eyes, then I don't think there is any hope of a generous administration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well thats great stuff but what does it mean? That you write to your congress-critter? Dedicate yourself to making sure a democrat fills any vacancies that arise in congress or senate? Start working now for election 2008? Fantastic - Bush still has 4 years of untramelled freedom to exercise the political mandate he has or claims to have. You can't challenge that mandate without walking right into a criticism of being anti-democratic, and probably in the present climate, anti-american.Bush can realistically present you with a(nother) fait accompli and then return to his life of corporate luxury. This is not to say you cannot argue - but this all you will be able to do for 4 years. Even if you persuaded a simple majority of americans that Bush's agenda was counterproductive, you still could not dispose of him without an impeachment process as far as I am aware.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5810 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It is not good enough to merely assert that this argument is not a legitimate political topic; that idea is itself a political position which must be presented before the electorate. Excellent observation.
This same political strand has persistantly argued against affirmative action on the basis that it subordinates the majority to the minority. So, there does not seem any prospect at all that Bush will feel at all beholden to ethically represent the ideas that the public voted against. Also an interesting and excellent observation. While I agree that this is an indication that Bush and his cabinet will not even try to represent, or compromise with, people that do not share his one tracked vision, this does not mean their issues will go completely ignored. It has been suggested, and it may be true, that Bush will try to use the next four years to shape a "legacy". In other words to erase the memory of his first four years. If this comes true he may even take on, or at least not attack, certain moderate policies. But more than this, there are a number of Republicans that simply have no connection to the Bush neocon platform. These people will fight for moderate to liberal causes. Schwarzenneger has already done this, significantly undercutting Bush's federal policy on a highly conservative "moral" issue: stem cell research. He is also clearly behind abortion rights and certain gay initiatives. This will be a battle between Republican agendas for the future, and more than likely the traditional republicans will be reaching out to moderates and liberals... from within and without the Rep party... to fight the neocon Reps. I want to say that while I think you are making more of this election than can be accurately assessed (and only four years down the road will we know what the real results were), I applaud your analytical style. Your posts since the election... most of them anyway... have been with a measured tone and free from the overt rhetoric which hobbled your past posts. I'm enjoying them quite a bit. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Actually my argument is that they are real for MORE than 51% of the population, which is exactly what cripples the democratic programme. EVEN many democrats hold conservative, reactionary ideas that criticise affirmative action, pour scorn on progressive movements like feminism or unionisation, and uncritically repeat McCarthyist propaganda. The centre of American politics is substantially to the right of the centre of European politics, and the dogma of elections being won in the centre means that many ' people are frankly unrepresentated by the democratic platform. The US, or rather individual Americans, has quite a large presence anti-capitalist movement, but who can they vote for? The problem is that the American "left" has bought too much of the rights argument and cannot establish a credible alternative. The anti-communist hysteria of the last century destroyed any cogent leftist programme and replaced it with a set of nationalistic truisms. Thus, Kerry was reduced to offering to do he same as Bush only more elegantly - for which he was justifiably laughed at. What difference would a democratic vistory have made anyway? I throw your breakdown of the voters back at you - even if the Democrats had won by as slim a margin as Bush has, the war in Iraq would go on, the phoney war against terror would go on, American imperilaism and base expansion would go on, affirmative action would still be criticised as PC, unions would still be criticised as "labour monopolies", American capitalism would remain unchallenged. Frankly, little or nothing would change. There would be some tinkering here and there, an increase in minimum wage or health care perhaps, but the ideological centre would remain unmoved. A guardian commentary on the state or maralistic politics in the US:"We must reclaim morality from reactionary fetishists" We must reclaim morality from reactionary fetishists | Jackie Ashley | The Guardian
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024