Charter Member of the Sub-Media

November 10, 2004

Hand-Wringing and Leftward Shifts (Updated) « Politics As Usual »

The big question before the election from my point of view was: if Bush wins, what happens to the angry left? If the people reject liberal Big Government, what happens? People don't just abandon dearly-held beliefs because they are shown to be a slight minority.

We on the right have gloated. Why not? We have the right, because President George Bush won the election on morals and character despite a deliberately slanted coverage from mainstream media, despite lies and exaggerations about his past and his results, despite the mainstream media believing every negative thing about President Bush, no matter how spurrious; and ignoring every negative item about Senator Kerry, no matter how credible.

But if you take a spin around the blogosphere, you'll see a whole bunch of lefties saying they didn't fight dirty enough, they didn't wage a liberal enough campaign; and you see righties disparaging them for it.

It's part of the gloating, sure. But I don't really feel like joining in.

You see, while I think liberals and Democrats are absolutely wrong when they say this election didn't deliver a mandate to George Bush and Republicans, I also disagree with those saying liberals have any reason to change their tactics or ideology.

Here's my thinking: 48% of the population voted for Kerry. Okay, that is far less strong than the 51% that voted for Bush, not just in raw percentage, but also in that a good percentage of Kerry voters would have voted for a half-eaten pot pie if it they thought it would have a chance to defeat George Bush. This Anybody-But-Bush crowd is probably incapable of recognizing or accepting that Bush did anything good, even if it was identical to their stated goals or if they directly benefited. So those people are fools.

But the rest? Well, here's another article that seems to be chortling at those silly liberals who don't realize America doesn't want a liberal agenda inacted. I guess I can understand the ultimate rationale: most conservatives don't agree with Republicans 100%, so we want a valid, reasonable opposition party with a rational platform that allows debate and choice. The farther left the Democrats go, the more they resort to vicious diatribes and ad hominem attacks vice policy debate, the fewer choices remain to thinking voters. However, while I cannot agree with the overall ideology of Hollywood, I actually find it somewhat admirable that they aren't abandoning their principles just because they lost an election. If they did, it would mean that too many people in the country would be voting for stereotypes of Democrats and Republicans rather than the actual beliefs, platforms, and ideology. I would prefer that liberals don't vote Republican because they don't agree that tax cuts stimulate economic activity and governmental regulations slow the same, rather than not voting for a Republican because they think all Republicans are racist, rich white men who are all involved in a plot to exploit women and minorities.

As long as liberals continue to fight for what they believe in, as long as they are able to marshal arguments and struggle to find acceptance for their goals, we are a stronger nation for it. It shouldn't just be about "winning" and "losing" in elections, it should be about debate and discussion. Conservatives should recognize that liberals have some valid and valuable views, and co-opt the best of them. But we aren't going to have the chance to discuss it if liberals "go to ground" and change their message even more just to get elected.*

Update:
If it isn't clear, the point of this post is that I'm a little tired of conservatives taunting liberals, telling them to shut up, implying their agenda has been completely rejected and/or 100% defunct. No.
Then again, my reaction in the comments is because I'm also tired of liberals using their Mainstream Media bully pulpit and celebrity status to try to de-legitimize Bush's clear mandate.
So my point is: Bush won, and he won a mandate. This doesn't mean Democrats should knuckle under and do what Bush says, but it also means Bush should be able to introduce his proposals and his nominations without snide sniping and carping from liberal talking heads. Let the debate happen among the people who face re-election in 2006, because that's how our democracy works. Oppose Bush by writing your representative or writing letters to the editor or blogposts. Support him the same way. But it is absolutely wrong to minimize or exaggerate the impact of the election results: Bush won an outright majority, the GOP expanded their majority in both houses and in governerships, and 11 SSM ban amendments were passed. That does mean something...but on the other hand, it doesn't mean liberals should stop trying to persuade/convince.

And also check out this thinking. I don't agree with his specific views, but I asbolutely agree with his overall point.

*although, unfortunately, I do expect this to happen. Keep a sharp eye out for new liberal code words by which they use conservative terminology to let their supporters know they remain committed to a liberal/socialist agenda.

Posted by Nathan at 09:54 AM | Comments (2)
Comments

If Dean heads up the DNC, we'll see a shift that defines the party more. Objectives will be clear, differences will be made obvious.

Under McAuliffe, it seemed the party strived to be everything to everyone. Which it cannot continue to try to be, because it will only fail.

I will avoid getting into the issue of "mandate". Bush won fair and square, but he should consider why there was also the largest turnout in history *against* him. It would be nice if he'd try that "uniter not a diver" thing he talked about years ago.

Posted by: Jo at November 10, 2004 07:11 AM

LOL..."divider".

Posted by: Jo at November 10, 2004 07:12 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?