A plea for the future

[Gabu]

Disclaimer: The following is not intended to be a partisan message over a bitter defeat in an election and should not be taken as such.

The 2004 American presidential election has come and gone, and there's a clear winner: George W. Bush.  There also are two clear losers.  Yes, two.  One is obvious: John Kerry.  The other is not so obvious: the American public.  I'm not saying this for partisan reasons.  I'm not saying this because John Kerry lost.  I'm saying it because this election was the most negative election that I've ever seen and it wouldn't have mattered who won; the country would have still remained as bitterly divided as ever, with 49% hating the other 51%.  The 2004 election did not offer hope of any kind; instead it offered fear of what would happen were the other candidate to be elected.

What does it say when campaigns feel the need to hang off of every single word their opponents say in an attempt to find something to jump on?

What does it say when campaigns' ads mention the opponent almost as much as their own candidate?

What does it say when you regard your fellow countrymen as the enemy, or as obstacles to be overcome?

Sad to say, America has never been, as far as I can tell, so bitterly divided over virtually everything as it is today.  It's a sad day when so many people are at each others' throats purely over differences in opinion.  People have been called everything from "Communist" to "Nazi" over simply feeling a certain way on an issue.  This is not a Republican or Democratic problem; this is a universal problem that spans party lines.  It seems that nobody who disagrees can see eye-to-eye anymore.  I, as a liberal, do not hate conservatives.  I disagree with conservatives, but I do not hate them in any way and I even acknowledge that their positions have merit.  However, conservatives may look at the more vocal far-left liberals who do hate conservatives and conclude that I do hate conservatives and treat me as such.  The same can be said for liberals looking at conservatives.  This must end, lest serious consequences arise from the lack of ease of the tensions.

Why must there be so much hatred of the other side?

Are we somehow separate and distinct species?

Are we not all human beings living on planet Earth?

Yet it doesn't have to be this way.  Humans have survived as a race for one reason: co-operation.  Humans have progessed as a race for one reason: co-operation.  Therefore, it should come as a shock and as a troubling fact to people that so little co-operation is wanted in America.  Everyone wants to do things their way.  Everyone wants to screw or hurt the other side.  The theory of compromise is practically non-existant.  What's good for the other side is bad for your side.  Whether it's Kerry or Bush as president is irrelevant: whoever it was would still have been criticized and deeply hated by the other side.  This is no way to get anything done.  Rather, it's an extremely toxic environment.

Where are the Roosevelts and the Reagans, those who unite us and bring us together in spite of our differences?

Why are our politicians so divisive and why do they play to our fears?

Where has our humanity gone?

The reason lies not in our politicians.  The reason lies in ourselves.  The politicians' actions are merely a reflection of our own feelings.  When we look at the other side, we are not a hopeful people; we are a fearful people.  We're afraid of the other side and what they represent.  We want to do whatever we can to prevent their views from becoming a reality and to allow ours to become a reality.  It doesn't have to be this way and it shouldn't be this way.  Neither side wants to hurt America.  Both sides essentially even want the same thing.  The only disagreement is regarding how to achieve that.  We all want to have hope.  The only reason we don't is because we prevent ourselves from having it.

In the years ahead, I sincerely hope that we can come to more of an understanding.  It doesn't have to be agreeing with the other side.  It doesn't even have to be seeing merit in their position.  All I'm asking is that we recognize that we're not so different.  We don't have anything to be so divided over other than our own false perceptions of the other side.  We're all human beings who are in this world together and who want to make the world a better place.

Please, for the sake of humanity, let's stop hating the other side so much.  Let's start working together and recognizing that the other side wants to help.  I'm not evil and neither are you.  We know that.  We just have to believe it.

[A18]

I would like to point out that Ralph Nader is also a clear loser.

Good post, BTW.

[AuH2O]

I think you would be surprised how nasty political campaigns have been in the past... even in the 19th century. Heck, sometimes it even resulted in a duel!

When you have 2 people fighting to be the most powerful man on Earth, there just is no reasonable expectation for them to hold much back. At times it was pretty bad, but nothing that really hurt the system-- just maybe the people involved, particularly those driven by rage.

[A18]

Jefferson vs. Adams had way more scandals than this election.

[Nym90]

Excellent post, and definite food for thought.

The problem, as I see it, is that many people try to compartmentalize it, and say that while the rank-and-file of the other side are basically good people, it's the leaders who are the problem. Most of us on here do not hate the people on this forum who are from the opposite side, but what we need to realize is that the people here, I think, do represent a good cross section of their party; on this site, we have a few loonies on each side, but most people are reasonable. That's true of the country (and the world) as a whole, as well. 95% of people are sane, logical, reasonable people, but the 5% who aren't ruin it for everyone else, because their presence stokes our fears, and we irrationally ignore the 95% who are good.

As you say, both sides want what's best for America and the world. Most people aren't selfish bastards. Both sides try to play to our fears somewhat, and try to play to a desire to vote their own personal self-interest even if it isn't in the country's best interest.

I'm a Democrat because I believe in equal opportunity for all to be economically successful, regardless of their personal history or family history. That is, essentially, why I am a liberal on economic issues, because I believe in empowering those whose personal and family history makes it more difficult for them to succeed, and giving them a fair and equal opportunity to succeed. I believe that our country will be at its strongest economically if we truly have a free market of ideas; if the people with the best ideas are the most economically successful. I feel that our country will be its strongest if those who work the hardest are the most successful, in a direct one to one correlation, as this will provide the greatest possible incentive for people to work hard. For many poor people, it is so incredibly difficult for them to succeed economically that they simply give up, and turn to crime, drugs, or some other means of survival. People do what they feel they have to do in order to survive; if you don't give them any other viable options, they turn to crime, drugs, and the like.

On social issues, I am a libertarian more than I am a liberal; I believe that all people should be free to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I have no desire to impose any social agenda on anyone, and I oppose anyone who attempts to impose their social agenda on others. I believe that any other standard of morality should be judged by God only and not by humans, and that we should trust people enough to give them many civil liberties. As I said, I believe 95% are good, and thus giving everyone civil liberties will be far  more beneficial than harmful. We should trust our people, and in turn, they will trust the government more as well. Trust goes both ways.

On foreign policy, I support bringing freedom and liberty to all people in the world, and I want every country to have a democracy. However, I feel that before taking any action, we must analyze whether the expense in both dollars and lives is worth the benefit. This is why we must have coalitions; not because we particularly care what other countries think per se, but because we need other countries to see the rightness of our actions and be willing to share the costs so that we don't have to bear the entire burden. If our cause is just, we can convince other countries to go along with us. Again, I believe in the inherent goodness of all humanity, and if our cause is just we will be able to convince others and not have to go it alone. We have millions of Americans who are suffering and are not economically liberated to have equal opportunity to succeed; I feel that since we only have finite resources, we should spend the money on liberating these people first before we liberate those from other counties. As much as the suffering of those in other countries pains me, I feel that the amount of money and lives we are currently spending in Iraq isn't worth it; we are getting a benefit from it, but not enough to justify the expense. All money that government spends, whether it be on social programs or on military expenditure, should be held to this same standard.

I think that if John Kerry had laid out the case for liberalism as I just did, he would have won. I think that makes sense to most people; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

A lot of what you say here is very good, but you are going to lose many Americans in a lot of your "case for liberalism":

because I believe in empowering those whose personal and family history makes it more difficult for them to succeed, and giving them a fair and equal opportunity to succeed.

This is a nation full of people who came from absolutely nothing, and succeeded beyond most people's wildest dreams.  People who would scratch their head at this idea.  There is equal opportunity for those with the will and ability to make it.  The problem we have is not one of making sure everyone has an opportunity to succeed.  We do.  The problem is that many people through no fault of their own simply don't have any chance for success.  Most of the folks out on the street aren't there because the system was unfair to them.  They are out there because they are mentally ill, or addicts, or simply disdain work and responsibility to the extent that they would prefer to live that way.  Our social problem here is how to deal in a humanitarian way with those who *can't* succeed, and the children who are dependent upon them.

For many poor people, it is so incredibly difficult for them to succeed economically that they simply give up, and turn to crime, drugs, or some other means of survival. People do what they feel they have to do in order to survive; if you don't give them any other viable options, they turn to crime, drugs, and the like.

In days past, there were many more poor people than there are today, and almost none of them turned to crime and drugs.  This kind of deterministic philosophy is also a turn-off to many.

On foreign policy, I support bringing freedom and liberty to all people in the world, and I want every country to have a democracy. However, I feel that before taking any action, we must analyze whether the expense in both dollars and lives is worth the benefit. This is why we must have coalitions; not because we particularly care what other countries think per se, but because we need other countries to see the rightness of our actions and be willing to share the costs so that we don't have to bear the entire burden. If our cause is just, we can convince other countries to go along with us.

Well, really, that's exactly how the Bush went about it.  He stated his case for war and built a coalition.  But on principle, yes, most Americans would agree with this.  This isn't really an aspect of liberalism.  In true liberalism, any international action would be subject to the will of an international governing body such as the U.N.

Again, I believe in the inherent goodness of all humanity, and if our cause is just we will be able to convince others and not have to go it alone.

I think the idea of the "inherent goodness of all humanity" died in the minds of most Americans when that second plane slammed into the WTC.  Obviously there are humans out there who are not inherently good.  Some humans become evil, or are corrupted by evil ideas.  Before 9/11/01, most Americans probably would have accepted the rose-tinted view of all people just trying to get along and love one another and work together for peace and harmony.  But we learned the hard way that hatred still drives many around the world, and there is cooperation, no compromise with these people.

And no, we did not go it alone.  We did go aginst the will of those who refuse to deal with these problems directly.

We have millions of Americans who are suffering and are not economically liberated to have equal opportunity to succeed; I feel that since we only have finite resources, we should spend the money on liberating these people first before we liberate those from other counties.

Once again, I think we have plenty of opportunity to succeed.  It's just that some don't.  And no amount of wealth redistribution will change the fact that some succeed and others don't.  At best, we may be able to turn ourselves into a European-style socialist state, in which those who succeed are forced to subsidize those who don't, thus robbing everyone of the incentive to strive hard in life and leading to general mediocrity.  Mediocrity, for example, that killed 11,000 elderly people in France two summers ago.

As much as the suffering of those in other countries pains me, I feel that the amount of money and lives we are currently spending in Iraq isn't worth it; we are getting a benefit from it, but not enough to justify the expense. All money that government spends, whether it be on social programs or on military expenditure, should be held to this same standard.

I think there is a very good case to be made against the war in Iraq, but it's not really a question of liberalism vs. conservativism.

As far as what you have said in support of liberalism, it sounds very good and reasonable to liberals, but not to those who don't share this worldview.

[NHPolitico]

George Soros is a big loser. He spent like $17M and got nothing for it.

[opebo]

The religious are the enemy within.  America is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, I'm afraid.

[J. J.]

The religious are the enemy within.  America is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, I'm afraid.

Comments like that are why there is this battle.

[opebo]

The religious are the enemy within.  America is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, I'm afraid.

Comments like that are why there is this battle.

There's a battle because both sides hate one another.

[Giant Saguaro]

The religious are the enemy within.  America is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, I'm afraid.

Comments like that are why there is this battle.

There's a battle because both sides hate one another.

No person I can think of makes their contempt for anyone or anything more obvious or up front than you do about religion.

As long as ignorant people like you look down on folks because of their faith, your damn right there's going to be a battle.

[Nym90]

Our social problem here is how to deal in a humanitarian way with those who *can't* succeed, and the children who are dependent upon them.

Yes, that's who I was talking about mostly, the kids. Obviously if someone is raised in a good family, with plenty of money and love available, and instead they become a spoiled brat and turn to crime or drugs, they shouldn't get any societal support. But the vast majority of people who turn to these things had bad parents, and came from poor families. Thus, reducing and eliminating poverty is in our nation's interest because there will be less crime and fewer irresponsible people as a result.

I have no sympathy for those who already have plenty of opportunities and choose to squander them. But the fact is that not everyone has an equal opportunity to get ahead; many people are born into poor families with parents who don't give a sh*t about them, and these are the people I am talking about. Many of them are hard workers, smart, and creative, but find it extremely difficult to be succesful.

So yes, we absolutely need to have a focus on responsibility; but at the same time, an acknowledgement that most people will take advantage of opportunities if they are presented to them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I should have rephrased that; certainly not all criminals or druggies are people who have been screwed over by the system. I don't necessarily believe that crime or drugs are worse problems now than they were in the past, however; there is certainly more media coverage of these problems now, but they've always been there. Statistical reporting is better than it was, too. I think this is a slightly overly optimistic view of the "good old days". There is a natural tendency to believe that moral values are going down the toilet in this country, but I'm not so sure that's the case. At the very least, I'd need a bit more evidence of it before I'd be convinced, other than anecdotes from seniors who seem to like to talk about these things. (Yeah, I've heard too many rants from my grandfather...he's a great guy, but...)

To the extent that it is true that people are not as nice to each other today as they used to be, (and I do agree this is somewhat true, though not to the degree that many make it out to be, just for clarification) I would blame economic conservatives as much as if not more so than social liberals; I think that this idea that "It's my money, I should be able to keep it" promotes just as much irresponsibility and selfishness as any social liberal policies. Economic conservatives seem to have at best indifference, and at worst utter disdain, for the idea of helping their fellow person. The increasing prevalence of this attitude (which I think was indeed much less common back in the days of the Depression, hence the public's acceptance of FDR's liberal economic policies) doesn't help the moral fabric of America, either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, again, I think you've fallen for the conservative caricature of what liberals actually stand for, which is not supported by the facts. Certainly Kerry wasn't advocating this in his campaign, and in fact I haven't heard any liberal of any prominence want US actions to be subject to the will of the UN only. Now, Kerry deserves some of the blame for failing to correct this misperception that you and many other swing voters have, don't get me wrong; I'm not blaming you, but I guess I just don't see how one can come to this conclusion.

What you call liberalism here is really more socialistic, and liberals are not socialists, despite what some would have you think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that not all people are good; I've said many times, and I still believe it to be true, that about 5% of people or so are dirty rotten bastards who, indeed, can't be compromised or cooperated with. So yes, I shouldn't have said "all". Bad choice of words.

As far as terrorism is concerned, I think that the main problem is one of education and communication; I believe that these people have such a warped view of what America is and what it stands for, due to the fact that they have been brainwashed by propaganda, that they hate us because they don't actually know what we stand for. That actually is one of the best cases for the Iraq war, that we need to take over some of these countries and install a free press and a neutral non-biased education system so that the potential terrorists of tomorrow will get the facts and not a biased view. So I'd agree with the idea that they have been corrupted by evil ideas, but I still wouldn't go so far as to say that most of them are inherently evil and that nothing ever could have been done to reason with them; I'd agree that they are likely too far gone to be able to be reasoned with, but we need to be able to reach out to the next generation and start from the bottom up with education and communication.

Regarding Europe, I do not feel that it is true that they don't want to confront this threat; they were willing to back us in the first Iraq war, for example. We had a UN coalition then. Yes, we did still have some allies now, but many countries turned against us because they can see that our foreign policy is hypocritical. We don't oppose all dicatators, and we are willing to tolerate suffering and enslavement of people if corporate America sees no profit in doing anything about it (take the Sudan as a prime example; also, our willingness to completely ignore China's human rights and labor abuses...and before you bring it up, yes Clinton deserves a lot of blame here, too).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some have opportunity, yes, but many don't. The children of those who have chosen to be irresponsible, for example, as you yourself acknowledged in your post. I don't support a socialized welfare state, but I do support government spending to beef up areas that are sorely lacking--transportation, education, and health care, namely. Areas where a lack of attention is hurting the productivity and efficiency of our nation, and costing us tremendous economic productivity. It's not just merely a moral issue--money spent in these areas would be more than made up through the economic benefits. The moral side of these issues provides even more incentive, but I feel that a good case can be made without it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When you talk about a good case to be made against it, are you referring to my argument about whether the costs are worth the benefits? As I said, I think that's something to look at....was it really the best possible use of $200 billion and 1,000 lives, or are there perhaps other ways that the money and manpower could have been used that would have given us more benefit? That's what you really have to look at. I think we'd be better off having spent the money on health care, Social Security, education, the environment, transportation infrastructure, or in paying down the deficit. Reducing taxes on the poor and the middle class (and not just income taxes, also including sales tax, payroll tax, etc that people have to pay) would have been a decent idea, too. A $200 billion tax cut exclusively for those making less than, say, $60,000 a year or so could have gone a long way.

[Gabu]

The religious are the enemy within.  America is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, I'm afraid.

Look, this is what I'm talking about.  Statements like this are the major reason why we can't come to an understanding.

I'm sure there are some religious people who fit your description of religious people.  There are also probably some non-religious people who fit it as well.  A majority of neither group fits it, however, and those majorities are full of good people who are alienated and driven away when you make sweeping generalizations about them that are simply untrue.

There's a battle because both sides hate one another.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying.  However, the reasons to hate one another exist only in our heads.  The vast majority of people are reasonable, hopeful people who likely simply have many misperceptions about those who disagree with them.  It's natural to have such misperceptions about a group when you don't associate with members of that group on a regular basis.

What we should be working towards is correcting those misperceptions rather than reinforcing them so we can try to fix the problem rather than further exacerbating it.  Hating in return those who hate us will never, ever solve the problem.

[Gabu]

I would like to point out that Ralph Nader is also a clear loser.

Good point.

I think you would be surprised how nasty political campaigns have been in the past... even in the 19th century. Heck, sometimes it even resulted in a duel!

When you have 2 people fighting to be the most powerful man on Earth, there just is no reasonable expectation for them to hold much back. At times it was pretty bad, but nothing that really hurt the system-- just maybe the people involved, particularly those driven by rage.

Perhaps not.  I don't claim to be a guru who understands and has an extremely firm grasp of the ways of politics and of what works.  Maybe I just don't know how it works, or whatever.  I simply feel that, on the road to becoming the most powerful man on Earth, it wouldn't hurt for them to consider the citizens rather than simply doing everything they can to win the election.  It probably would even be beneficial to do so: the people would be much happier with the outcome of the election and there would be much less unrest and bitterness in the end.

I wasn't saying that this election would wreak havoc for decades to come, but I personally feel that it can't be denied that its tone was not a healthy one for something that decides the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

[freedomburns]

This is an excellent post and an excellent thread Gabu.  This is where we need to go.  A house divided against itself cannot stand.


fb

[Flyersfan232]

Hi I am from the future let me tell u it will get worst!

[Tartarus Sauce]

This thread demonstrates how people really weren't prepared for the extent to which the 2004 election environment was a precursor of what was to come in our civic culture rather than a temporary aberration, merely the tip of the iceberg of political hostility and vitriolic tribalism.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Dems vitriol to George W Bush from 2004 onwards arguably surpassed their vitriol to Trump from 2016-2019

[darklordoftech]

Now people say, “Remember how nice Bush was?”

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I miss Gabu.

[Chips]

Wow. I love how most of this sadly still holds up today.