UPDATE: More on related topics in this more recent post.
We appreciate those who take the time to leave comments here, being as how we could count them on our fingers and still have enough digits left over to play 'From the Halls of Montezuma' on the flute. And we try to reply and highlight them when possible. So this reply is a little late in coming - but viewed in the context of a year, it has been a small portion indeed.
This individual left a number of interesting comments back in the fall, but because of the 'perfect storm' of cat-induced sickness, holidays, work and moving, we have been pretty late to the game in getting back to argumentation on serious matters.
(Plus, there's so much comment-spam back there that just going back through the posts to find the ones Hub commented on is like returning to your burgled apartment over and over while the burgler is still there, ripping you off. As evidenced by the theme of this post, we do know how to procrastinate, but believe me it is not just procrastination keeping us from cleaning out all the spam messages. It's because it is extremely laborious.)
Anyway, Hub's reaction to this post following the election is as follows, with my responses interspersed.
The liberal line is not that you all pulled a “slick one” on us – no, you did that last time. You were caustically negative and personal, though.
I can see why you say this, because Kerry was raked through the coals in a very tough-fought campaign.
But....HUH? I mean, where is your sense of proportion regarding how Bush has been vilified, painted as a monster, the reincarnation of Hitler. It's almost unthinkable to have to argue this point because from my perspective and plenty of other peoples' the intensely hateful caricaturing has been the backdrop of Bush's entire first term, not just the recent campaign. I'm....well, let's just leave it at that for now; we are obviously living in different realities on this one because I viewed the rough treatment of Kerry as a relatively limp and late attempt to compensate for the terrible mistreatment of the president. Honestly, I'd be much more interested in exploring our different universes than in going back and dredging up all the stuff said and written about Bush, but I'd ask you take the preceding sentences at face value and just accept the fact that I really believe those statements are true. I'm not the most cultured guy in the world, but I've seen plenty of evidence for what I believe.
Juxtapose, for example, the tone of the Democratic Convention against that of the Republican Convention -- indeed, just consider the keynotes (Obama Barrack v. Zell Miller) – and tell me different. Yes, liberal activists, including the evil Soros and Moore, did come out swinging this time and helped to chip away at w’s margin. The same applies equally, at least, to your side. (Remember the Smearboat?) w’d have gone done in flames without his inflamed base.
Several points here. First, I thought Zell Miller's address at the Republican convention was spellbinding in its sincerity and truthfulness. He spoke precisely what many of us believe. I stayed up to watch it again when they repeated the broadcast. When an artist paints a picture of a terrible crime, you blame the criminal for the horrors, not the artist.
Second, the campaign against Bush by the Democrats' third parties was pretty frigging impressive in terms of dollars and energies spent. F -9/11 was quite the spectacle, you have to admit. 'Chipped away at w's margin' is one way to put it. 'Created a massive cultural movement' would be another.
Third, the Swiftboats did absolutely nothing for Bush's base. I'm part of Bush's base, and the only utility of the Vietnam vets groups was, as indicated above, to compensate for the massive disinformation campaign for the votes of the middle-of-the-road and indecided voters.
His supporters like to point out that he got more votes than any candidate in presidential history. I’d point out that Kerry came in second by that standard. And you can be sure that the Kerry votes were cast with white-hot intensity.
You are correct, and Kerry accomplished quite a feat. Bush's votes also were cast with intensity. In my former hometown of Reston - the Democratic wing of a pretty Democratic Fairfax County - the Republican organization had an unprecedented presence at the polls. In fact between the poll watchers, canvassers, leaflet distribution and everything else that we did from September through the election, this precinct now has a thriving Republican organization for the first time ever.
You may like this map: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/statemaplarge.png I refer you to this one: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/statecartlarge.png Remember, people, not dirt, vote -- I wouldn’t crow too loudly over 51%.
Yes, of course, point taken. The map is very deceiving although I guess its visual impact with the huge red swaths explains its broad circulation since the election. I don't consider the Republican strongholds of North Dakota, Montana and Alaska as evidence I'm with the majority.
I find it rather weird (among other things) that someone who links to Kirkegaard would rant against the professors.
Well, read Kierkegaard or read about him (Lowrie's 'Short Life of Kierkegaard' is a great and quick way to get acquainted) and you'll get cleared up on that point in short order. He found the establishment intelligentsia and intellectual giants of the time highly suspect...his entire life's work could be viewed as a devastating attack on Hegalianism, the dominant philosophical movement of the time, and he spent the last years of his life in an artillery battle against the Copenhagen intellectual establishment, which at that time was largely centered in the church.
Also, the point SK emphasized above every other in all of his works was the freedom of the 'solitary individual' to take whatever position he or she arrived at through personal thought, introspection and will. Everyone else can be wrong. There need be no genuflecting to the dominant ideology of the academies.
Nevertheless, when 75% of Bush supporters believe that Saddam was behind or involved in the 9/11 attacks, you all down there in the exurbian South (or wherever) are in dire need of some education: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04wills.html (Was Greg’s reference to Kerry supporters as “Know Nothings” made in irony?) 9/11 was God’s gift to w and it kept on giving up until the end. Though just barely – he went from 92% support in the wake of the attacks to a bare majority last week.
That Garry Wills article is now only available for purchase, but from the abstract I'd guess you're making the point that Bush inflamed the religious and cultural neanderthals. 'American electorate's fundamentalism is evident in its rage at secularity, its religious intolerance, and its fear of and hatred for modernity; says Bush was re-elected by being a divider; says even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one; says he must give them what they want, because his helpers are also his keepers.'
That's a biting caricature, all right. If you really believe that about conservative Christians, then by all means have at it because you are entitled to your own perception of reality. But it would probably be more useful to dig a little further into our views on secularism, modernity, and 'religion.' Then again, if those on the Left keep thinking of us as the REAL Know Nothings, it will continue to work to our advantage in elections. If you can't identify your opponent, it will be harder to defeat him.
Regarding the decrease in public support for the president, there were a number of reasons for that. See the point above about the massive misinformation campaign for part of the answer. The fact that there was a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN might also have had something to do with it.
w had all the support in the world, not to mention the country, and could have pulled people together to do great things. Where are we now? Deep in debt, stretched thin on the ground, and divided and angry.
Turns out, the world - and by this I assume you mean the large bloc of dissenting voices at the U.N. - would have preferred a very different approach after the terrorist attacks. Many people in the U.S., including President Bush, disagreed with their appraisal.
Some people here agreed with the U.N. and that pretty much killed the possibility for the idyllic, harmonious future in which all Democratic candidates in 2002 and 2004 would have bowed out so that President Bush could continue to bring people together. I agree, it would have been a milestone in U.S. political history but, alas, the war in Iraq prevented it from coming to be.
Here’s an interesting comment from one of your brethren which we effete city-dwellers should take under advisement: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5652 I could go there! Enough red-state welfare! Part of the deal, however, would have to be that we keep our brand (the Union), and you keep yours (Dixie).
I know there was a good deal of conversation on this topic after the election but I barely had time to read the headlines in November because of the crush of personal issues. The Human Events article is amusing. If I wasn't so dreadfully late in responding to this maybe we could bounce this notion around but probably not much point in it now. I never spent much time thinking seriously about the secession/expulsion issue.
I will keep my eyes open for new developments with those who have expressed a desire to emigrate from here, though. So far it seems like it's been a really paltry number, but if it picks up I want to learn about where they end up going.
That w – he’s a uniter, not a divider.
Yeah, he misread the landscape on that one. Also, he may not have realized that, as VDH astutely noted, a conservative, Christian, southern Republican has no chance of gaining acceptance from the liberal elite. Bush was doomed on that score from the start.
Besides, when there are deep differences of opinion in the body politic, the leader's proper role may not be first to seek unity of opinion. It may be to ensure the correct opinions are acted upon. Let the unity come later when, and if, the dissenters see the results.
Hub, I appreciate the attempt at dialogue and apologize for the long delay in engaging your points. The dialogue would have been better if I'd been more timely. Thanks also for the kind cat-related sentiments. If you stop back, I think I'll be able to remain engaged now.
Soon I'll post an update on the cat situation. Hint: We still have them, but they are where they belong.
