The first reaction of progressives to Bush’s second victory was that of despair, even fear: The last four years were not just a bad dream. The nightmarish coalition of big business and fundamentalist populism will roll on, as Bush pursues his agenda with new gusto, nominating conservative judges to the Supreme Court, invading the next country after Iraq, and pushing liberalism… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (128)Page 1 of 1 pagesI dont think that theory can be posible for several reasons. Bush has no knowledge that is his own. So to call it Bushism doesn’t work. Roveism maybe, Cheneyism maybe. But why don’t we just call it what it really is Corperate greed, war profiteering, or by the name that was given it in the early 1920s, Neo-Nazism. Thank You.
Posted by Stephen Holbert on Nov 5, 2004 at 3:37 PM Lets see. Christians who voted for Bush are imbeciles (um, maybe they are anti-abortion?)?
This nut thinks that we would be upset if Muslims had a “left behind” like book published. Um, hate to break the news, but in the Muslim world no freedom of speech exists, women have no rights, etc. Hell, if they could spend their efforts writing dumb books instead of stoning people to death (for such heineous crimes as adultry) i think we as a nation would be fine with that!
One really ought to examine the facts of the middle east. Why are Iraqis killing other Iraqis? Is it because they are nationistic and feel invaded (to some degree, yes). Is it because of meglomaniacs who blatently want to grab as much power as they can (a resounding YES with al Sadr as the poster boy).
Should we have allowed the Iraqis to continue to suffer under sanctions, while their “leader” lived in luxury? I dount this can be answered either yes or no - it is just a choice that had to be made.
Now if only a choice could be made about Darfar. Anyone in Europe willing to help a few million people live another year or so? I did not think so.
Posted by sooo on Nov 5, 2004 at 3:41 PM The logic of ‘sooo’ is beautiful. Place a country under sanctions and then invade that country because of the suffering it causes. Brilliant.
Posted by what on Nov 5, 2004 at 4:20 PM What I don’t understand is why the people who voted solely on the abortion issue don’t understand that electing Bush will not overturn Roe v. Wade. He cannot eliminate abortion in this country. Voting for emotional reasons is not going to give you the best candidate. It is a disservice to your country.
And now, because people voted on this irreconcilable issue, we are stuck with a war-mongering, amoral, anti-American Values man who thumps on his bible and wraps himself in our flag while pissing on our Constitution. Elected by people who seek to pervert our American Values by repeating the lie that the founders wanted a Christian nation. They wanted a FREE nation and were well aware that the clergy always had and always would try to subvert democracy to its will and causes.
“What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.” - James Madison
Posted by ConstitutionIsMyBible on Nov 5, 2004 at 4:31 PM http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041122&s=editors
The Nation posts a tough statement about fighting for what we believe. In These Times posts a driveling article (and yes Slavoj, we can all see that you can use a thesaurus) that somehow claims Bush winning is “good” for liberals?
Note to the editors: get a freaking clue. And then get a spine.
Posted by Tomak on Nov 5, 2004 at 4:39 PM In the spirit of this article, I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax. The emergence of one-party governance in a (more-or-less) evenly divided state is a powder-keg just itching for that inevitable spark. As soon as Republicans/Christian wackos/etc. do something that truly reflects the expansive power they’ve steadily accumulated over ther past 40 years, this will all come to a head.
Banning abortion is the perfect example… almost comically overt and galling, it would force even those raised on the most brain-rotting elements of American pop culture to realize what they have handed over to the messianic psychos of the right. I don’t know what happens next, propbably some sort of uber-jihad…
Posted by dirtylogic on Nov 5, 2004 at 4:47 PM Yes, Ryan, we will all eventually die.
And while we yet live, we choose liberty, tolerance, pluralism and secular government. It’s our legacy as promised by our Founding Fathers. We have only to claim it.
This isn’t a culture war. It’s a political war, a fight to preserve our Constitutional freedoms. They want to rewrite American Values into something religious. They are the antithesis of Patriots and Bush is The Anti-Patriot.
Posted by ConstitutionIsMyBible on Nov 5, 2004 at 5:11 PM Couldn’t agree with Dirtylogic more, if nothing else we can look forward to
1)Tom Delay will either have to resign or be indicted, or beaten in an election or something for his illegal redistricting, and bribery dealing a serious blow to republican leadership
2)Cynthia McKinney, who was a positive thorn in the Bush Administration’s side was re-elected
3)There’s always Midterm elections. Clinton and Democrats suffered massive loss in the house of reps when things were going well, and it can happen to Bush too.Things will get better from here
Posted by Matt on Nov 5, 2004 at 5:14 PM The “one party” government will be unwound before it even gets started, when the mid-terms are held.
It will be back to split government once again, and due to the usual suspects who will now regret casting their votes based on the “war” instead of their own self-interest.
Those suspects are SENIORS.
It took only ONE DAY for George Bush to once again overlook the polls, and step right on the political “third rail”.
All the polls after the debates showed that any mention of “privatization” of Social Security was a loser.
Whether you agree or disagree with this Administration’s approach is IRRELEVANT.
This issue has fried better politicians than this cast of inept characters.
Posted by Liberal but Proud on Nov 5, 2004 at 5:26 PM No reason to just wait around! You guys should all just come up here to Canada and groove on decriminalized weed, get gay-married and avail yourself of free, universal healthcare until things blow up back in jesusland. We need more pithy yanks around here, so long as they’re the type who oppose crusading, yahoo militarism. :)
Posted by dirtylogic on Nov 5, 2004 at 5:33 PM A Canadian freind with weed, is a freind indeed. Groove on dirtylogic. The moral majority is stunned.
Posted by woodpile on Nov 5, 2004 at 6:58 PM I hope the Democrats don’t trip over themselves rushing to prove themselves chameleons with no convictions. The Democrats do not and should not pander to evangelicals. That’s precisely what the Republicans want them to do!
Instead, what they need to do a better job of is to DEFINE values - true American Values as espoused by the Founding Fathers. The neocons deride those values - turn the camera on that! Make the connection that their ‘values’ are precisely what our Founding Fathers warned future generations against and what they worked so hard to protect us against. Show their ‘values’ to be deficient American Values. Make the connection that the neocons are waging the same war against our American Values as are the extremist muslims. The Neocon Society = sharia law with the bible substituting for the koran.
Control the message! Define American Values in ways that the average American can relate to and embrace. Right now the neocons are getting away with hijacking and perverting our American Values.
Posted by ConstitutionIsMyBible on Nov 5, 2004 at 7:54 PM Just sing the post-election blues song: ARMAGEDDON HARRIED IN THE MOURNING.
Posted by Phil Klein on Nov 5, 2004 at 7:58 PM I coudln’t impose on you, Canada. And, besides, the economic sanctions bush has placed against the lower class prevents me from even having enough money to move there—though I wish I could.
People get hungry enough, have too many friends or relatives killed overseas, pay $3 for gas, see their living wage deteriorate, their very lifestyle reduced to poverty, the revolution will begin.
I’m all for tarring an feathering that piece of shit who calls himself president.
Posted by Neil on Nov 5, 2004 at 8:05 PM I love all this talk about dissent. It is extremely healthy. The chatter needs to increase and be spread to the mainstream sheeople. The progressive movement could be so strong if only there was a unifying mission statement. Someone has got to come up with something KarlRovian to grab hold. A quick sound byte or quip that reaches to the heart of rational thought. Allright, rational thought may be just too much to ask. Keep fighting the good fight.
Posted by BluemaninaRedstate on Nov 5, 2004 at 8:27 PM I can see some logic to your argument, but it’s risky to think that way. Unwise folks said the same thing about Hitler in 1933. It did makes lines clear, but also caused quite a lot of terminations with extreme prejudice. To the guy inviting us to Canada: I’m ready!! Find me a teaching job and I’ll get ready to go. I’m fed up with the ignorant, mean-spirited majority and would love to move North. This election was the last straw.
Posted by Mim Jackson on Nov 5, 2004 at 8:28 PM ConstitutionIsMyBible - you know, abortion is not really a constitutional right. Maybe you (or anyone here) can find it in either the constitution or the amendments; if so, feel free to post it.
Now GWB is going to appoint some Supremes, maybe as many as 4. You have to figure abortion might not be around for our children and grandchildre. What a bummer. So much for poor thinking by the evangelicals!
(Aside: i presonally think abortion is wrong. I also think that restricting it can lead to bad outcomes. Let’s just say i have no axe to grind in this arena. But the Christians who very deeply hold it is murder really had no choice but to vote for GWB. Obviously.)
Posted by sooo on Nov 5, 2004 at 8:31 PM “what” is confused by our recent history. Why would the big bad US first sanction (the UN actually) Iraq and than attack it? For no reason at all? Or was it that that country, led by a murderous madman (you have to love a guy who *literally* shreds his opposition!), was invading other countries (hence the sanctions) and not cooperating with the UN inspectors? Not to mention building palaces while his people suffered horribly! In a way, you have to see the humor in it all. Saddam fooled *everyone*!
(But note that he was trying valiantly to maintain his ability to develop weapons, and had scientists test poisons for tastelessness and sprays for lethality. He was not a safe member of the global community and we should all rejoice he is finally gone!)
Posted by sooo on Nov 5, 2004 at 8:37 PM sooo - you know, I didn’t post that abortion is a constitutional right. Maybe you (or anyone here) can find where I stated it was; if so, feel free to post it.
I apologize for the sarcasm, but I loathe distorted inferences. Maybe you didn’t intend to infer that I made an assertion I didn’t make, but that’s how I read your post.
Again, the people who are opposed to abortion cast their vote for a man who can do nothing to deny women the right to make that choice. Obviously, that point was lost on them.
When Rehnquist goes, Bush’s appointment will be a wash since Rehnquist is a conservative. No net gain there. The other Justices, I am confident, will hang in there until this great national crisis known as the Bush Presidency is over. God save the Justices!
Posted by ConstitutionIsMyBible on Nov 5, 2004 at 8:40 PM I am looking forward to 2008, just so the crazies will stop comparing Bush to Hitler. Of course, if their guy loses again, i suppose the winner will be the next “Hitler”.
Maybe the Canuuk is right. You guys need to smoke more weed (or maybe you have smoked waaaay tooooo much already!!!).
Posted by goodNews on Nov 5, 2004 at 8:42 PM “Again, the people who are opposed to abortion cast their vote for a man who can do nothing to deny women the right to make that choice. Obviously, that point was lost on them.”
Maybe, maybe not. But there is a significant chance that GWB will appoint more than one Supreme. And if you are anti-abortion, and it was you only issue, who would you want to make the choice - Kerry or Bush? I rest my case. (BTW - thanks for being so civil. I appreciate it. I also hope for the health of the Supremes, but just out of general principles.)
Posted by sooo on Nov 5, 2004 at 8:47 PM One thing seems clear, the liberals will not learn from this. The christian right is strong and very focued on there agenda> because they don’t accept abortion there numbers are also growing. Get used to the result. Maybe move to Europe!
Posted by Shauna Mitchelle on Nov 5, 2004 at 8:48 PM This article and most of the replies are a prime example of the elitism and narrow-mindedness the far left. Bush won the first popular vote majority since Reagan, both Houses of Congress increased their majority, but the left still refuses to accept the possibility that voters may have had valid reasons for rejecting the Democrats’ program. Instead you liberals insist that only Christian fundamentalists could be misguided (or hateful) enough to vote for Bush, lumping all his supporters in with the Left Behind kooks.
Posted by Randolph on Nov 5, 2004 at 8:52 PM Randolph makes an excellent point. Really. You all would do very well to listen.
Posted by veryAsture on Nov 5, 2004 at 9:26 PM Dear Randolph, Sooooo and the rest of you right-wing conservative fundamentalist know-nothings.
Please bend over and grab your ankles quickly now, because YOU are also going to be well and truly hoisted on your own petards by your constipated little world view.
I just resent your dragging the United States down into hell with you.
Feh
Posted by Mary,Mother of God on Nov 5, 2004 at 9:33 PM You’re right, Randolph, it IS simplistic to lump all Bush fans in with the Christian crackpot crowd. Let’s all acknowledge the wide rainbow of supporters for Bush/Cheney 2004!
- Those courageous souls fighting for the perpetuation of white privilege and safety from “those people” (whoever they might be);
- Captains of industry, who protect us from the crazy socialists spreading vicious lies about cigarettes and oil spills;
- The wealthy, both Old Money AND nouveau riche;
- And let’s not forget Alabama! Didn’t they just vote down a tax increase (from the lowest levels in the country!) in favour of forcing schools to move to 4-day weeks?
Truly, this Bush is a man of ALL the people!
Posted by dirtylogic on Nov 5, 2004 at 9:39 PM dirtylogic - your facts are all about the same fidelity. And no, AL did not vote down a tax increase and no the schools remain on a 5 day week.
(I might add that in a very close vote, Amendment 2 is still be decided. Undoubtedly this is what you are “thinking” of. It contains two separate things. 1) it would remove some racist language from the AL constitution. 2) It may (or may not) affect whether students in AL have a *right* to public education. This latter clause was the controversial one (and the one you were apparently refering to). I voted for it, personally.)
Posted by alabama on Nov 5, 2004 at 9:54 PM Not that it matters to you who love to stereotype, but i am not a right-wing conservative fundamentalist know-nothing. I am:
1) well traveled (both domestic and abroad)
2) agnostic (about *everything* pretty much)
3) liberal in some issues, conservative in others
4) well educated (no one on this board has a higher degree)
5) apparently patient (see how i explain things nice and slow? Hey i used to teach undergrads. :))That said, i am almost positive that this will not affect anyone’s preconceptions here. Sigh.
Posted by sooo on Nov 5, 2004 at 10:00 PM Why is it that so many of the respondents in these matters suffer from grammar and spelling deficiencies? Are we really suffering a dyslexia pandemic? American education continues to falter. Bad grammar and bad spelling are highly correlated with bad thinking.
Fundamentally (so to speak), religious people of almost every persuasion want to believe in magic. Say a few special words (prayers) and life will go your way. Cool. Unfortunately, reality refuses to cooperate. If you have the temerity to point this out, some religious thugs will beat you into submission. This is the neoconservative dream. Now we must live through at least four more years of being ruled by these people. Sigh.
Anyhow, I liked what Mr. Zizek had to say, even if I don’t necessarily agree with every little point. Onward.
Posted by wildebeest on Nov 5, 2004 at 10:09 PM Right on, wildebeest! While sooo may like dropping educational credentials, his admonitions over “Darfar” and “such heineous crimes as adultry” don’t exactly improve this humble hoser’s view of US education.
Oh, and apologies to Alabama. It’s nothing as bad as drastically underfunding schools—they’re only bringing into question the right of students to public education! Heck, I may just move down there now.
Posted by dirtylogic on Nov 5, 2004 at 10:28 PM You are mistaken if you think prayers do not work. It is common misconception, however. They clearly do work, in a variety of ways. For those who believe in only the physical world, they have the following attributes: a) they provide a means for expressing concern for others; b) they serve as a type of meditation for oneself or groups; c) they provide a template for teaching children what values to hold. For those who believe in a spiritual world, they are even more. But this latter concept is deeply personal, and really a matter of faith. (As far as religious thugs beating one into submission, i think you must be thinking of Islam. See Saudi Arabia or Taliban.)
And yes, those of us who type fast and make typos are indeed less than perfect. Sure we could spell check to catch these things, but frankly i doubt it is worth the time and effort. Either the ideas come across or not - spelling really does not matter for conceptual matters.
Just my $0.02.
Posted by yepThatsIt on Nov 5, 2004 at 10:37 PM dirtylogic - so you freely spout incorrect facts & rumours and make no bones about it? Hey, for that matter, does *your* state constitution guarantee a right to public education? Or have you ever even read it? For that matter, can you guess why this measure was controversial? If you wanted to learn something, i would be willing to tell you, but in your case, you would have to ask, nicely. But my bet is that you have already concocted a story and have no need for the facts (damn, this board is making me cynical!).
One point that i will concede (since i do like accuracy!). Alabama does have the longest and worst constitution (maybe the oldest, i don’t know, but it dates back to ~1905). I signed a petition to have a new one drawn up while i was at the polls.
Posted by alabama on Nov 5, 2004 at 10:46 PM All right, yepThatsIt, I’ll concede point a), and maybe even b), although I have doubts concerning the actual efficacy of some of those loopy “power of meditation” ideas. No insult intended to the well-meaning (if, in my opinion, misguided) theists out there who refrain from gunslinging dogmatism.
But no dice on the spelling/grammar issue! I can’t wait to trot out that “spelling really does not matter for conceptual matters” line with my dissertation committee! :)
Posted by dirtylogic on Nov 5, 2004 at 10:55 PM “dirtylogic - so you freely spout incorrect facts & rumours and make no bones about it?”
alabama, your problem seems to be with something I picked up from YOUR post. Remember? That Alabama amendment might “affect whether students in AL have a *right* to public education.”
I’m actually Canadian, so I don’t have a state constitution per se, but our Charter of Rights and Freedoms does indeed guarantee a right to education. In fact, it goes further:
“Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.”
Posted by dirtylogic on Nov 5, 2004 at 11:06 PM Mary, Mother of God and Dirtylogic:
Thanks for proving my point. Your contempt for anyone who disagrees with you is plain as day. I love hearing this kind of stuff from liberals who congratulate themselves for being tolerant in the same breath. Mary, Mother of God accuses me of having “constipated little world view” but betrays his own when he calls me “right-wing conservative fundamentalist know-nothing” based entirely on the fact that I may have voted for Bush. Which I did. This kind of small-mindedness and intolerance is what keeps people like the two of you from learning anything. You can’t even have a civilized argument.
Posted by Randolph on Nov 5, 2004 at 11:16 PM Dirtylogic, for you to accuse anybody of “gunslinging dogmatism” is the height of hypocrisy.
Posted by Randolph on Nov 5, 2004 at 11:20 PM Oh Randolph, I don’t simple-mindedly loathe everyone with whom I disagree. What sounds to you like hypocritical closed-mindedness on my part is just a natural response to people who say, “I’m for Bush!” but fail to provide ANY reasons for doing so beyond the crazy logic you yourself rightly attribute to “Christian fundamentalists… [and] Left Behind kooks.”
OK, you’ve stated that you and your ilk had good reasons for voting for Bush. What are they? You want more civilized debate, give me some points to argue!
Posted by dirtylogic on Nov 5, 2004 at 11:32 PM Dirtylogic, I’m not going to lay my whole case out for you because your earlier posts make it clear that you’re not big on the exchange of ideas. But here’s the main reason: national security. We got hit with one terrorist attack after another under Clinton because he treated it as a law enforcement problem. Hindsight being what it is, Bush changed all that after 9/11. Now Al Qaeda’s been gutted, the Taliban is gone, and we haven’t been attacked on U.S. ground since 9/11. I believe (based on his words and twenty-year Senate record) that John Kerry would have reverted to letting law enforcement deal with terrorists, which didn’t work under Clinton. I could cite plenty of reasons for my choice but I don’t have time to explain myself to an elitist Canadian masquerading as an expert on another country’s politics.
Posted by Randolph on Nov 6, 2004 at 12:15 AM How is Bush helping to protect us from terrorism by shipping off our National Guardsmen without proper equipment and inspiring the hate of the rest of the world?
To me, young and immature non-voting child that I am, that seems to be working towards the opposite.
Posted by De on Nov 6, 2004 at 12:29 AM Darn, I thought for a second I had found a conservative worth his word! OK Randolph, as to the (single) reason you give for supporting Bush, national security, consider:
- the fact that Al Qaeda is so “gutted” that their leader can wantonly release video messages any time he pleases, and is supported by the security forces of Pakistan, one of the new “allies” in the fight against terrorism;
- that before 9/11, the State Department was working to END the isolation of the Taliban, to reward the decrease in Afghan opium production;
- that right-wing media outlets criticized Clinton for launching strikes against Al Qaeda bases, claiming he was making up phony threats to draw attention away from sex scandals;
- that your claim that the fact no futher attacks have occurred on US soil after 9/11 is proof of Bush’s genius is as specious as me claiming that wrapping tin foil around my head prevented World War 3 last week.
And, like a third-grader, when you realize you can’t win an argument, you resort to immature name-calling and pout that you don’t want to play anymore. Well, Randolph, this masquerading fraud (who, by the way, spent the first 28 years of his life in Oregon, before marrying a Canadian) is tired of your lame excuses too. I’ll let you get back to your happy little Bush-bubble where the big, bad terrorists who hate your freedom (“What else could it be? We’re perfect!”) can’t get you.
Posted by dirtylogic on Nov 6, 2004 at 12:54 AM Excellent points all dirtylogic. I think that the conservatives/centrists like Randolph typify what the right-wing media have been able to accomplish over the past 20 years. The vast amount of policy papers, editorials and expert opinions produced by well-established, well-funded, and well-known think tanks and think-tank bred columnists and pundits have skewed the debate so far to the right that even well-meaning Christians don’t stop and ponder the non-violent response to attack advocated by the Master. That there could be any other response to violence other than violence (law-enforcement perhaps?) is regarded as unthinkable, yet this is precisely the main teaching of Christ. This cognitive dissonance can be directly attributed to the well-oiled machinery of right wing media. Who are so good they can convince a man to vote on the basis of faith AGAINST his faith.
Posted by Phaedrus on Nov 6, 2004 at 2:15 AM Hmmm. The stress of the election has clearly forced Zizek into an alternate reality.
There is no good in Bush’s reelection, post-modern or otherwise, unless by “post-modern” you mean something akin to “Halliburtonian.”
Posted by trixie on Nov 6, 2004 at 2:24 AM Your self-indulgent bickering is pathetic.
I have a question: how could the exit polls be so wrong? I have a possible answer: the people knew how they voted, but the marvel of automatic electronic voting machines, with no verification of their ballots, denied their votes. The fear and confusion of Bush and company at reports of the exit polls changed to the more normal and natural smirk when the “counting” was made public.
That’s pathetic, too. Some democracy.
Canuckistani
Posted by Jenny Thomas on Nov 6, 2004 at 2:34 AM Here comes the opinion from a european. From an old europe most of you wouldn’t ever heard obout. Here are my notions:
- yes, i do agree whith Zizek’s point of view. Four more years of bush’s administration will perhaps take the liberals away from the white house for many years. for all the wrong reasons and all the wrong decisions. that will affect thousands of lives, like they usually do. Don’t you people feel the weight of the blood sheed on your back? How can one be so cold, unsensitive, blindfolded, so determinated to clear from sight the world? i wonder..
- nevertheless, regarding the complexity of the u.s. elections mechanism, i don’t think that, as we here call “fracturant issues” (like abortion for instance) should be involved with a presidential election. It is prouven to misslead voters and call all personal morals and ideological opinions on, confusing the purpose of an election such as important as these.
- what we saw, in my opinion, was a vote of discontent and suspition about senator Kerry and democrats in generall, maybe revealing some sort of antagonism beteween the “real country”, the midwest voters, the rural voters, the peripheric voters and a self righteus, arrogand, snob, elitist and distant democrats who driven themselfs away from the needs and hops of that middle class worker in alabama.
- i vote for the portuguese communist party. How far am i from you?
Posted by bernard on Nov 6, 2004 at 5:14 AM BUSH WON BECAUSE OF FRAUD AGAIN. I didn’t believe it either until I saw the evidence.
Bush won thanks to massive voter fraud using electronic voting machines and disproportionate spoiling of ballots.
It’s not too late to stop this. We have until the time the Electoral College convenes in December.
Go to www.blackboxvoting.org for constant updates with strong evidence showing why the exit polls were correct and the initial tallies were wrong.
More discussion at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Posted by Joel Walsh on Nov 6, 2004 at 5:15 AM It might be nice if European Leftist intellectuals learned the lessons of the failure of the Germany left who thought that Hitler’s election would somehow be good news. The failure here is similar to that past one: a belief that electoral politics substitutes for new institution building. Perhaps such new alternative institutions are less fun for the author than postmodern word games.
Posted by Paul Goodman's Brother on Nov 6, 2004 at 10:30 AM I admire In These Times’ attempts to boost its circulation. It has turned to various celebrities with progressive credentials to do so. While I admire some of these persons, it might help if In These Times would try to bring in new writers who had a more critical analysis of what is going on. You could start by enlisting some radical historians who know U.S. history. It’s ironic that James Weinstein’s departure (himself an historian) has been followed by celebrity fluff.
Posted by Paul Goodman's Brother on Nov 6, 2004 at 10:36 AM About the power of prayer.I have heard of studies where,one group of sick folks were prayed for,while another was not.Apperently there IS a benefit.What comes to my mind is how the muslims pray many times per day,fast,and generally try to live a wholesome type life.But most of the “christians"live dog eat dog type lives,with little regard for anything but thier own greed,then pray on Sunday and think they are the rightious ones.
about the “abortion issues"If life held so mightly important to let children be born into poor familys or familys that don’t want them(leading to abuse no doubt).Then why is it ok to support the man responsable for over 100,000 Iraqi deaths?And they are just getting started!Are those lifes worth less than the unwanted unborn?By the way,who are you to decide!
about 9/11 it wasn’t the arabs!the Real terrorist were re-elected through the rigged election.
Posted by fluffy on Nov 6, 2004 at 11:51 AM This article and most of the replies are a prime example of the elitism and narrow-mindedness the far left… the left still refuses to accept the possibility that voters may have had valid reasons for rejecting the Democrats’ program.—Randolph
Well, let’s see, why did voters choose W.?:Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%)....Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found….Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.
...Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have.
Lesson to Democrats: if you don’t want to be seen as elitists, stop telling the people the truth! Lie your asses off.
Posted by Cal on Nov 6, 2004 at 2:16 PM Those who voted on “values” and specifically on the issue of abortion were in fact caught in a paradox. They read the commandment “thou shalt not kill” and since life begins at conception, abortion is sin therefore, cast your vote for Bush. However in doing so, they have endorsed this same sin as Mr. Bush is directly responsible for more than 100,000 aborted lives in Iraq and Afganistan.
The unfortunate truth is that the Fundamentalist movement in America is parallel to the Fundamentalist movement throughout the Islamic world. One could easily substitute Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition for Osama Ben Laden and Al-Queda. Both groups represent a repressive, single-minded interpretation of their religion, each has garnered support through fear and intimidation and claims to speak for all peoples of that religion.
As a Christian, I am distraught. I read the Bible and I try to understand what God wants from me. I pray and I work to help make the world a better place. Yet I turn on the television or go to Church and see these fundamentalist distorting truth and preaching intolerance.
I am now convinced that we truly are approaching the day when the Antichrist will come to power and it will be the fundamentalist movements, both “Christian” and “Islamic” which bring him to power.
Posted by JohnnyBravo on Nov 6, 2004 at 2:17 PM Randolph, your echoing of all the campaign rhetoric will not change the real truths. Clinton did a much better job on homeland security. Bush did a poor job of catching Bin Laden. Bush allow the largest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. He started a war with Iraq that is producing more terrorist every day. So to say we are safer is just plan crap.
Posted by Stephen Holbert on Nov 6, 2004 at 2:35 PM As a matter of fact, I would like Zizek to focus on the fact that how so many people could vote for Bush. I think this should be the primary debate that we should have. I am not of the opinion that such sort of mobilization can be simply explained by referring to fundamental Christianism. How is it possible that many destituted people can see their future in line with Bush’s party? Secondly, what, I think, should be a matter of critique is the strategic positioning of the global justice movement. “Any body but Bush” perspective points out to a real naive approach to the world-historical conjunture, in which capitalim is the main process. (James Petras’ article that he wrote before the elections is warning in that respect) If one is going to make a critique of those being sad at the re-election of Bush, should refer to them by their names, just to introduce a critical approach within this global movement. And if solidarity has a virtue, it would be better if it is honestly genuine. And finally, as related with the second issue I’ve stated above, I am not really sure that the re-election of Bush can be deemed appropriate in the sense that it would thus not yield to a blurring of the status of America in the era of global capitalism. This assertion reminds me of the demand for the concentration of contradictions in the class struggle just to open the circumstances to go into a revolutionary situation. If we are going to infer a few results after this election in the US, the first thing that might be addressed is the difficult but necessary attempt to construct a viable collective alternative not just in the US but all over the world. The subject of this endeavour would be the “slum dwellers” or not, I don’t know. Yet what really matters is the beginning of a construction of such a formation with the “renegades” of the “symbolic” class and the downtrodden. Progressives would do better if they withdraw from a “progressive” look at history and start realizing their ideals right now!
Posted by erkal on Nov 6, 2004 at 4:01 PM I think the author is wildly off-base. The Right has spent the last 40 years organizing and effecting their campaign to take over power in America, starting after Goldwater’s resounding defeat in 1964. Foundations like the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation were part of their planning, and a lot of big money went into financing the strategic planning and execution. Their campaign included taking over big media and creating their own outlets. It also included identifying likely candidates and supporting them for office at all levels all over the country. Hence their takeover of so many state government positions and institutions.
The Left did not understand what was happening, and adopted the generally wrong stance in trying to counter their success. We tend to be collaborators, tolerant, open to the needs and opinions of others, and we try to be inclusive in problem-solving. So we accommodated when we would have been better served by sharpening our own message and strengthening our own positions. That has left the majority of the country without a voice. The amazing success of Howard Dean in the primaries was evidence of that. But the old Democratic machine had to die first. (Not the Liberal one).
I encourage you to go to the Alternet web site and read the interview there with George Lakoff. George is a cognitive linguist who has extensively studied the Right’s success and the Left’s failure and has come up with an explanation and an approach that I believe are absolutely dead-on. The majority of Americans are *not* right-leaning, repressive moralists who think abortion and gay marriage are the most important things to fight.
But all of us do have some inclination to be authoritarian and repressive in certain circumstances, and the Right capitalized on that with their deliberate choice of messages and the way they drove them. My belief is that many of them do not care at all whether women get abortions, or whether there are gay people who make life commitments to one another. Their real interest is power: getting it, keeping it, wielding it. (There is that in all of us too, to some degree.) And they will use any means to pursue this interest. The ‘moral’ messages and how they delivered them were a fundamental part of this.
George Lakoff shows how they have done it with their choice of language. He also has recommendations for Progressives for articulating and conveying our own messages. He has dedicated himself to helping spread this awareness and development. I plan to do everything I can to follow his lead.
Posted by Nanka Harrell on Nov 6, 2004 at 4:41 PM “Welcome to the Fourth Reich” and like the third,
will pass on into history as it destroys itself
making this country, like modern-day Germany, a much wiser country. Sometimes we have to get
sick in order to get better, if you will. I would
like to see the remaining thinking folks to roll and let these “NAZIs” have theri way. This will ensure the morons who voted for the “Moron-in-Chief” feel the same pain, only in a much quicker fashion!The article was pretty much right on target!
Like a bad meal, this Reich, too, shall “pass”!Mike-Atlanta
Posted by Mike on Nov 6, 2004 at 5:44 PM All of you are cooperating so well with Karl - he must be so proud. This election wasn’t won or lost because one or another group of people ‘believe’ or don’t ‘believe’ anything. You have been well and truly distracted, diverted, and deceived. You are at each other’s throats and that’s just fine with Karl. That way, you’re not at his or his boy’s throat.
Folks - the reason this election was lost by the ‘Left’ is because it was STOLEN again by the so-called ‘Right.’ Again.
But don’t pay any attention to the facts - that would be so distracting, wouldn’t it? No fun there. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, just go right on pissing on each other for the next four years while what passes for a government guts what’s left of the country and the world for their own benefit.
Got a bulletin for you - there really is no Left and Right. Not any more. It’s a shadow play, a sideshow, a circus to engage and distract the peasants while their herds are rustled and their children stolen to fight in foreign wars for the king. Not much changes, does it?
It’s all going to come down to those who have and do and those who were had and done to. No matter what your political leanings or beliefs, we are ALL in the second group. Those who are truly members of the Ruling Class are certainly not spending their morning typing rants on a forum.
The election was manipulated, the votes were discarded or stolen. It’s got nothing to do with any values other than ‘I got mine and screw you.’
Wake up!
Posted by bablhous on Nov 6, 2004 at 6:11 PM As stated before, president of U.S.A. is just a mask used by capitalist for his purposes. If mask gets dirty, it is easy to change.
Now capitalist just liked Bush fitting one’s purposes, and considered keeping him. Kerry raged during the campaing for full theatrical effect, but didn’t fight for those uncounted Ohio votes but gave up.
Key is to have broad set of tools, including complete information theory with human psychology and it’s impact on our knowledge. Also some informational points are good to start with.
E.g. finding differing interpretations and taking the most reasonable, beginning one’s study there.Note that world politics cannot be interpretated so simply as the main media does. As in fact, the main media is part of world politics.
Posted by Tatu Portin on Nov 6, 2004 at 7:09 PM George Bush is the man for the job. He won the election.
John Kerry’s prayers were answered: he lost the election. He’s happy about it, too.
Who in the world deserves the job of the President of the United States more than George Bush?
Posted by systematic on Nov 6, 2004 at 7:14 PM “This nut thinks that we would be upset if Muslims had a “left behind” like book published. Um, hate to break the news, but in the Muslim world no freedom of speech exists, women have no rights, etc. Hell, if they could spend their efforts writing dumb books instead of stoning people to death (for such heineous crimes as adultry) i think we as a nation would be fine with that!”
I love how sooo implores dirtylogic to stop stereotyping him as the typical right-wing conservative. Thank you, you vortex of hypocrisy, for stereotyping the values of the entire Muslim World.
Posted by Noor on Nov 6, 2004 at 11:31 PM Kudos to Mr. Zizek, for having the balls and the integrity to point out both how little difference there was between Kush and Berry in their actual issue positions, and how important it was that Americans get to see the maggot-infested underbelly of the ENTIRE Duopoly the two wings of the Boot On Your Neck Party represent! I am delighted to finally see one of the “progressive” sites I surf for Rational Review News Digest (http://www.rationalreview.com/news/) and Progressive News Digest (http://progressive.news-digests.com/) show up with something other than pro-Kerry apologistic drivel (when The Nation endorsed; I plotzed!) about this sham election we just witnessed, in which one so-called “party” repeated its process of “outstealing” the other one ...
Wake up, folks, your Liberty is not in the hands of the Ds or Rs, it is in YOURS!
Posted by Stephen A. Trinward on Nov 7, 2004 at 4:00 AM The “evangelicals” turned out and voted for Bush largely because of the “gay marriage” issue, more so than abortion. The churches were preaching that “Kerry wanted to ban the Bible”. These people are very very dangerous.
Posted by ML on Nov 7, 2004 at 4:01 AM just believe this guy, Slavoj Zizek is one of the great philosophers of our time. and i’m sure all of you conservative Christians who praise your silly books and your silly ministers and your silly politicians wouldn’t be well read or well informed enough to have even known about the writer of this article. when your kids go to college and bridge your own educational failings i am sure that they will read and listen to nothing but Zizek and they will come home and they will look at you and feel nothing but the heavy burden of pity and regret within their hearts.
Posted by esteban schimpf on Nov 7, 2004 at 4:01 AM Read the truth here (PDF but worth it):
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/gaoinvestvote2004ltr11504.pdf
The House Judiciary Committee is calling for an immediate and thorough investigation of the widespread revelations of voter fraud. These revelations are particularly numerous in precincts that used electronic voting machines, optical scanners, and punch cards. Such precincts were numerous in Ohio and Florida, as well as other states where the initial tallies departed wildly from the exit polls, including states won by Kerry, such as New Hampshire and Minnesota. However, all the irregularities favored Bush-Cheney. The exit polls, which showed Kerry with a significant margin of victory, agreed with the initial tallies—to within one half of one percent—in precincts that used traditional hand-counted paper ballots. The discrepencies between exit polls and ballot tallies were almost exclusively to be found in precincts that used some form of machine-assisted ballot processing, particularly “touch screen” voting machines, optical scanners, and punch cards.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/gaoinvestvote2004ltr11504.pdf
This issue is being monitored by Black Box Voting, which has launched the largest FOIA action in history to get whatever paper trail there is for all the precincts that use machines in the ballot counting process. www.blackboxvoting.org
Whoever wins or loses, the actual votes must be counted. That’s the law.
Posted by Joel on Nov 7, 2004 at 4:30 AM Zizek states: “But in removing him, the U.S. intervention has led to the creation of a “fundamentalist” opposition that precludes any pragmatic compromises.”
Zizek has an elegant theory here, but it really doesn’t fit with reality. Even so-called “fundamentalists” are perfectly willing to collaborate with the US when it suits their needs. Perhaps Zizek slept through Fahrenheit 9/11’s scene of the Taliban’s oil pipeline visit to Washington, DC.
Posted by ZBT on Nov 7, 2004 at 4:33 AM The US military doesn’t do body counts, but, when it comes to counting votes, the government sure does count votes… for Bush.
After the 2000 election, who in their right mind would think that the 2004 election would be any different? You’re only fooling yourselves.
I made sure that I didn’t vote for a single Republican or Democrat.
This election was a joke. Get over it.
Posted by systematic on Nov 7, 2004 at 12:13 PM You can’t win elections if the the election is rigged. Have you heard about the elctronic voting machines that apparently gave Bush a 5% edge everywhere they were used? Don’t look to the next election unless you’re willin to deal with the fraud that happened in this one.
Posted by john yorks on Nov 7, 2004 at 12:55 PM Yes, the voting fraud problems must be brought out and all of us must make as much noise as possible to get attention paid by the media and our representatives. It is entirely possible that they rigged the election just to insure their win.
I repeat though, I’m not sure we want Kerry to win and be responsible for the messes Bush made. It’s a no-win situation without a majority in congress as well. I say we keep the issues of election fraud alive and stay angry. Make their lives a living hell for the next two years while we work on building a better message and getting it out there.
They also won by winning too many ‘religious’ voters with their skewed and deceptive ‘values’. We must counter them everywhere at the grass roots by getting our own values clear enough to resonate with the voters who actually went against their own best interests. Read George Lakoff.
Posted by svobodna on Nov 7, 2004 at 2:21 PM Actually there are three types of people who voted for Bush; 1) Evangelicals and right-wing Catholics 2) Grand Poobahs and High Hoohahs of the corporate world and saddest of all 3) the working poor who always vote against their own economic interests because they love guns and are scared to death of Gays.
I don’t recognize this country now. It will surely be an alien land to me after another four years of Smirk and Snarl. Whatever, there is more at stake here, for me, than how to live
with 4 more years. It is a matter of my own spiritual beliefs, which just simply will not allow me to support, even with my presence, let alone my resources, more war crimes,crimes against humanity and crimes against our Constitution.Canada is looking good to me, or New Zealand. At least those two nations took the moral high ground and still believe in Science.
Everything is going to blow up in their faces, just as it has other fascist regimes. The true evil axis is government, commerce and religion, twisted together in a most vile conspiracy.
Posted by Dot Dedman on Nov 7, 2004 at 10:05 PM Well, He’s back in office.
It was funny that we felt as if he couldn’t ever make it to the shores of re-election, as his policies and tactics of the past four years were so truly and painfully myopic.
But then, there was always the possibility that they would come true. Now it’s only a matter of examining (probably from a far-off vantage) that it has become a reality.
When asked what I, as an American, would want Bush to do in the next four years. You know what happened? I drew a blank. I literally can not think of anything I would like President Bush to accomplish. He literally can not win.
Even the prospect of this luridly grinning, politically callous, down-home cowboy attempting a truly heartfelt and moral endeavor appears ludicris and contradictory.
I’ve never felt this way about any incoming president in the past. So why is it that I, who have acknowledged my candidate’s defeat, am so unable to follow the 51% majority in demanding that the NEW President Bush look out for my interests?
I guess the question YET remains:
“What do YOU want President Bush to accomplish in the next four years?”
Posted by takentothecleaners on Nov 8, 2004 at 12:46 AM Zizek’s fatal flaw-Kerry was a great fraud who was selected to allow the appearance of free elections. Kerry was smiling when he shafted his supporters and one can only marvel that the rubes fight on for fair elections. Not one peep on the televison talk shows from prominent democrats about vote fraud sems to me to say that Bush II stole the elction from a man and a party who wanted above all else to give it to him. In my opinion the theocratic dicatorship Bush II seeks to impose will come at the most opportune time: when it is necessary for the preservation of his power. FEMA internment camps exist, Homeland Security exists, the Patriot Act exists, and the terrorist national government exists awaiting the word to cement martial law.
Posted by brux on Nov 8, 2004 at 3:57 AM Randolph
I don’t know - you say the law enforcement approach didn’t work under Clinton. How can you know that? 9/11 threw the problem into spectacular relief - it redefined the meaning of terrorism completely. So in a way, talking about pre and post 9/11 is apples and oranges. And Clinton actually did use the military. It didn’t work very well. To say that law enforcement “failed” is silly. Now we know what we are up against, so now there is (or rather there should be) the political will to commit major resources to the problem of terrorism. And when the military approach makes sense, we should use it.
But I would like to know how tying the bulk of the U.S. military up in Iraq is going to prevent ten or twenty committed fanatics somewhere in the world from figuring out how to perpetrate another monstrous attack on the U.S.? How? The answer is that it won’t. There are endless possibilities as to what these people can cook up. Bush has invaded Iraq to preclude on of the least plausible possible scenarios - that Saddam, the secular, autocratic leader of a nation-state, would give a nuke to a bunch of loose- cannon jihadi religious fanatics… Well, it doesn’t make any sense at all. And even if it did, the plotters of the next 9/11 are off in Amsterdam, or Manilla, or Atlanta or Minneapolis, thinking up their next move.
Posted by Doug on Nov 8, 2004 at 4:53 AM This article was horrible… practically impossible to read. And, I really do we consider ourselves “glad” that Bush was reelected when we keep losing jobs, our children are marched off to war, our seniors can’t afford medication, and education keeps going underfunded. There is more than just theory here, folks. We are talking about life or death, home or homelessness for a lot of people.
And, in response to Randolph, that people might have a valid reason for rejecting the Democrat’s program. I would agree with you except that some 75% of those who voted for Bush still believe that Iraq harbors weapons of mass destruction and was directly involved in 9/11. Considering those statistics, I would have to say that, yes, they were misinformed. Not everyone has access to independent media, unfortunately and I really do believe that if people had known the truth, they would not have voted for Bush. Even if they were afraid of gay marriage (whooooooo, scary.)
Posted by Fed Up on Nov 8, 2004 at 5:16 AM The corollary to Zizek’s view is that Bush’s voodoo economics (war + lowering corporate and wealth taxes = prosperity) will bring US economic collapse and boost Europes’ place in the world. Could be! Many Europeans hoped Bush would win for these reasons.
- I think Zizek is correct that the Bush policy is not a reach for empire. It is the policy of a vicious nation state bent on supremacy. This resembles Hitler more than Julius Ceasar
Posted by Citizen Josef on Nov 8, 2004 at 2:30 PM Let’s focus all of our energies on taking back Congress in ‘06. We’ve got a lot of ideological preconceptions to overcome, but two more years of quagmire in Iraq (plus whatever new invasion Dubya has up his sleeve), ongoing casualties and the inevitable military draft should hit painfully close to home for everyone not on the Far Right, and help convince them that there are issues which are infinitely more important to America’s well-being than gay marriage and abortion.
Posted by Pete on Nov 8, 2004 at 6:02 PM Pete is right—we need to focus forward now, being prepared to take advantage of administration missteps. To succeed, we *still* need to get better at articulating and communicating our message(s) Otherwise, we will never reach the people who respond to the ‘hot buttons’ of threats to marriage and family. Once again, please read George Lakoff. The answer is in his work. Go to the alternet site http://www.alternet.org/ and do a search on Lakoff. Read the interviews and articles, and get his books. It is vital that we learn how to shape our messages if we are going to turn the Right’s momentum around.
Posted by svobodna on Nov 8, 2004 at 7:35 PM Randolph makes - inadvertantly - a point that I think is important: you can’t lump all the supporters of Dubya into one big psycho religious fruitcake.
Yes, plenty of bible-thumpers got out and voted, true enough. However, as Randolph states he voted for Dubya not based on religious/moral issues, but rather on SECURITY issues.
The implication, then, is this: Dubya may have won the popular vote, but hardly by a landslide. Nearly HALF the country voted for Kerry, and of those who did vote for Dubya many I imagine were like Randolph, voting on other issues.
I hardly see where this simpleton stands up and says he has a “mandate” from the American public. The only thing he has is a master campaign handler and the fact that the majority of my fellow Americans are too stupid to see anything past their own couch.
I also have to take issue w/Randolph on security: if anything, it’s WORSE than before 9/11. The Taliban is FAR from gone, as you would have us believe. They still control parts of Afghanistan, with warlords controlling much of the rest of the country. Yes, they had elections but outside of Kabul - forget it. Warlords who just months ago were in open alliance with bin Laden control the rest.
I also disagree on the Kerry/law enforcement comments, too. I don’t think he was the greatest candidate - I mean really, HOW do you lose to a moron like Dubya?? - but 9/11 changed a lot of things, I doubt ANY ONE in office would treat terra-ism as a “police matter.”
In summary, don’t confuse military action with CORRECT action. Iraq was easy pickings, relatively speaking, and now we’re stuck with the very messy/costly fall out. All for a country that most could care less about in the first place. Nice.
Posted by g-love on Nov 8, 2004 at 8:00 PM I work across the street from Ground Zero.
I have to walk EVERY DAY, past what is now the final resting place for my BEST FRIEND.
When 9/11 happened I truly believed that this Administration would be forced to GROW UP, and conduct the foreign affairs of this nation as needed to be done to 1) avenge this horrific attack on civilians, 2) REALLY address the problem of global terrorism (if there was a truly defining moment when EVERYONE was on our side, and we had the POLITICAL environment to effect REAL change which was in our interest, this was it, 3) we could have finally and FOREVER established ourselves as the moral conscience of the WORLD.
What happened instead?
This administration fell prey to its internal demons and politicized this horrific event for it’s own short term self interest. In the addition, it has ALIENATED all of the Middle East,and worse than that our ALLIES.
And BOTTOM LINE…and this is where it has gotten REALLY personal for me.
NO ONE THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE WAS EVER PUNISHED FOR THAT DAY!
Posted by Liberal but Proud on Nov 8, 2004 at 8:18 PM I hope you keep thinking this way. It’s the same silly mistake liberals always make, and it’s what keeps republicans in power. It’s also a message that will only serve to guarantee the republican ranks continue to grow.
The silly, ego-serving mistake you make is in assuming the beliefs of the Christian right are incorrect. You’ll never understand that it isn’t a belief system, primative, modern, or otherwise. It’s the simple, unadorned, plain truth.
Cristians don’t just beieve in God, we KNOW God and we KNOW Christ. We come to God through belief, through faith, but then, just as the Bible promises, faith becomes knowledge. God and Christ are as real, as solid, as substantial, as easy to know and talk to as any of our friends and neighbors and family. Far easier to see as real than any of the faceless, foolish little voices like yours.
Keep on thinking this way, keep on thing the left behind series is silliness, that the Christian right is simply a bunch of primative people with primative beliefs.
Keep on fooling yourself that this election means anything at all good for the liberal left. Youand your kind are not only the primatives, you grow more and more irrelevant with every passing day.
And keep on making the truly foolish mistake that all of Europe is on your side.
Keep on beliving the true foolishnes that this election had anything to do with dispair and fear. That truly is burying your head in the sand. The only thing any of us fear is that sometimes it does seem possible that a majority of the electorate could be so brain dead, so uneducated, so morally bereft, so completely lack in all common sense, to vote for those with your point of view, with your foolish beliefs.
The truth is, thank GOD, most aren’t.
And wait until we bring in the black vote and the union vote, which most certainly is going to happen. Now you are merely irrelevant. Then you’ll be extinct.
Posted by Isaac Solomon on Nov 8, 2004 at 10:48 PM Karl Rove - love him or hate him, ya gotta admit he looks very much like the Ku Klux Klansman Gubernatorial Candidate, Homer Stokes, in “O Brother Where Art Thou.” The resemblance is uncanny and a little freaky!
“Is you is, or is you ain’t, my constituency?”
(I think many negative things about Rove, but ajbect racism is not one of them. For the record.)
Posted by ConstitutionIsMyBible on Nov 9, 2004 at 12:25 AM Isaac Solomon, I don’t understand. It’s not as if anyone is proposing a law or amendment to force you to disavow your beliefs, so I’m a bit bewildered as to the point you are trying to make (other than you believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong).
You can be a Christian and still be an American Patriot if you believe in the US Constitution, both literally and in spirit. However, if your intent is to subjugate the Constitution to your Bible and Christian beliefs then I suggest that what you propose is nothing short of Revolution - the overthrow of the American Way.
Do you embrace the idea that there is room in this country for people who are different, people who have different world views and spiritual convictions? Or do you believe that there is room for only people who loathe liberals and profess to have Christ in their heart? Is it with a Christian heart that you hope for (or predict) the extinction of people who think differently than you do?
Posted by ConstitutionIsMyBible on Nov 9, 2004 at 12:49 AM Our nation is republican owned and operated. If you don’t have abundance of money get ready for some very,very rough times. Freedom of the press in this country has long been shut down by the corporation’s take over of all the media, thus we all have been reduced to republican moral values, specifically from the pulpit of the religious institutions of our country. Where is the separation of church and state? Now we have moral values while we attack soverign nations, kill tens of thousands of women and children, sacrafice and mame our youth for the next barrell of oil, all in the name of moral values, what a hypocritical mesh we have all become. Just got to shape up America.
Posted by Larry Henry on Nov 9, 2004 at 1:31 AM America has had it from the black box paperless voting machines to so called moral values. We as citizens have the constiution to live with, protect, and defend. Our nation has invaded a soverign country only for its oil, killed tens of thousands of women and children, sacraficed and maimed our youth, and yet we vote moral values. What a hypocritical mass we are. Shape up America.
Posted by Larry Henry on Nov 9, 2004 at 1:42 AM On the abortion issue again, Did you know that the number of abortions per year has gone up since the Clinton administration? Maybe it’s because with such unaffordable healthcare people know they cannot afford to have babies? And the law of supply and demand guarantees that privatizing healthcare will only increase the cost since the demand will always be there, the suppliers can raise the prices. Yes, that may allow noble companies to offer affordable care, but I really doubt they’ll be that selfless.
Posted by Slea on Nov 9, 2004 at 8:22 AM Isaac, who are YOU to question MY or anyone else’s faith.
Who are YOU to claim some kind of “closerness” to God?
Who are YOU to claim some kind of religious superiority over everyone else?
You exhibit all the poor traits of the megalomaniac, and the paranoid all rolled up into one.
You are not comfortable with ANYTHING that in any way calls into question your faith.
That’s because, despite your claim that you KNOW God, you really don’t know him.
Blind faith is bad faith.
I don’t recall the quote verbatim…but…
Before you remove the speck from your neighbors eye, you must first remove the speck from your own eye.
Think about it.
Posted by Liberal but Proud on Nov 9, 2004 at 12:44 PM Death is an outmoded strategy required of an evolving species. It is of no use to the aware individual.
Posted by Planetary Escape Velocity on Nov 9, 2004 at 12:51 PM Forgive me for intruding on your little meeting of Feminist gay abortionists for gun control. I must say reading your pathetic whining is funny. Have you not heard the news yet?? Liberalism is a dead horse. Stop trying to pick it up and ride it. You will never win ever again with your silly little ideas . This may have been YOUR Waterloo but we have still not played cowboys and liberals yet. I know we will have a hard time prying you “enlightened ones” off our sheep first but when we do you will find out America- which by the way was founded as a Free Christian Nation-gasp under God has told you that we will not accept your version of what is right. Man quit doing so many drugs and reading postmodernist drivel and get real.
Posted by redstate on Nov 9, 2004 at 1:53 PM “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved—the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” -John Adams
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” -James Madison
Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” -Thomas JeffersonOur Founding Fathers would are rolling over in their graves. They can’t believe that the same ideals that brought them here are rearing it’s ugly head again. I guess this is what happens when you neglect education.
Posted by BluemaninaRedstate on Nov 9, 2004 at 2:06 PM “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven”
“Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted”
“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”
“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness. for they shall be filled”
“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy”
“Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God”
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God”
“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you”
Matthew 5:3-12Personally, I think the 8th Beatitude is particularly relevant, given the level of intolerance being exhibited in His name.
Posted by Liberal and Proud on Nov 9, 2004 at 3:15 PM I agree, corporate Americas’ second term will serve to wake up call to the idiots that voted them in and they’ll be so mad they won’t take it anymore. But its too late, corporate America will turn on them by liquidating their corporate assets into Euros leaving conservative christian republican moralist with portfolios that can be liquidated only in junk dollars. The real estate bubble will bust and stupid America will be foreclosed on. Who wants California, the Russian mafia, Saudi princeses, Chinese commicapitalist, any other bidders? The end of the ride is coming up America, hold on tight.
Posted by theloneous on Nov 9, 2004 at 5:08 PM The flip side of Fundamentalism is the PoMo blather of Zizek and his ilk.
Zizek is for all purposes a mole of the radical right.
I’m so tired of academic word-games passing for progressive politics.
My feeling: Bush is comeuppance for the refusal of educated elites to stand by the Enlightenment. Or to give a fuck what working poor whites in North America think and feel. Big mistake.
Our negligence, our love of intellectual masturbation over moral substance, bred the monsters who now rule. Enjoy.
Posted by EnlightenmentValues on Nov 9, 2004 at 6:27 PM I have one question for all of you that profess faith in God. If your faith is so strong why do you feel the need to make laws to force everyone to act and live according to your beliefs? Jesus who was perfect and our example in everything NEVER did that. He helped those that asked for help but NEVER forced himself on anyone. In fact he always stood up for the sinners when the church goers tried to condemn them. The people he associated with were the sinners, to the conservatives that means, gays, abortionists, etc…He shunned the church which is why they killed him. To all of you conservatives let me point out that Jesus was a RADICAL liberal, he told the rich young ruler to give all he had to the poor, he threw the businesses out of the church, and he pointed out the hypocrisy of the church repeatedly. The churches we have today would crucifiy him again.
One thing we need to remember is the conservative christians make up about 25% of our population. If we believe that we can’t make a difference without their vote then you aren’t paying attention to numbers. About 22% at the exit polls stated their reasons for voting were for moral reasons and the one poll that qualified the moral reason as opposing gay marrage and abortion then that number dropped to 11%. If asked that question a lot of Liberals would say yes because the war, poverty, jobs are all moral reasons to vote. The press is taking these numbers and blowing them way out of context.
Furthermore take a look at all of the problems with the adminstration’s account of 9/11 http://www.911research.wtc7.net/ then tell me that you feel safer. Just one problem is NORAD didn’t repsond for over an hour and a half. Why didn’t they? Why hasn’t someone been disciplined or fired for these failures? Failures are as follows;
Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.
Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.While this was going on dubya was reading my pet goat. Are we safer, get real. Many, many more problems listed on this site.
Also take a look at this website to learn about the 9/11 families that are suing dubya and his adminsration because they have memos and documents that show Bush authorized the attacks. www.deprogram.info
Where has that liberal media been while all of this was taking place?
Posted by Glenda on Nov 9, 2004 at 8:03 PM Since you all have crystal balls handy (er, surprising that they could not predict a simple thing like an election!), it is kind of you to share what the future will hold. In the old days, we waited for history to decide how current events would be seen. You guys seem able to bypass that slow, tedious process and just declare such things as theloneous above (betcha he is massively wealthy, given his “astute” predictions! :) ).
Posted by wowsers on Nov 9, 2004 at 8:06 PM Also one question for those of you that say you tolerate gays, muslims, or anyone else you feel is wrong. When did Jesus say “tolerate one another”? If I remember correctly he said love one another and if your enemy is hungry feed him. How do justify your postitions with Jesus’s teachings? Just curious what you say to yourself so you can sleep at night.
Posted by Glenda on Nov 9, 2004 at 8:11 PM Poor Glenda above laments our horrible failures in reacting to 9/11 and she is absolutely on the money. If only GWB had the sense to slip out of his street clothes and don his Superman outfit, he could have stopped the planes from crashing. But alas, as the ever sharp Glenda above points out, he merely sat there and *allowed* the planes to continue their assaults! If only he had acted!!!
Posted by ifOnly on Nov 9, 2004 at 8:12 PM I’m also waiting to see what happens when the moral right uses their so called power to outlaw the Nascar dad’s beer.
Posted by Glenda on Nov 9, 2004 at 8:14 PM Glenda, we live in an imperfect world. If we were really to take the silly approach to live like Jesus, we would not marry and would die (horribly) at 33. Not really very appealing and certainly not the message of Christianity.
Would you really have Christians release all prisoners (he never ran a prison)? Or can you imagine that there may be a more pragmatic way to live that is somehow not in conflict with his teachings?
Do we hewre believe a woman has a right to control her body? If so, can we all agree that prostitution should be legal? How about drugs? If not, why not?
To try to simplify complex issues leads to silly results all too often. To attack an entire group, especially such a diverse one, leads to logical errors.
Glenda - i am sure you are a kind and good person. I mean no offense, but am merely trying to explain a pov that you seem not to be familar with. Best wishes.
Posted by christian on Nov 9, 2004 at 8:18 PM ifonly,
Sarcasm doesn’t change the facts. It is obvious you haven’t researched it or you would know that had he acted after the second plane he could have stopped the Pentagon from being hit. Go do the research then come back and talk to me. When Payne Stewart’s plane went off course it had fighter jets around it within 15 minutes. Not one plane that morning hit their target in that time limit.
Posted by Glenda on Nov 9, 2004 at 8:23 PM to christian,
Actually you are not correct in assuming I am ignorant of the christian position. I grew up a christian and attended only church schools. When I started reading and studting for myself I learned how the Bible had been used to keep me afraid. Jesus’s message is not that at all. Sorry to hear you say it is a silly message. It is suppose to be what you are about if you call yourself a christian. If you say it cannot work in the world we live in then I say where is your faith?
Yes a woman has the right to control their own body it is that free will that God created us with.
If you do as Jesus did you would be helping all of the people who feel life is so hopeless that their only alternative is to turn to prostitution to survive and to turn to drugs so they don’t have to feel any pain. Lives can be changed by one person showing others they care. It is that course of action that prvents drugs and prostitution. Of course most of the right wing just want to refuse to associate with those they feel are sinners. They just want to proclaim these people as morally wrong and pass laws then feel like they did something to help the problem.
Posted by Glenda on Nov 9, 2004 at 8:39 PM Glenda honey - so do you think that it would have been better to shoot down the plane rather than letting it hit the pentagon? Even given how little damage was actually done to the pentagon (you know, it was built as a warehouse in the early 20th century and was **extremely** robust!)? While it *could* have been much worse, if a fighter pilot had to shoot down an unarmed civilian jetliner, i am pretty sure that someone would be bitterly complaining about *that*. Not to mention the poor pilot who would have been responsible for the downing of the jetliner (or whatever might have actually transpired, given this alternative). Can we at least agree that this course of action probably would NOT have saved any lives if actually implemented (i assume you know that when you shoot down planes, the debris goes somewhere!).
I would have to say that, in my opinion, given what we now know, 9/11 was handled quite nicely. And that we were quite lucky in a number of ways as well. But since you have a different opinion, please enlighten me as to how much better it could have been if only the right guy gave the right orders at the right time. I am curious as to what type of difference it might have made in your mind. . .
Posted by ifOnly on Nov 9, 2004 at 8:50 PM Glenda I don’t think I understand your position. Are you saying that prostitution should be legal, since we should not pass laws based on morality?
Second, there really is no “christian position”. As you well know, some people use the Bible to spread fear, others use it to spread love (think of all the missionaries feeding people, both here and abroad - in my home town the homeless shelters are run by churches, for instance). I do agree that following Jesuses teachings is a good thing, but the “silly” word was meant for those who do that to the extreme (such as christians who refuse to participate in the political process since it is secular).
My personal brand of Christianty goes something like this. Try to be kind to everyone. Try to accept everyone as best you can. Do not allow others to corrupt with worldly things (ie, try not to get too greedy or lustful, etc). For the most part, i velieve people should be allowed to do as they please, as long as they do not harm others.
But the world is a complicated place. Should we allow other nations to torture and kill their own populations (Iraq, Sudan come to mind)? Or should we intervene to try to help? One way may be a crime of ommission, the other a crime of commision? To me, it is a choice between two evils, not a choice between good and evil. Many other important issues have similar dicotomies. . .
Posted by christian on Nov 9, 2004 at 9:00 PM A great article Slavoj.
I agree that this is a wonderful opportunity for the Left - though perhaps not for hand-wringing progressives. Kerry would certainly put a smiley-face onto the root problem (capitalism) for a few more years, much as Clinton did. Bush is honest about his goals and he IS admired for that by many - hell I admire his chutzpah even though I fundamentally disagree with nearly everything he stands for (that “I intend to spend that capital” was f*cking hillarious!). It is correct that the lines are drawn more clearly and new power blocs will develop.
I don’t see how Bush is protecting any vital economic resources for Americans, however. He is solely protecting the vital resources of global capital, which “has no country” (as our friends in the IWW will tell us). So I have to disagree that Bush is driven by nationalism - I think he uses it as a tool, but his true interest seems to lie with global capital.
I have to chuckle at the thesaurus remark - perhaps readers should check the background of an articles author before posting such flippant comments.
Posted by Shane Kenyon on Nov 9, 2004 at 9:12 PM Keep thinking like a tenured Stalinist. Keep thinking theology doesn’t matter. Keep thinking popular culture is so much “superstructure.”
Oh, that precious precious theory. Keep partying like it’s 1968, Boomer lefties. The hicks are coming to burn you. And me too. Thanks a lot.
Posted by EnlightenmentValues on Nov 9, 2004 at 9:27 PM Ifonly,
First let me say I am not a honey so quit trying to be patronizing.
What I am saying is that so many people say Bush protected us. I say he didn’t even try. The things he could have done he didn’t even attempt to do. As for the Pentagon they didn’t know what building that plane was headed for. It could have been headed for a school for all they knew at that point. I am saying I don’t know if we could have stopped it but George did NOTHING so don’t give him credit for doing something when he did nothing. Why did Ascroft quit flying about a month before? They said they could have never imagined planes would be used as missles but they had intell telling them the threat was out there. If they couldn’t imagine it why had they flown about 30 drills for an emergency such as this before the attack? If it was for our protection why haven’t they just come out and say we were trying to protect America? That would have been good re-election insurance. But no they are remaining mum about it, in fact most Americans don’t know it happened. Go to the website I mentioned and read it all then come back and discuss it with me and if you can explain all of the problems with the adminstration’s explanations for what happened that day then I’ll admit I’m wrong and dubya is a great president.To christian,
My position is simple, do as Jesus did. If you look at what he did he fed those that were hungry, healed those that were sick, and comforted those that needed it. He was very hard on the religious establishment. He expressly told those that were rich to help the poor. He understood that money is not what made you a good perosn so you didn’t need to accumulate it. When you look at the parable of the prodigal son he let the son leave and welcomed him back when he was ready to come home. He didn’t make a law to prevent him from going.
If you do what needs to be done to help people they don’t turn to these things. They way the poor are treated is a very immoral. Jesus talks about it repeatedly. Most people are like the rich young ruler, they don’t want to give up their comforts to help make a difference in other’s lives. They just want to remain convinced these people have the life they do because the are stupid, lazy or immoral.As for war, don’t wrap yourself up in helping the poor Iraqies as an excuse for this so called act of protecting our country. There are many suffering people in the world that are ignored every day. Why hasn’t the right pressured Bush to help in Sudan or help with the AIDS crisis? They are too busy trying to keep gays from getting married. Where are your priorities here? Gays getting married doesn’t weaken your marriage if it does it isn’t very strong to begin with. They aren’t out killing people in acts of genocide. You are trying to stop women from getting abortions but think of the deaths of hundreds of Iraqi children as collateral damage. Save the poor children from abortion so we have them to send to war to kill children and be killed.
I am saying you have to look at the whole picture because prostitution, abortion, and drugs are the symptoms of much bigger problems. It’s like putting a band-aid on a broken leg then blaming victim because the leg didn’t heal right. I say you prevent the circumstances that cause these things which is usually poverty. Jesus understood that which is why he talked so much about helping the poor and the effects of greed. He said these things while the Jews lived in oppression from the Romans so don’t say things are much worse now. We are living in a free country. Jesus’s own life was endangered because of the degree to kill all of the first born boys, his family fled like refugees to Egypt. He lived in a very violent time and if he can do it so can you.
Posted by Glenda on Nov 9, 2004 at 9:54 PM Glenda - I have visited the site you referred to above. It is a conspiracy site, which claims that the twin towers were destroyed not by the planes, but by “powerful” explosives. It also claims that voter fraud is widespread and gives the impression that the abuses are by the conservatives only. In fact it asserts that the US is: “one of the most corrupt, least democratic nations in the world”. (Right away i find that to be rather absurd, due to personal experience!) (I also note that it does not display properly with Mozilla.)
The first “theory” is crazy, at least in my opinion. The second is paranoid, again in my opinion. I put this sort of site in with the aliens are running the country sites (which, of course, are vehemently defended by their believers).
I also feel you have not answered the questions I posed to you. To reiterate (and expand a bit):
1) Should prostitution be legal? If not, why not?
2) Should the US intervene in a country that is decimating its own population?
3) If we did not decide to go to war with Iraq, should we have ended the sanctions? If so, how should we have dealt with Husseins desire to re-arm himself?
4) Can one be Christian and still support prisons for people who break the law? Can Christians in good conscience support the death penalty?
5) Is abortion wrong, or just a choice. I recommend the current Harpers magazine which has a very good evenhanded article about this subject.
Best wishes.
Posted by christian on Nov 9, 2004 at 10:35 PM christian,
I am sure relieved I don’t have to say dubya is a great president. Saying a site is a conspiracy site doesn’t make it one. Can you prove it wasn’t done by exposives? Tell me of any incident where a building has collasped like that from heat.As for questions,
1. Should prositution be legal? You are asking the wrong question in my opinion because being illegal has NEVER stopped it. What you should be asking is how we can help poor woman make a decent wage so they can surive? We should be asking what motivates men to go to them including some very famous right wingers?2. Should the US intervene in a country that is decimating its own population? Again asking the wrong question. Why does the U.S. continually fund and support dicators and extremists like Hussien and Bin Laden when it suits us? Hussien was doing the same things when we funded him. Bin Laden was doing the same thing when we helped him so he would fight against Russia. You have to start at the beginning. You are now asking me if I support what Saddam was doing, no and I didn’t support him when he was gassing the Iranians either so we wouldn’t have too.
3. If we did not decide to go to war with Iraq, should we have ended the sanctions? If so, how should we have dealt with Husseins desire to re-arm himself? I know this sounds extremely radical but I say first we should disarm ourselves, we have nuclear weapons and have been the only country to use them but expect others not too. Now Iran and North Korea are developing some to protect themselves against us the country that takes pre-emptive strikes against others. What a way to encourage others to arm themselves. Next don’t sell him anymore arms to take out a country we have problems with. As for the sanctions they only hurt his people which he didn’t care about.
4. Can one be Christian and still support prisons for people who break the law? Can Christians in good conscience support the death penalty? Agian you are asking the wrong question. How do we keep poeple out of prision? Having more laws doesn’t work. You work to help those that are poor so they don’t turn to crime to survive. You do things like the Garden Project in San Fransico to help those that have been in prison have a way to survive when they get out. You work to prevent them going in the first place and then you work to keep them from returning. As for the death penalty, “thou shalt not kill”, Jesus also said “some say an eye for an eye and I say love your enemies”. I don’t see how being a christian and supporting the death penalty are compatible but that is my choice and you are free to choose for yourself.
5. Is abortion wrong, or just a choice. Again the wrong question. Abortion rates tend to go down in good economic times and up in when times are bad. So abortion is linked to lack of money. I haven’t seen any pro-lifers in front of abortion clinics offering to help support the women finacially and help her raise the child if she has it. Also if you don’t like abortion you should be pushing for birth control and education so the problem is prevented before it happens. Also you should be telling your SONS to wear a condom EVERY time. It’s funny that pro-lifers say life begins at conception but why do they not act like it. If a woman has a miscarriage there is no funeral? Why? They just say it is for the best. As a society we are all reponsible for abortions if we aren’t doing anything to stop the condition which causes most to happen, which is poverty, a woman being left to do it by herself or both. Again I think it is for the woman to choose. God gave us all free will and it isn’t for me to decide for anyone else. Also christians should not look down on a woman that gets pregnant out of wedlock if they don’t want her to have an abortion.
As you can see I don’t think there are simple yes or no answers. Learn all you can, read about both sides. Try to understand what motives people to do what they do. I actually learn from exchanges such as this. I learn how to clarify my beliefs so others can understand. I can learn why you think like you do and if you understand even a little bit more about my views it helps to change things. We haven’t found solutions to everything yet which people hate, they want easy answers right now. We have to look for solutions that cause the least amount of suffering for all of us not just us americans.
Posted by Glenda on Nov 10, 2004 at 12:15 AM Firm atheism is a faith (a rather grim one, and terribly lacking in imagination).
Militant atheists are more obnoxious than childish theists.
Consign your scientism to the dustbin of history, lefties. Face it, it was only just snobbery the whole time. Honest thinkers acknowledge the possibility at least of an intelligent First Cause.
If you had half as much passion for truth as the fundamentalists do for their hateful and stupid twisting of the revealed Word, you might not lose as often as you do.
Posted by EnlightenmentValues on Nov 10, 2004 at 2:38 AM “The failure of reality to live up to its notion bears witness to the inherent weakness of the notion itself.”
Failure of “reality”? What? No.
Failure of PEOPLE.
Why do actual human beings never figure in such learned theorizing? What does that tell us about elite academicians?
Posted by EnlightenmentValues on Nov 10, 2004 at 2:45 AM I don’t know people, I raised my children without prayer, without regious education. To me, teaching them to be compassionate, tolerant, logical and self-confident was my greatest responsibility as a parent. They are older now and discuss with us their concerns for the future of this country, the general lack of tolerance, the disregard for the scientific community and their work and the focus on war. I have never encouraged activism, but maybe that is their only outlet; to calmly and logically try to talk to people and remind them that we all have a stake in the prosperity and unity of this country. We must all try to find an altruistic contribution that we can make to help our country remain a land of liberty.
Posted by Joanne on Nov 10, 2004 at 2:01 PM Hi Glenda - thanks for answering my questions. I do want to make one comment though. Some people who have miscarriages do have funerals for their unborn child. My sister was one such individual. If you have a chance to read the Harpers article on abortion, you might find it very educational, i certainly did. I found it to be very even handed as well. Have a terrific day.
Posted by christian on Nov 10, 2004 at 3:18 PM Hey Randolph! Who are you calling a liberal? Where the bleep do you think you are? This is a problem I see in trying to discuss anything with conservatives of any stripe. They insist on reducing argument to simplistic and false either/or categories. It’s a kind of mythologizing of third century neo-platonism, a sort of pre-rational reactionary impulse. No understanding that the consequences of rejecting multi-culturism and complexity results in monology (authoritarianism) and impoverishment of discourse. Add to this fundamental lack of intellectual curiousity (not to mention dishonesty) an unerring propensity to change the subject, or just run away, when their premises are questioned.
e.g., assuming Saddam Hussien is bad man, how should we respond as citizens, knowing that he was put into power by the C.I.A., used like a pawn by the U.S. to punish Iran for daring to step outside the sphere of American hegemony, given the green light to invade Kuwait by the U.S. ambassador, etc?
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 10, 2004 at 4:48 PM I recently read an article by Molly Ivins who had a similar point of view. She said that the way to cure a dog of killing chickens is to tie the chicken around the dog’s neck until it stinks so bad the dog will get turned off and never kill a chicken again. And the current Administration is the chicken around the neck of America that might just cure the electorate of voting for Republicans for many years to come. One can only hope.
It’s not that Ivins celebrates the results of the election, but that she sees there is still hope - that when the policies of the Bush crowd begin to take their toll, people just may sit up and take notice. In addition, Kerry cannot be blamed for any mess left by the government, as all three branches are clearly run by the far right. No more “it’s because of Clinton’s military” or “it’s the liberals blocking the vote” or “it’s the Democrat’s economic bubble that burst” to fall back on.
Perhaps the point is too strongly made that this election is “good” for liberals, but I hope that the true American spirit will prevail and whatever intellect is still standing after being usurped by the inane blathering of the lunatic fringe of the rightwing Christians will finally surface. Even when Pandora opened the box of evils, hope was there.
Oh, yeah - I don’t get the whole discussion of how “liberals” would be up in arms about Muslim End-Timer type fiction. In my experience, it’s one of the defining virtues (or perhaps in some cases a drawback) for liberals to allow other people to read or write whatever they please, however loopy. The difference between a believer and a non-believer is that the non-believer doesn’t care what you believe.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Nov 10, 2004 at 9:49 PM The election isnt good for liberals - its good for grass-roots progressive movements. The elite class of politicos who have run Democratic Party policy in the interest of capital, the ones who threw Dean to the wolves, should very much be worried about these election results. They are on their way out and good ridance.
Posted by Shane Kenyon on Nov 10, 2004 at 10:45 PM > “The failure of reality to live up to its
> notion bears witness to the inherent weakness
> of the notion itself.”
>
>Failure of “reality”? What? No.
>
> Failure of PEOPLE.
>
> Why do actual human beings never figure in
> such learned theorizing? What does that tell
> us about elite academicians?Action begins with idea(l)s.
Zizek is on the fore of trying to grasp all that is going on in the world into something that makes sense (if as is often the case it only makes sense to him :) ) - hardly an ivory-tower academic “elite” as you suggest, Zizek is a refugee from the Yugoslav wars whos work shows a strong attachment to the concerns of everyday life : economical, psychological and political.
Posted by Shane Kenyon on Nov 10, 2004 at 10:53 PM “All that is going on in the world.”
I don’t need opaque theories about “the world”, Shane. And I really don’t need them from Europeans, who really ought to deal with their own messes.
I need to know how the hell I’m going to deal with my neighbors way down deep here in Red America, who are trending rapidly toward Christo-fascism.
I don’t need to hear crap about how Kerry’s defeat is really a good thing in the long run. Maybe you have the luxury of thinking that way when the fundie creeps are at arm’s length—when everyone you know and work for thinks more or less like you do. Maybe you have the luxury of fawning over Euro-style subtleties (oh, and doesn’t it just add that perfect dash of mystique and authenticity that he’s a refugee? I’m getting wet just thinking about it. And you know how deep, how profound, how *soulful* those Slavs are.)
Enjoy it while it lasts. Over a nice Pinot, or something.
Posted by EnlightenmentValues on Nov 11, 2004 at 1:32 AM EV,
Sorry to seem sycophantic, I’m not. I have read a lot of Zizek’s stuff however, seen him speak and also know a little about his background. Basically people were trying to cast him as an ivory-tower academic and he is not. He has been an activist from day one and just happens to also be very intelligent. He ran for president in war-torn Slovenia in the 90s on a Left ticket. He seems very well positioned to offer useful commentary on our current situation.
I live in New York State, but in a fairly red county. I grew up in the military and in Texas. I am also a Christian. I have many friends who are staunch Republicans, some of them who are moderates some who are not.
I dont relish Dr Dobbson becoming the Secretary of Religion, but I do think that there is a huge disconnect between the beltway Democrats and the progressive base. This election will hopefully show them that their play-both-sides-of-the-issue “Bush Lite” strategies are complete crap and will continue to allow them to lose.
Although I agree that there are many nuts out there who feel this election is a madate to start lynching niggas and liberals, I don’t believe that there is anything close to a majority who think that way.
We (the People) are mad, and mostly about the same things (jobs, corporate greed, and yes, morals). The Left now has an opportuity to offer a true populist alternative to nationalist xenophobia. An opportunity that I frankly believe would not have existed if Kerry were elected.
Posted by Shane Kenyon on Nov 11, 2004 at 2:43 PM In light of Bush’s voter base isn’t it time to reconsider Lincoln’s decision to keep the South from seceding?
Posted by Thomas Richman on Nov 12, 2004 at 10:56 AM NO this time Mr. Richman YOU secede because WE in the Red States are the Union! Ya’ll just come to us if you need anyhting like maybe FOOD for example. And no you dumb ass liberals we don’t wan’t to lynch anybody (well there are a few liberals…) You look down your pompous little noses at us redstaters and that’s OK because we are tired of your little socialist- homo worshipping stupidity and self righteousness. I can’t wait till we get you self righteous little twits all rounded up in NY & California then pray for global warming…..Fools
Posted by redstate on Nov 12, 2004 at 8:31 PM Yes Mr.Zizek, democracy is the majority’s will. Those who voted Kerry mostly voted against Bush, without any clear ideas on how to rule this country. Weak liberals and a homo-bunch of losers, would anyone trust that?
The real patriots voted for Bush. We are those who unite around our great leader in times of war, whose iron fist shall crush the traitors both outside and inside this country.
As it has been pointed out above, we have not been attacked since 9-11: terrorists are choosing the weakest targets among the european countries. Let them think they are Greece and we are Rome, and that we can get along if they just speak and speak their empty words. Let them think we care about their coward asses: their lack of leadership and morals will make them the easy target of terrorists,... until they finally notice what is going on in the world and plead help to the United States. It is even possible that, in the name of God, our severity is counterbalanced by our mercy and we help them again when their cities are burning.
Words do not change the mind of an arab. Look at Iraq: weapons do. We need democracy in this world before it is destroyed by islamic fundamentalists
So, is Mr.Zizek going to call me a fanatic for that? Democracy is a higher mission, and demands fanaticism.
Posted by shabbetay on Nov 12, 2004 at 9:36 PM OK, I changed my mind about the right-wingers.
F*ck you people. You are anti-social and can’t even be civil when you win. What is it with your intellectual insecurity that makes you hate anyone who uses words longer than 6 letters? Look down our noses - please. You have no respect for anyone who doesn’t agree with you - at least liberals present arguments instead of insults.
And you do not and never will have a monopoly on who and what a Patriot is. I’m willing to die for other Americans whether I agree with them or not. You folks seem like you’d rather kill Americans BECAUSE they don’t agree with you.
You are ridiculous and anti-American.
Posted by Shane Kenyon on Nov 12, 2004 at 10:32 PM Liberals present arguments instead of insults??? have you really READ any of these posts???? anytime I say something I get jumped on and that’s OK- kinda funny in a pathetic sort of way. I am not anti- America——I AM AMERICA !!! and that is why liberals lose elections and will continue to do so.
Posted by redatsate on Nov 12, 2004 at 10:39 PM Well, my response was a little extreme I guess. Sorry.
I just get really mad and upset when people start talking about division and seperating out who are real Americans and who are not; I realize the other guy did the same thing.
There are no red or blue states, however. We need to all recognize that we are in this together and start working towards a solution we can all live with.
Someone recently said that the definition of consensus is arriving at a decision that nobody is happy with. Funny but perhaps there is some logic in it.
Posted by Shane Kenyon on Nov 12, 2004 at 10:43 PM Redstate: “I am America”? Give me a break. You’re raving.
Bush won by a very small percentage. Almost half of the country disagrees with what is happening in the US right now and a large percentage of those who did vote for Bush also said they disagreed. The “will of the people” is not clear. There is no “mandate”.
Even so called “red” states like Colorado barely voted in favor of Bush and additionally voted for every liberal/environment/social measure on the ballot AND voted a Democrat into a senate seat formally held by a Republican. So, is it so clear? Is liberalism going away? No, no more than the Christian values of compassion and caring for the sick, the poor, the young and the elderly are going away. We are going to have to live with each other so put aside your egotistical ravings, take a breath of clean air that us crazy liberals keep fighting for. Geez.
Besides, what is so threatening about “liberals” anyway? Human rights, civil rights, a little bit of clean air & water for our kids, ensuring health and retirement… why would we want that to go away?
Posted by Fedup on Nov 14, 2004 at 11:36 PM Mr. Zizek says a lot of curious things…let me see if I have this straight.
First off, I guess he’s not a liberal, since he talks of how the liberals have affected “our” mindset. So where is he coming from? Does he define “liberals” as a subset of progressives? He doesn’t count himself a progressive? What is his idea of what we as a society should be aiming at?
I guess he feels democracy has failed, since he compares it to failed socialist states, and apparently feels that the imperfections in the system “prove” that the very concept itself is unworkable, in the same way that the failure of Soviet communism proves (in his mind) that no form of socialism is tenable. He seems to be saying that democracy’s purpose is only to stifle physical aggression by providing an arbitrary legal framework for selecting leadership, and that the means of winning, fair or fraudulent, are irrelevant, since the democratic system can’t reflect the will of “All” the people in any case. The “patent meaninglessness of the fact that several hundred votes in Florida decided who would be president of the entire nation” is not a true statement because the several hundred votes did not BY THEMSELVES determine that.
So what system would be propose in place of democracy then?
At least he does seem to recognize the catastrophic nature of the path that the Bush administration is on, and I can somewhat see his point when he states that if Kerry had been elected then the Democrats might well have taken the blame when the consequences of the neocons’ blunders manifest themselves. But the problem with this idea is that, with a facist “Patriot” Act, a stacked Supreme Court, a monolithic intelligence agency purged of all dissenters, and nothing to prevent future elections from being stolen over and over as long as the media continues to hold its tongue, then in four years it may no longer be possible to dethrone the neocons until our society is on—or past—the brink of collapse. Small satisfaction to be able to say “we were right” when we are all corporate slaves, or even sitting in the rubble of our own folly a la postwar Nazi Germany.
Posted by anomaly on Nov 16, 2004 at 2:18 PM Anti-Abortion is a key neo-con flag.
It symbolises anti-feminism. Feminism or Womens-liberation, or what you call it, is the biggest change to come out of the Cultural Revolution 1966-76.
But Capital is worried: on current trends there will be no Japanese nor Italians in ten generations.
Liberated women don’t reproduce.
Capital needs workers. Capital also needs racism. “guest-workers” like Turks in Germany are not a solution.
Christianity, like any successul cult, must emphasise reproduction. Liberated women are anathema.
In Australia, the re-elected conservatives are floating a “let’s debate late abortions” balloon, floated by the Roman Catholic Health Minister. ... Cross fertilization Aus-USA: Howard won on “Who do you trust?”... GW picked up the phrase. However in Aus there was a long economic growth. USAnian voters evidently “Trust” GW, who is leading them into debt & disaster. Bad luck having Rupert your only news source.
Personally, I think a reduced world population would be great. We’ll miss the Italians & the Japanese though…
Posted by Giordano on Nov 17, 2004 at 5:30 AM oops, forgot to plug my blog:
gbruno.tblog.comps:
Its about oil. A tragedy that USA cant be run by Amory Lovins. Looks like Hubberts peak is going to have a nasty backside.
Actually _really_ big oil was aghast at the Vulcans
invasion. Haliburton is “medium oil services”
Big Oil would have seized the wells more circumspectly
Posted by Giordano on Nov 17, 2004 at 5:38 AM I’ve heard more threats against liberals since Bush won. I think this country has no idea what it’s in for. One of the errors of our media has been to demonize Hitler, make him more than human. He wasn’t—he just unleashed the neocon Christian xenophobes like “Redstate” here and focused their anger against some Middle Easterners (Jews) whom he could blame for the post-World War I problems in Germany.
Right now, a lot of pro-Israel strategists are responsible for Bush’s foreign policy. I just hope they’re prepared to deal with the “Christian Nation” they’ve unleashed in this country. Redstate, you wearing your brown shirt yet?
Posted by Amazed on Nov 19, 2004 at 7:27 PM This historical transition to “The future will be better tomorrow.” Should give people like my self a wider freedom –because there is not possible individual action –other than my own pleasure and excitement- however it does not. Christian fundamentalist moral and discourse is unacceptable for the lead of the 21 century.
Posted by damian on Apr 25, 2005 at 12:31 PM I have tagged on to the end of this trail after finding it on a search and I must say that it has been different reading all the posts. Clearly many were written immediately following the election when there was a surplus of Democratic angst at Kerry’ loss.
I think the problem that we face today is what I have seen here…clear “black and white” determinations of what is right and what is wrong, when in fact there is no such thing as an absolute positon on anything. I am opposed to abortion as a general rule, but certainly understand a raped 14 year old considering it. I am mortified by capital punishment, but then I see some people who I really think should be executed. I am a conservative Christian but find some teachings in my church to be too much to swallow. I voted for George Bush but do not agree with everything he says.
Where both parties will fail is in their execution of the slash and burn philosophies I so often see. Understandly people see things from their own perspective, but being a lock step Democrat or Republican will ultimately lead you to bad choices. I vote for the person who I feel will best serve my needs. I do not disparage those who differ in opinion because they vote their conscience just as I do. But those of you who do..consider that this country is still the beacon in the world, despite her many flaws. I prefer to work to change the way things are and yes, I will probably continue to support more conservatives than I do others, but I respect that many of you here are honest and sincere in your opposition. Make that opposition one of honesty and consideration of the other side and not one of vicious attack.
Posted by Dennis on May 3, 2005 at 6:14 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Slavoj Zizek
- Making the Illegal Legal
Israel’s Kafkaesque bureaucracy colonizes the occupied West Bank one settlement at a time. - Iran on the Brink
Warning to the Persian cat: Don’t look down! - Why Cynics Are Wrong
The sublime shock of Obama's victory - Through the Glasses Darkly
What if the between-the-lines Republican message (don't be afraid, there will be no real change) is the true illusion? - The Audacity of Rhetoric
- The Ambiguous Legacy of ‘68
Forty years ago, what was revolutionized -- the world or capitalism?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
