OPINION & EDITORIAL
Changing politics
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Danny Spirn:
- Changing politics (November 8, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Voting for a man, not against one (September 1, 2004)
- Debates full of 'strategory' (September 27, 2004)
- There may be no winners, but Kerry came out on top of Bush (October 4, 2004)
- George Bush and John Kerry: The Vietnam years (September 1, 2004)
- Verstandig in fantasy land (October 15, 2004)
by Danny Spirn
Monday, November 8, 2004
Well, it's official. John Kerry conceded to President George W. Bush, and the President's second term is to begin soon. Having worked for the Kerry campaign, I could not help but feel disappointed and shocked over the results. When my home state of Ohio went red this year, I felt emotions comparable to watching the Supreme Court's intervention in the Florida recount four years ago.
However, after a long night of flipping through pundits and seeing the nation portrayed on ice, electric boards and spreadsheets filled with red, white, purple and blue colors, I saw Kerry and Bush put their best faces forward for the last time, promising to "continue fighting" and "unite the country." With Republicans picking up seats in Congress, Bush is looking forward to having a clear path for pursuing his agenda. But in a nation that has over 55 million people (almost half of the voters) opposed to our President, is it possible to see the nation together like the feeling immediately following the attacks of September 11, 2001?
The answer is a resounding no.
To win this election, President Bush effectively countered the Democrat's strong ground game by rallying his socially conservative base. The brilliant political strategist Karl Rove was on the money by assuming the gay marriage amendment would galvanize the evangelical Christians and conservatives to turn out in key states like Ohio, where the Amendment enjoyed 2-to-1 support. In fact, these voters were so powerful that a CNN poll showed moral issues resonated statistically higher than terrorism.
Marriage between Tim and John outweighed Osama and Saddam. Whether you agree with the warrants of this strategy or its voters, one thing is for sure: this divisive tactic sheds light on what will come over the next four years.
Geographically, our nation is as John Edwards put it — "two Americas." Bush dominated everything south of the Ohio River, easily winning the Great Plains and rural West. As predicted, Kerry took the West Coast, Northeast and Upper Midwest. As for Ohio, solid voter turnout in the conservative rural and southern counties made up for Kerry's strong showing in Cleveland and other industrial urban precincts. In the future, it will be very hard if not impossible for the Democrats to take a commanding electoral victory, unless a Clintonesque candidate can garner Southern support, an area where Kerry failed to campaign let alone deliver.
With the divide of culture and representation in regions throughout the country, President Bush will have to put some of that "hard work" into bringing his first promise of the second term to fruition. While the President asks for those who voted in favor of Kerry to support him, promising to "work hard to earn it," his political agenda clearly reflects a different vision for America. Goals of the President, ranging from tax cuts (while not cutting social programs and running up the deficit), money for reconstruction in Iraq, privatizing social security and drilling in Alaska's National Wildlife Reserve are sure to become heated partisan debates on the floor of Congress.
With no re-election to worry about and a Congressional advantage, Bush and Republican allies will push hard to pass such measures. Why would the President make his first promise — to be a uniter — an impossible goal? Maybe the American people should have seen it coming.
One issue of particular concern involves developments in the health of William Rehnquist, a Chief Justice of The Supreme Court. This recent event highlights an issue that has been brewing on Capitol Hill for years: Supreme Court nominees. With a majority in the Senate, Bush will push for more conservative judges, sparking disagreement among the Democrats and splitting the nation yet again. Both sides of the political spectrum have stakes in the outcome, especially on sensitive issues ranging from abortion, affirmative action and government intervention in religion. Any of these topics can spark heated debates among even the most uninformed voters and has deeply rooted divisions across the country.
For disappointed Democrats and Kerry supporters, it is quite clear what John Edwards meant when he said they will "continue to fight for every vote … And we won't stop fighting for you when this campaign ends." While the President will inevitably divide the nation with his policies, those opposed shouldn't bury their head in the sand and give up.
Democrats cannot wait until 2008 to mobilize again. They should discuss the issues, keep the public informed and change minds one at a time. If the American public is convinced that divisive politics are not best for our democracy, then the Kerry spirit will live on. Democrats must find a unifying vision for our nation and return to being the party of ideas and vision. If this can be accomplished, then future election nights might see names like Clinton, Richardson, Obama or maybe Feingold up in lights with the magical number "270." And for those of you keeping score at home, only 1,457 days until we do this again.
Danny Spirn (spirn@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in political science.
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 12:02am):
I think he is right on
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 12:04am):
I <3 Danny; I want to have his babies
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 3:49am):
Democrats should also stop acting like Republican hooligans. THAT is what cost them this election. Defacing campaign signs, destroying property, harrassing voters at the polls-Democrats, it seems, did far more of that this time around than their GOP counterparts did.
Were they that desperate to win that they had to make perfect idiots of themselves in front of the whole electorate? Next time, if there is a next time, show more civility!
Josiah (November 8, 2004 @ 6:16am):
I do not envy the President. While the genius of Karl Rove is yet to be determined, like it or not, the Republicans are in a tough spot. How do they cater to their "base" and keep the security moms, and those who thought Bush was tougher on terrorism?
Well one option is to not defeat terror, or at least let it hang around. Perhaps this is why McCain and Guiliani were campaigning so hard for the President. They knew that their chances increase with an endless war, given their past experience. I think the 2008 election will be even more interesting given the tenuous results of the war on terror.
Also, believe it or not, Democrats still have the strength in domestic issues. For Bush to pursue his "mandate" from his protestant christian base, many of his supporters that like his stance on terrorism could leave him. These people are still up for grabs. We saw in the polls how Bush did when there was bad news out of Iraq. Iraq got Bush re-elected. I say give him a chance, although many of Bush's assumptions have been wrong thus far, I highly doubt his policies will become suddenly successful and if they do, great. I just don't see any incentive for him except to solidify his "leadership". Even then, people will be forced to look at his domestic policies and will be hard pressed to accept massive giveaways like the American Jobs Creation Act. Nice name, big payoffs.
The only danger for Democrats and the most likely option for 'ole Karl Rove is blame the Democrats for failure. This will likely happen. John Kerry's face during the concession speech should be the face worn by every Democrat in office for 4 years. Also, Democrats should introduce tons of legislation. Force votes that illustrate the radicals' (they can hardly be called conservative, anymore) agenda.
Thinking back, the Democrats failed miserably in making their arguments hit home. They have to work harder to make this happen. Too little, Too late, but here is a suggestion for a 2004 election 527 commercial that should have aired:
Scene: Kitchen in everyday American home. Wife (June) doing dishes, Husband (Ward) searching the fridge.
Ward: Honey, where is the Whole Milk Dispenser?
June: It is there. I know it.
Ward: Um, dear, I can't find it.
June: Someone moved it.
Ward: Nope, it doesn't look like any Whole Milk Dispenser was ever in here.
June: Hmm, maybe I had faulty intelligence.
Ward: Oh well. I still love you.
Maybe over the top, but my point is that we have to bring our arguments into the home. I have an interesting information sharing commercial, but you get the point.
In Karl Rove's mind, Strength is Weakness and Weakness is Strength. Democrats should not fall for this. They have real strength, which will become apparent over time. Their job now is to beat Republicans to the punch.
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 8:55am):
One thing is clear: the Republicans should NOT act like Democrats this time around.
Bush should have learned his lesson by now. Exactly what did he gain by passing Sen. Kennedy's education bill last time? How about all the increases in social spending?
Republicans get no credit for passing Democrat agenda items, so **** 'em. You got elected for promising to act like Republicans. Now walk the walk.
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 9:33am):
The stats don't support the "gay marriage" meme. If Bush had lost you probably would have said it was all about the war, which is the single issue by which Bush got my support.
***
Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.
In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.
This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 9:46am):
Sen. Kennedy's education bill?
Which one is that?
No Child Left Behind was all Bush.
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 10:46am):
"Democrats should also stop acting like Republican hooligans. THAT is what cost them this election."
So it's ok for Republicans to act like thugs? I don't understand this double standard. When Democrats don't fight dirty, you call them pussies and say you'd rather vote for tough Republicans. When they do, you say they're just as bad as the Republicans so you might as well vote for the Republicans. Make up your mind, idiot!
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 11:53am):
I agree somewhat with the comment about assuring liberals they are morally superior. Journalists, who are almost exclusively democrats, will have a natural tendency to do this. I also think that is one of the reasons the democrats/liberals lost the election. Liberals just assume that they are always correct in their beliefs and there is no reason to defend their beliefs, excpet to say that anybody who disagrees is ignorant or biased or misinformed... Liberals are going to have to actually justify and explain the utility of their ideas and programs from now on, rather than just calling everyone else names for disagreeing. That is what I took from this election.
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 12:50pm):
I'm sick and tired of conservatives claiming that Democrats and liberals are the only ones who think they are always right. Their great hero, President Bush, can't think of a single time when he made a wrong decision. They think they are right about women's rights, the environment, abortion, gay marriage, the economy, and the war on terrorism, and that Democrats and liberals are wrong on all these issues. And just as the liberals call the conservatives names, the conservatives also slander liberals.
My point isn't that liberals are right -- they're no more right than conservatives. My point is that both liberals and conservatives have become singleminded morons who lack the ability to understand the perspective of the other. Until they can learn to do so, I don't want to hear a single word from either side.
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 1:37pm):
"So it's ok for Republicans to act like thugs? I don't understand this double standard."
You misunderstood what I wrote, idiot! Republicans have always been ignorant assholes. Democrats, however, have recently begun to act the same way. Your stupidity, which is unbecoming of a college student, is just another case in point.
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 2:42pm):
"Republicans have always been ignorant assholes."
Even when they freed the slaves and saved the Union? You know, back when the Democrats were the party of the slavers - in the time before Democrats became the party of the segregationists.
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 2:48pm):
Democrats were the party of segregationists?
Have you forgotten about Strom Thurmond, a republican, who ran for president on a segregationist ticket?
Or JFK and RFK, democrats who fought for civil rights?
And whether or not the republicans of the civil war era would even be in the republican party now is debatable. Plus the fact Lincoln freed the slaves more for political than ethical reasons.
Both major parties have changed over time, so let's not classify them without looking at things a little more clearly.
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 3:23pm):
Strom Thurmond was a Democrat, and ran under the States' Rights Democratic party for president in 1948 as a protest to Truman's nomination in the Democratic party. He won four southern states and 39 electoral votes.
He didn't become a Republican until 1964, in order to help Goldwater in his campaign against Johnson.
Yes, "let's not classify them without looking at things a little more clearly."
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 4:11pm):
Strom Thurmond was a Democrat, and ran under the States' Rights Democratic party for president in 1948 as a protest to Truman's nomination in the Democratic party. He won four southern states and 39 electoral votes.
He didn't become a Republican until 1964, in order to help Goldwater in his campaign against Johnson.
Yes, "let's not classify them without looking at things a little more clearly."
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 5:16pm):
Seriously people... the segregationists were all southern Democrats, mostly Dixiecrats (States' Rights Democratic party), before they switched to the Republican party and the two parties started to become more of what we see today.
Know your political history if you're going to cite political history to back up your erroneous claims.
Prior to the shift of the southern Dems and the civil rights movement, Democrats were, in fact, segregationists for the most part. At least any Dem south of the Mason-Dixon (including Maryland, D.C.) and most of the midwestern delegation (Illinois, Indiana in particular).
Anonymous (November 8, 2004 @ 9:37pm):
So a segrgationist chose the rpublican party?
Anonymous (November 9, 2004 @ 11:24am):
"Yesterday Rocket Man discussed Lawrence O'Donnell's support of red-state secession as an alternative to the Union with the blue states. The other Democratic alternatives discussed in Rocket Man's post ("Democrats ponder alternatives: Vote suppression, secession, and assassination") included disenfranchisement of the unenlightened and assassination of the president. Together these alternatives suggest that the Democrats are thinking their way back to their roots as the party of John Calhoun and the Confederacy, if not of the Klu Klux Klan and John Wilkes Booth."
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008565.php
