November 18, 2004 – It’s been a rough couple of weeks. Although I’m happy to have been able to make it home in time to vote, I’m really tired of not being represented in Washington by politicians who have the same values as me.
My personal opinion is that the media has been making too much of this idea that the election outcome was a clear statement about ‘values’. In this story, by reelecting George Bush Americans have sent a signal that ‘values’ are at the center of their political concerns. In the story, Republicans have found a way to capitalize on those concerns while Democrats are perceived as not being strong on ‘values’. This has given a second Bush administration a mandate.
I just wanted to bring up two ideas in contrast to this narrative, because I don’t feel that it does the situation justice.
First, let’s consider the notion that this election outcome has somehow given Bush a mandate for a second administration. This was a record setting election. The Bush campaign was quick to claim that he’d received the most votes for President in history. What they don’t talk about is how Kerry received the second-most in history, and thus this election also produced the highest number of votes against an incumbent president. What this suggests to me is a country that is divided. A 52%-48% split is not a mandate. When Ronald Reagan crushed Walter Mondale 59%-40% in 1986, that produced a what could be called a mandate. What the election in 2004 produced was record turnout because voters were energized on both sides of the fence.
The second thing I wanted to bring up was the world view that voters in different camps brought to the ballot box. While all the attention has been on ‘values’, what seems to be getting overlooked is that many people who voted for Bush have a mistaken view of reality, both in terms of the facts on the ground and their understanding of where Bush stands on issues. Rather than go into every detail, I’ll point you to the results of a recent poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes & Knowledge Networks. Sildenafil citrate is the key ingredient in Kamagra that treats ED.Kamagra helps in the treatment of jet lag recovery in hamsters. viagra buy germany To know the reason behind wholesale viagra online the lack of attraction Sometimes you are just not feeling attracted towards your partner to have a satisfying sexual life that you required. The dosage is a must why not try here female viagra 100mg which means you will have some better options of fulfilling your requirement by getting sports massage in Dublin and surrounding areas. The ischemic form of this type sale of sildenafil tablets of pharmacy for for the purchase of medication. Some of the most significant findings are that a majority of Bush supporters believe that Iraq had WMD or a major program to develop them. They also believe that this is what the Bush administration has been saying – a source of agreement between Bush and Kerry supporters. The difference is that Kerry supporters see this as misleading. The poll results showed that Bush supporters also tend to hold incorrect beliefs about the administration’s position on other policy issues, such as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty, the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Protocol.
Since the poll focused on international policy, we can only speculate on whether this trend extends to domestic issues. When I try to make sense of the election, I find myself forced to conclude that it must be the case. Whatever dramatic impact Karl Rove’s mobilization of the conservative Christian base had on the election, those people did not amount to the majority of Bush supporters, let alone of the nation’s voting public. While the media focuses on ‘values’, certainly an important issue with a key target voting block, the fact that Bush’s supporters appear to be misinformed gets overlooked as a plausible reason for Bush’s election victory.
Perhaps I’m too optimistic about my fellow citizens. I’ve been told as much. But I’d prefer to believe that Bush’s supporters are misinformed than that they hold the same intolerant views and ‘values’ that he and his administration espouse. Real tolerance is not the legislation of one’s own values and the subsequent forcing of other’s to adhere to them. Real freedom and tolerance, as protected by the (current) constitution, requires that we tolerate not only that which is comfortable and popular, but “opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death.” That’s the way Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes described how we needed to understand our First Amendment rights. While this has extreme implications, I believe what it protects vastly outweighs the potential offensiveness almost all the time. I just hope the country (and planet) can survive four more years of assault on the things that make the US a great place to live. I fear a culture of intolerance and extremism is rising up to combat threats to our national security.