|
I know there are many of you who hold on to the hope that, with overwhelming control in all halls of power, the right will fuck things up so badly that "our side" will win back some territory in 2006 or 2008. I'm here to burst your bubble. It isn't going to happen. I mean, think about it: we're asking these people, the ones who just swept the Republicans into office AGAIN, to wake up and vote in their own interests.
But the exit polls show that a large portion of the Republican masses cast votes based on "morality" issues. In other words, they've already demonstrated that they are not intent on "voting their interests". They voted in the interests of some notion of "morality" as dictated to them by their pastors, priests, neighbors, parents and siblings. Or, said another way, they believe that voting on moral grounds is in their interests, moreso than issues of equality, health care, environmental care and the vast litany of things they, last night, willingly gave up. Their beliefs dictate that a vote for "morality" is a vote they must cast, regardless of all else.
We here seem to think it's only a matter of time, that the people on Bush's side haven't seen the light YET. So I need to ask you: what wattage of incompetence would Bush and his administration have to generate in order for these people to stumble in from the dark? The plain answer is that Bush can't fuck up enough to do it. The "morality" issues are THE issues that will dictate the winner of elections for the foreseeable future. Whatever mistakes and missteps the Republicans make, they will always be able to fall back on their "moral superiority", simply because they're the ones who talk about it. While Dems bluster on about real policy crises, the Republicans inspire the masses through vague promises of the moral high-ground.
That's where the electorate is at these days. Gore was crucified for his obsession with detail and policy, while Bush's simpleton nature and consistent "moral vision" inspired his party to unify behind him. Today, we see that Kerry's focus on Bush's record has failed, falling victim not to a man with better plans, but to a man who is more conversant in the simple-minded platitudes of those whose votes he seeks. Facts and figures are the casualties here, with threadbare cliches carrying the victory flag.
While MoveOn was scathing in its indictment of Bush's policies and their real-world toll, the genuine 527 momentum went to the SBVT. They're the ones who got the free media coverage, they're the ones who got the attention. Their ads, instead of playing on Kerry's policies, consistently used rhetoric more attuned to a sermon: "disloyal", "unpatriotiic", "betrayal". These are the words that won an election, not "deficit" or "outsource" or "policy". "Fahrenheit 9/11" nearly caught this wave, as its no-holds-barred approach was a frontal attack on Bush's cloak of Godliness and moralist worldview. While blistering him on policy, it also called into question his standing as a "moral voice" by questioning his commitment to America first. The only thing that stopped it was the squeamishness of Democratic and liberal pundits to rise, as one voice, and ask "yes, what of this President's morals?". Instead, we went back to our pages of figures and tossed off budget numbers and unemployement statistics, thinking we were nailing the coffin shut. In fact, we were simply failing to engage in the debate at all. While we were pleasing ourselves with a clear rap sheet of failures and abuses, Bush simply had to toss around a few well-chosen lines about "liberals" and his own "clear vision" to gain the minds of the morality-first masses.
The benefits to the call to "morality" are staggeringly clear in the light of a November ass-kicking like we have now endured. There exists no need for facts, for real policy solutions, for true understanding of the nuances and vagaries of real life. To position oneself as the clear "moral choice", you only have to attack, attack, attack your opponent with the message that s/he is amoral or immoral - your own morality is not an issue. Bush never had to outline a plan, never had to be held to account for his failed policies because, in truth, the policies were never at issue. While we broke out the slide rules, he put on a collar and preached. We thought his side was doomed because the real facts, the tip of the sword as it were, were so staggeringly indicative of incompetence. But the policy discussion that ensured our victory never came to pass.
Instead, the issues that stuck were ones that could be discussed ad nauseum. A fact can be proven or disproven, and that's not good TV. One cannot "prove" a person moral or immoral, but one can certainly debate it to death. And once the debate on that subject is opened, the electorate has told us that their choice is to go with the candidate whose morals are most clearly unbattered. We failed to question the morality of Bush, getting no closer than his National Guard service and potential dessertion. John Kerry's moral portrait suffered far more abuse, ultimately dooming his candidacy. That's the epitaph of John Kerry's campaign, supposed war criminal, traitor, enemy of the state, liberal, gold digger and baby killer. We are faced with an enemy whose weapons are dangerous because they are dull and poorly defined.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(738 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
