|
that editor right up on his offer. (And I agree, ask for payment.)
I am very interested in your dilemma, as laid out in this thread, of how hard-hitting to be. (I'm thinking of it as, whether or not you should call people "idiots" who voted for Bush?) I think the answer depends quite a lot--but not entirely--on WHO you will be writing FOR.
Will you be writing to inform, hearten and empower the good, sane, justice-minded, thinking people in your community--who probably very much need heartening, and less isolation, and need to see their own views in print--or, are you writing to grab the attention of some less informed, a-political, but not necessarily hopeless middle ground in the community, or are you trying to convince Freeper-types, Bush true believers (which some might consider a hopeless task)?
I think we on the left too often pitch our arguments at the latter two groups, and ignore our natural constituency, and end up speaking or writing weak drivel--stuff that won't hearten the troops, and that can't budge anybody else, because it's much too careful. Most Dem leaders are guilty of this.
I also want to caution you about making assumptions about the "redness" or "blueness" of your community or region. Are such assumptions based on facts, numbers, reality, or on a perception you've been given by a fraudulent election system, by the corporate news monopoly press (who owns this newspaper?), and/or by the loudmouth Bushites in the community who may be intimidating and silencing others?
Fraudulent election system. We don't really know which states are "red" or "blue." The 2004 election was completely non-transparent and inverifiable--with the nation's votes "tabulated" by two Bushite electronic voting companies using SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, and often, not even a paper trail (let alone a paper ballot) by which to recount or audit the results. And, in addition to a blatantly non-transparent election system controlled by Bushites, we have a mountain of external evidence that the result for president was wrong.
In these circumstances, we would be wise not to make assumptions about the true sentiments of individuals or communities, or about what the majority may be thinking.
I've done some study of the issue polls over the last year, and what those polls tell us is amazing. For instance...
58% of the American people opposed the Iraq war BEFORE the invasion. Across the board in all polls. Feb. '03. Before all the lies were exposed; before the full horror and costs of it were known. 58%! That stat really impressed me, so I started paying attention to other issue polls.
About half of that 58%, by the way, opposed the war outright. The other half would only support a U.N. peacekeeping mission (world consensus), not preemptive, unilateral war by Bush.
That stat dipped only once, during the few weeks of the invasion when U.S. troops were at max risk, then went right back up to nearly 60%, where it stayed throughout the election. It's over 70% today.
The American people never supported this war. Never!
And those anti-Iraq war numbers have to include many Republicans and independents.
Here's another: 63% of the American people oppose torture UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. May '04. I love this one because it means that most Americans have stuck to their sense of ethics, lawfulness and humane values, despite all the fearmongering. This is not a fearful people. This is not a people who are easily fooled.
And again, that stat has to include many Republicans.
You name it. The Iraq war. Torture. The deficit. Social Security. Women's rights. The great majority of Americans disapprove of every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, way up in the 60% to 70% range.
And that's not to mention Bush's dismal approval ratings--so low before the election that Zogby said he couldn't win, and sinking like the Titanic today, currently down to the mid 30s.
The wonder--about all these polls--is that the corporate news monopolies pay no heed to them--often their very own pollsters. And, given who is doing these polls, the anti-Bush numbers are EVEN HIGHER than stated above, since the news monopolies weight the polls toward rightwing views. You'd think they'd pitch their crap a little more to the left, in view of the obvious progressive tenor of the great majority of Americans. That they don't do so tells us something about them: their purpose is to propagandize, to brainwash, to enforce certain views, and (critically, I think) to create an ILLUSION of a rightwing surge in the country. They are deliberately ignoring majority opinion. They are monopolies. They can do what they want. And what they want is to isolate people, to make people feel that their progressive views are in the minority. They give the right a great big trumpet, to magnify the views of a small minority, and to make the rest of us feel out of it, alone, a party of one.
But, anyway, those polls are there, and they say what they say--even if political commentary and news orientation in this country acts as if the majority does not exist.
One other thing: given this universal showing of a great progressive American majority, across the board in all polls, for more than a year, and given a few other stats--for instance, Kerry won the election day exit polls, and prior to the election, the Dem grass roots had blown the Bushites away in new voter registration in 2004, nearly 60/40--the ONLY evidence of a Bush win is the vote tabulation result derived from Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae. There is no other evidence of a Bush win. All other evidence points the other way. (It's a no-brainer, really.)
Which means that a lot of Republicans voted for Kerry. The silent Republicans. The Republicans who shut up around loudmouth Bushites--out of fear, or dislike of argument.
(Note, FYI: The TV news monopolies doctored their own exit polls on everybody's TV screens on election night to hide the evidence of a Kerry win. They altered the exit poll data (Kerry won) to fit the "official result" derived from Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae (Bush won), thus depriving the American people of major evidence of election fraud, and squelching protests and calls for investigation. The other shattering truth re the election is that the Dem Party leaders--out of local corruption in the boondoggle of the new electronic voting systems, and because of their support for Bush's war--FAILED to apprise voters of the great peril and wrongness of Bushite companies counting the votes behind a curtain of "trade secret" vote tabulation software. Hard to say which is the worse scandal--TV networks FALSIFYING election data, or Dems letting Bushites gain control of the election system without a peep of objection.)
All of this is to say that I favor your more hard-hitting tone, because, for one thing, the "idiots" who voted for Bush are a minority (maybe not in your community, but overall--and how can we know for sure about your community?). And, for another, if you ask me who I would rather reach out to--a broken-hearted, demoralized progressive, who feels he/she is all alone, or an idiot who voted for Bush, the broken-hearted one wins hands down. I would rather hearten and activate a broken-hearted Kerry voter, then hold back so as not to get a Bushite mad. (Who cares if they get mad?).
The only thing that I would be careful about is giving your attackers too easy a handle to make you out as crazy or unreasonable. But, you know, who will they be speaking to? Other idiots. So don't worry about it too much. Just try not to saying anything you might have to back down from, or apologize for. "Idiots" is defensible. It's your honest and true opinion. They were stupid to vote for Bush. They didn't see through him the way you did--and he has betrayed them and their party by his two-facedness (Christianity for the rich and powerful--to hell with the huddled masses), and by his falsely portraying himself as "conservative" (trillion dollar deficit, crazy, ill considered, profligate, wasteful, murderous foreign adventures).
One final thought: When you call Bush voters "idiots," you are blaming them for the state of things. You're saying it was their vote that counted. But no one's vote counted! Not really. In a non-transparent, unverifiable election system, everyone's votes are meaningless. The "Wizards of OZ" who are pulling the secret levers, and cooking up the secret formulae, are the only ones who count. It is an insult to all voters. It means that those who "won"--the Bushites--don't have faith that their views and policies can win. They have to cheat. And that cheapens their views and policies--even for those who agreed with them. It means they can renige on anything; they can lie; they don't care. They've got Diebold and ES&S in their pockets.
I'm sure that the great majority of Americans, including a lot of Republicans, would agree that elections should be honest and aboveboard. On this matter, all Americans (with the exception of a handful of whistleblowers who tried to get our attention) have been idiots! We are ALL idiots, for letting this happen.
This debacle of the Bush regime--and its disastrous consequences for our country--is NOT the fault of ordinary Republican voters. In fact, they, too, are its victims--even if they didn't see through it in time, and even if they don't see the light now (though, clearly, many, many of them are--look at the polls!). Keep your focus on the bad guys--the vastly rich, powerful Darth Vaders, who are destroying our country and spoiling things for everyone. And don't forget those Democrats who gave our election system away to Diebold and ES&S, without a word of objection or warning, and who supported Bush's war. The country needs a BIG BROOM. And the Republicans are not the only ones who need their house cleaned.
Speak the truth! It's badly, badly needed. Consider other peoples' feelings, if you are able to. But don't let that get in the way of the clear-eyed truth. And let the chips fall where they may.
-----
Again, Congratulations! And good luck! You know you can count on us at DU to help you with research, questions of fact, and long wordy treatises of advice! Go get 'em!
|