|
I think that's what the Democratic Party doesn't understand.
What happened in 2000 made a lot of people take more interest in politics instead of taking things for granted. But it also made a lot of people feel frustrated and disillusioned. I know it did in my case. I'd always felt a certain sense of security about politics. I felt that the Constitution and the American electoral process would keep things from ever going to terrible wrong. And I guess on some level I felt that government didn't have that much effect on my life. I never expected the highest court in the land to make such an obviously partisan ruling the way they did in Bush v Gore. It was a false sense of security, I see that now.
Another blow came on September 11th, 2001. Another false sense of security was shattered. Conspiracy theories that at one point in my life would have seemed incredible, now seemed credible. After watching the presidency of the most powerful nation on Earth stolen before the world's eyes and before my own eyes, nothing is so far-fetched to me anymore. We have the Patriot Act, rigged voting machines, a war declared not by Congress but by one unelected President. And sometimes it feels like I'm the only one who sees these things.
The rest of the country seems to have gotten back to normal. No one in the media even talks about the events of 2000 anymore. Bush was supposedly made legitimate by the fact that our nation was attacked. But I think about it. For the past few years, not a day hasn't gone by that I have not reflected on the fact that the man in the Oval Office was installed there by five people appointed by his father and others in the same power club. I watched as my own Party allowed this man to take power and then further allowed him to make a mockery of the Constitution. I watched as they cowered at his supposed popularity following 9/11. And the man who has a very good chance of being the Democratic nominee is one of those very enablers. He has apparently been crowned even before many of us ever had a chance to vote on it.
And if he is the nominee, then come November, I am going to have to drag myself to my local voting station, sign my name, and press the button next to his name for President of the United States. That's not an easy thing to do. I understand the reasoning; if people don't vote for our candidate, Bush may win. It's not a complicated argument. But it completely ignores the emotional component to voting. I liked Gore. I still do. I never had any problem voting for him. For a long time, I could never understand people who wouldn't vote for him even when they had to know that he was the only one who could prevent Bush from becoming President. I thought those people were selfish. I still do. I thought those people were irrational. They are, but that's sort of the point. And I am starting to have more empathy for it.
Democrats seem to think that Bush is such a bogeyman, that we will be eager to vote for anyone else. In my own case, I think the opposite is true: I see a nation so damaged, so fragile, that I am all the more hesitant to help put anyone into office who does not understand the gravity of the situation. I want a hero. I want a savior to pull us out of this crisis. I want someone as noble and good as Bush is evil and vile. Other election years I might have been satisfied to put just any Democrat into office and be satisfied. Not this year. I will, of course, because what else can I do? I am committed to voting for the Democratic nominee because there is no other choice except Bush. I despise Nader. But I will not feel good doing it. I will not feel good or patriotic when I cast my vote for one who has been Bush's enabler, who didn't stand up for what was right when he had a chance. I will not feel that I am giving the country I love what it deserves.
I will vote, but others who feel like I do may not. They may stay home. They may vote third-party. What is the Democratic Party going to do about these people? Discount them as a fringe minority? Ignore them so that they can spend all their energy courting those who invest the least participation in this democracy? The Democratic Party needs to stop following and start leading. We aren't Republicans and it is foolish to try to be like them. The only way we are going to gain power is by giving people something to believe in. What does the Democratic Party stand for anymore? Not the Constitution apparently.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(72 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
