Why Liberals Should Chill
By Chuck Connell, November 2004
I am a liberal. I don’t like our president. To show how strongly I feel, here is a quote from an open letter I wrote to John Kerry in September.
“I believe George W. Bush is the worst U.S. president in many years, and that our country will be paying for his mistakes for a long time. … I believe he is also not smart enough and not well educated enough to make sound decisions about complex matters. … There is a good argument he is an international war criminal for going to war against a country that was not threatening us.”
In spite of this opinion about Mr. Bush, I am not depressed about his recent reelection. Sure, I wish Mr. Kerry had won, and I am worried about what Bush is going to do in the next four years. But Democrats are missing an important point: George Bush won fair and square. He got more votes than our guy.
Some Democrats consider this simple fact a calamity. Some of us find it inconceivable that a rational electorate could choose George Bush as our leader. The specific reasons many liberals feel this way are presented below, along with comments about why each is not as onerous as it may initially appear.
President Bush is a liar. He was only reelected because he lied about important facts. Of course President Bush is a liar. But his lies were plain for all to see. John Kerry listed them during the debates. The New York Times reminded us about them almost daily with one scathing editorial after another during the campaign. For people who don’t read the Times (e.g. most of the American heartland) Bush’s lies were clear on the network television news time and again.
George Bush did not get away with any significant lies that tricked people into voting for him. He lied, but his lies were exposed regularly by the media and the Democrats. Still people voted for him. The topics Bush fibbed about did not matter enough to most voters.
Karl Rove is a Machiavellian nasty who manipulated
uneducated poor people into electing a rich guy who doesn’t care about them. Karl Rove is a political advisor. As far as we know,
he did not break the law or rig the voting machines, at least not this time. He
is paid to find ways to get his candidate elected. If Rove identified some issues
(gay marriage, abortion, religion) that mean a lot to some voters (conservative
Christians) and convinced those voters Bush shares their views, Rove deserves a
pay bonus. Maybe the Democrats should find someone like him.
Bush is unqualified to be a war president, because he went
AWOL during his tour of duty in the National Guard. Yes, he certainly did shirk his military duty. Bush never adequately
explained some glaring problems in the record of his Guard service. But this
was no secret. Anyone who watched the news at all knew this on November 2.
George Bush used his family connections to avoid the Vietnam draft and then
manipulated the Guard to his convenience. In my view, this makes him unfit to
be a wartime president. But here is a test for me and my fellow liberals: If a
candidate were a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War, then ran for
president years later, would his earlier CO status disqualify him from the high
office? In my view, it would not. But how different is this from using the Guard
to get out of going to Vietnam?
George Bush is dividing the country by focusing on wedge
issues. Probably true. But haven’t politicians
been doing this forever in an effort to get elected? Liberals now feel their
president is out of touch with them. But how did conservatives feel when Bill
Clinton was president? They hated seeing Clinton in the White House. They hated
it just about as much as liberals hate seeing George Bush there. The shoe just
happens to be on the other foot now.
The people who voted for Bush on Election Day made the
wrong choice. Really? How do liberals know
that? Would the country be better off if it were not a democracy? We East Coast
Ivy League types do not know what is important to evangelical Christians in
Iowa. We implicitly believe that whatever is important to them is not really
important. Perhaps only Democrats should be allowed to pick the president. We
could form a central committee of Democrats who choose the president people
really want, without letting the country actually vote. That’s how they do
things in China.
*
So, let’s chill a bit. No
one knows exactly what John Kerry would have done as president. He does try to
be all things to all people. Maybe this quality would have become a significant
problem for him. Maybe he would have been the greatest president in history.
But even though we think we are smarter than conservatives (and admit it, we
do) we are not smart enough to know this.
In 2000, Democrats had lingering doubts the election was stolen by the Supreme Court or Jeb Bush. Not this time; we just lost. If we are genuine liberals, let’s recognize part of being a liberal is supporting the reality of a democracy. Sometimes that means the majority will elect a conservative president. The Democrats won in 1960, 1964, 1976, 1992 and 1996. This time the Republicans won. In the big picture, that’s good. That’s why we have elections.
*
September 2005 update -- While rereading this article, there is one part of it that I no longer agree with. In the interest of accountability, I am leaving the original text above, but I no longer like my comments about George Bush and conscientious objectors during the Vietnam War. People who apply for and received CO status are different from people who use family connections to avoid combat. Becoming a conscientious objector is a moral statement; it is standing up for a belief and telling everyone what that belief is. It is an honorable act. Taking advantage of an elevated position in society is certainly convenient, and perhaps understandable, but it does not take courage and integrity.
Chuck Connell is a software consultant and writer in
Bedford, MA. He can be reached at connell@chc-3.com.