After a divisive election campaign, the cessation of all the passion, intensity and hard work is a bit of a let down. For the Kerry supporters, it is more than that. But even the feeling for Bush supporters has to be more one of relief than of euphoria.
One thing the 2004 presidential election map made clear: America is blue around the edges, which is an apt description of how some of us have felt this week. But before 48 percent of our readers give in to depression, let’s review some facts.
In spite of President Bush’s claims of a mandate, he was only elected by a three percent majority of voters. This is a very small margin, much too small, we think, to be claiming that America wants to dwell permanently on the right.
Overlooked here is how the choice of Democratic candidate may have affected voters. Was John Kerry a man Americans could easily identify with and believe in? In spite of his many positive attributes, we don’t think so.
However, given Kerry’s sometimes aloof and aristocratic bearing, a huge percentage of the population still voted for him. Some of this may have been the ABB (anyone but Bush) vote but it does showcase the anger many Americans feel. And when you come right down to it, Americans chose their candidate on Tuesday based on whether they were angry or afraid.
Kerry’s supporters were angry. Angry at discrimination, diminishing personal rights, rising unemployment and health care costs, escalating war and terrorism, and forced conservative values.
Bush’s supporters were afraid. Afraid of terrorism, liberal values, homosexuals and taxes.
As Jon Stewart pointed out on The Daily Show on November 3, it’s ironic that the people who live closest to two of the latter fears aren’t afraid at all. New Yorkers, who count gay neighbors among their friends and associates, and experienced the full brutality of September 11 firsthand, voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.
Still, we are now faced with a new order of things. The Republicans will control the House and Senate, making it very hard to push anything construed as a liberal agenda. It also means that the remaining Democrats could make things impossible for Bush. The Senate needs 60 votes to pass a bill and only 55 belong to Republicans. If the Dems dig in their heels, we could be looking at four years of gridlock.
However, we hope that won’t happen. We hope that Americans will come together to find common ground and start the healing process. We hope that Bush will make true his campaign promise in 2000 and finally prove to the American people that he’s a uniter, not a divider.
As Abraham Lincoln once observed, “a house divided against itself will not stand.” If President Bush wants to make good his promise of a stronger America, he would do well to remember that
1 comment:
From my perspective the Democrats lost because they didn't seem to stand for anything. It started during the first Democrat debate where there were five men standing there and all of them said that Bush sucks but none of them really explained to me why he was better than the man next to him and that theme carried on until the election.
I voted for Bush. I didn't vote for him because I like him. I don't care who people marry and I'm adamantly opposed to modifying the Constitution to discriminate against Americans. I think Bush is stronger and more likely to get the difficult job done.
There are Democrats that I would prefer to Bush but they didn't get nominated. In four years we'll have a completely clean election with no incumbents and hopefully it'll be close because we have two equally good candidates.
Post a Comment