(no subject)

[danaeris]

This journal entry works from the assumption that Bush is a mistake, that if everyone in the US had the brains and information necessary, they would not have made this choice. Given that assumption, I have a number of questions and thoughts.

What caused this?

I'd like to claim that here in the US, we have a more persistent problem than just a voting system in havoc or an unusually weak presidential candidate (or presentation thereof). I feel that perhaps the biggest problem, however, is how poorly informed most Americans are. Some of the problems which have contributed to our current situation, however, include:

1. lack of media literacy
   
2. bias in the media
   
3. poorly informed voters who vote without adequate research and thought
   
4. a disorganized voting system (ballots being lost, registration forms thrown out, non-trustworthy voting machines, etc.)
   
5. vote counting method (choose one vs. ranked choice vs. condorcet, etc.)
   
6. a candidate who was either weak, or poorly presented to the public (is this what people are talking about when they complain about the DNC handling things all wrong?)
   
7. the system whereby campaigns are funded (which amounts to publicity for whoever is benefitting the rich people best)
   
8. the political geography; that is, the fact that liberals tend to clump together (although we lost the popular vote too, not living in the bubble we choose would encourage more exposure to new ideas on both sides of the table, and so if we're really "right," perhaps those in the middle of the country would become more educated about the matter)
   
9. the electoral college system? (is this a good thing or a bad thing in your opinions?)
   
10. Whatever it is that causes americans to avoid political discussion -- be it that we are too polarized, that we as a culture avoid confrontation, or what -- this needs to go. Progressive voters could be sprinkled across the country evenly, but if we never get to talk politics with our neighbors etc., our presence wouldn't do much to help change their minds (emphasis on the much).

Did I miss anything?

What can I do to change this?

The way I look at it, we can spend the next four years running around trying to clean up the mess Bush makes, or we can try to get to the source and fix things which will prevent this sort of problem in the long run.

But where to start? I have no idea if any of these things are things that I could conceivably help change through activism in the next four years.

Do you have any idea?

Comments

[earthdragon.livejournal.com]

11) The practical reality of the two party system, and the general attitude that party loyalty is more important then individual judgement, and the need to agree with a broad party ajenda in order to be an effective canidate for a major office.

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

I vote for 6 as one of the main causes. See my most recent post. It's a good article. One of the major criticisms of Kerry all along was that he was too wordy and too nuanced. I understood what he meant most of the time, but I often wished he would just come out and SAY IT ALREADY because I knew that even though I was getting it a lot of people weren't.

As to how we can get this message across? I'm not sure. Get involved in politics. Right now I'm figuring on joining a local campaign next year. Still gotta figure out who and where.

I think 8 has some merit, but I really just can't see moving to America's Heartland and immersing myself in the midst of conservatism. I'm not sure I'm charismatic and outgoing enough to make a difference.

[polkamadness.livejournal.com]

I think your assumption is almost certainly wrong; I think the Democrats would have done better if they had understood why Republicans prefer bush. "Because I'm a moron" and "because I'm a religious nut" don't seem likely to me to be common reasons.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

"because I'm a religious nut" don't seem likely to me to be common reasons.

No, but "because I'm religious" is a VERY common reason. It's all about morals, actually. ALL of it. The framework that the religious right live within states, unequivocally, that their view is the only correct one, and that it is their duty to bring the rest of the world in line with their views. (Otherwise, we'd all be going to hell, and that would really be a shame.) Anyone who disagrees with their views is morally inferior, and MUST be stopped at all costs. They must be stopped because the immoral behaviors will inevitably lead to the destruction of the Moral Fabric Of Society, and that will lead to homo-sex-shuls gettin' married and all sorts of other abominations. And abominations like that will lead to the downfall of our entire society, of course.

Re-electing Bush (assuming you even agree that he was elected in 2000) was, unfortunately, not a mistake. It might have been a conspiracy, but it certainly was not a mistake. What it most likely was, however, was the successful mobilization of a huge segment of the US population that has the ability to reach vast swaths of their voter base in an extremely effective way--from the pulpit.

See George Lakoff's excellent book Moral Politics for an excellent analysis of why the liberals and the conservatives really don't understand each other. It's all about morals.

[dragon-spirit.livejournal.com]

This (http://www.steveclemons.com/GOPMailer.htm) is the sort of bassackwards reasoning used to pressure the moral majority into towing the party line. There's a prevalent "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality that makes it really easy to sway the masses into believing that they can only be only good and righteous members of their faith if they vote for the candidate that's pressed on them by their religious leaders.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

You're still thinking like they're all morons and easily swayed. Well, yes, some of them are. But many, if not most, of these folks honestly believe that this is the RIGHT thing to do. It's not a matter of the religious leaders "pressing" a candidate on them. It's a matter of them voting their principles. Unfortunately, those principles include things like rabid homophobia. And yes, a version of "If you're not with us, you're against us" is actually in the Bible. *shudder*

However, we, as liberals, cannot make progress against them as long as we continue to think of them as dupes or stupid. We must meet them as the intelligent people that they--well, many of them anyway--are. To do otherwise is folly, because they are NOT stupid, and they WILL impose their will on us if they get a chance. After all, they're the One True Right and Only Way.

Seriously. Check out Lakoff. He makes so much SENSE it's scary.

[dragon-spirit.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to come across as making any sweeping generalizations or implying that I thought "they're all morons", because that's not the case at all. It's just that I've known way too many people who have professed to think one way (and with good reasons), then a week later would come into the office talking about a sermon their preacher had given that convinced them that they were completely wrong, and that if they had persisted in their earlier line of thinking, they'd probably be bound for hell. I know way too many people tho think this way. They truly believe they're doing the RIGHT thing, but only because someone told them what was right and what was wrong. And guess what? I know people who think this way on both sides!

That said, I don't for a minute believe that all of the people who voted contrary to me are this flavor of person. I don't think that they're all stupid dupes, that's absolutely ridiculous. And I won't say that all members of the moral majority are easily swayed. But let's not pretend that they don't exist. And let's not think that there aren't plenty of stupid liberals who are easily swayed thus, by some righteous speech or other. What I will say, though, is that it seems to me that a lot more conservatives tend to be members of the moral majority than liberals. I may be wrong, though.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

What I will say, though, is that it seems to me that a lot more conservatives tend to be members of the moral majority than liberals. I may be wrong, though.

I think you're absolutely right.

And sorry if I came across as terse or combative. Chalk it up to my being tired and depressed. I do know the type of person you are talking about as well. It's just as annoying in them as in the liberal version, where someone will come in ranting and raving about the latest conspiracy theory, or whatever it was they just read in Mother Jones or some other liberal magazine (that being one of the tamer ones). Not that there's anything inherently wrong with the magazine, just the unquestioning way that many people accept the word of "authority."

There IS this tendency for liberals to think that conservatives are morons or dupes, in the same way that conservatives think that liberals are wrong-headed and morally flawed. And both extremes are incorrect, and do not serve anyone interested in creating a better future, since they encourage us vs them thinking and divisiveness, rather than fresh approaches to the very serious problems we have facing us in the world today.

Why can't we all just get along????

*sigh of exasperation at the whole goddamned world*

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

And yeah, that's some scary shit. Hard to believe we live in the same country.

[riseorbleed.livejournal.com]

Well... electronic voting paves the path for E-fraud. I'll believe their legitimacy when I see the source code, the sys-admin standards, etc. I'm seeing many, many stories of people getting provisional ballots that will never get counted after refusing to use the evote machines. As Stalin asserted, the election is decided not by those who vote, but by those who count the votes. What the fuck?

People bought-in to fear tactics. An alarming chunk of middle-America is scared shitless of Arab terrorists, believed Cheney's assertion that we'd have another attack if Bush lost, hypnotized by this bullshit McCarthyist dogma, ignorant of the facts about 9/11, Iraq, the drug war, the war on terrorism, and the part US foriegn policy plays in them.

People have lost touch with what liberal and conservative mean, what left-wing and right-wing mean, and don't understand that Bush is a right-wing radical, not a mild-mannered, compassionate conservative. He has the demeanor and countenance of a televangelist which hypnotizes a lot of people.

It's scary that Kerry conceeded so easily! With as many what-ifs as this election generated, it's no way to convey the kind of strength I look for in a leader.

[auros]

I think he conceded because not doing so would've hurt us over the next two to four years. If there was fraud -- which I suspect there was -- it will be unprovable. Playing good sport makes us look better to the undecideds. The best we can do is push to get printers on those things so that next time around, it's harder for the Rs to cheat. And, in the meantime, we need to get on message. We're the party of personal responsibility. They're the party of the idle rich.