Nov. 3rd, 2004
OK, I hit the wall
Nov. 3rd, 2004 01:42 amSome of the networks have called Ohio for Bush, while others are saying it's still too close to call. With only about 100,000 votes between the candidates there adn perhaps more than 100,000 ballots... what did they say? in the mail? disputed? I don't think this is going to end tonight. Nevada, Iowa, Wisconson, Michigan are all neck and neck. Unless Kerry concedes (and I don't know why he would) I don't think this is going to be decided for a few days.
I'm going to bed. 1.42, ugh.
I'm going to bed. 1.42, ugh.
(no subject)
Nov. 3rd, 2004 11:24 amI posted this as a reply in mintogrubb's LJ, but I wanted to copy it to mine so as to retain a copy of it. My apologies to anyone who thus has to read it twice.
America, I believe, is a secular and progressive nation at heart. This is just a phase they are going through, and I believe they will soon grow out of it.
I don't agree that America is at root a secular nation. America, IMO, is a fundamentally religious country, which has been moved by its moral conscience in different directions at different times. It was a national appeal to morality and conscience that ended up bringing about the Civil War and the emancipation of slaves, and those at the hands of a Republican president who talked a good deal more about God's plan for America than this president has done. It was a strong appeal to morality that created the New Deal. It was a strong appeal to morality, coming in part from a broad sweep of religious leaders and a Texan president that brought us the Great Society. It was the national conscience, moved in part by one of the greatest American religious leaders of all time, that brought us desegregation and the Voting Rights Act.
Religion is, for better or worse, a major element of American life, political as well as social. We proclaim ourselves "one nation under God" and that "in God we trust". We assert the rights that are given to us by "our Creator". I think that religion is not necessarily regressive, nor is its absence necessarily progressive. I'm not religious myself (at least not at the moment), but I recognize that most of my countrymen are, and that that has, in the past, been what drove many of them to do things to make our country a better place as well as what moves many of them now to do things that (I think) would make it a worse one.
What I do see lacking in America today is an overt sense of faith in the liberal/progressive part of the political spectrum, a strong voice or voices for religious liberalism. And I think that that's what makes many middle-ground Americans, for whom religion is part of their life, fundamentally uneasy with liberal politicians. I think we need someone who, while not inclined to pray on street corners, will make the case for the progressive social agenda from a religious or moral viewpoint *as well as* the practical political/economic viewpoint.
America, I believe, is a secular and progressive nation at heart. This is just a phase they are going through, and I believe they will soon grow out of it.
I don't agree that America is at root a secular nation. America, IMO, is a fundamentally religious country, which has been moved by its moral conscience in different directions at different times. It was a national appeal to morality and conscience that ended up bringing about the Civil War and the emancipation of slaves, and those at the hands of a Republican president who talked a good deal more about God's plan for America than this president has done. It was a strong appeal to morality that created the New Deal. It was a strong appeal to morality, coming in part from a broad sweep of religious leaders and a Texan president that brought us the Great Society. It was the national conscience, moved in part by one of the greatest American religious leaders of all time, that brought us desegregation and the Voting Rights Act.
Religion is, for better or worse, a major element of American life, political as well as social. We proclaim ourselves "one nation under God" and that "in God we trust". We assert the rights that are given to us by "our Creator". I think that religion is not necessarily regressive, nor is its absence necessarily progressive. I'm not religious myself (at least not at the moment), but I recognize that most of my countrymen are, and that that has, in the past, been what drove many of them to do things to make our country a better place as well as what moves many of them now to do things that (I think) would make it a worse one.
What I do see lacking in America today is an overt sense of faith in the liberal/progressive part of the political spectrum, a strong voice or voices for religious liberalism. And I think that that's what makes many middle-ground Americans, for whom religion is part of their life, fundamentally uneasy with liberal politicians. I think we need someone who, while not inclined to pray on street corners, will make the case for the progressive social agenda from a religious or moral viewpoint *as well as* the practical political/economic viewpoint.
just an addendum to the previous post
Nov. 3rd, 2004 12:07 pmActually, an example:
"We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom, symbolizing an end as well as a beginning, signifying renewal as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed [over a century] ago.
The world is very different now. ... And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
Without Googling, guesses as to whose inaugural address that comes from?
Edit: Here's the end of the same inaugural...
"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
"We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom, symbolizing an end as well as a beginning, signifying renewal as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed [over a century] ago.
The world is very different now. ... And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
Without Googling, guesses as to whose inaugural address that comes from?
Edit: Here's the end of the same inaugural...
"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
(no subject)
Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:38 pmWhile I understand and share the frustration, the anger, the bitterness, let me say to all my dear, dear friends who are going into hypersonic overdrive about the result of the election: get a grip.
We elected Bush for another term. Yes, *we* did so. Because, as citizens, we do things together. Those of us who didn't vote for him are certainly entitled to (IMO, required to) complain, bitch, protest, and, to the extent allowed by law, obstruct those parts of his agenda to which we are opposed. If you're prepared to go to jail for what you think is right, ignore even that "to the extent..." phrase.
But this is not the end of the world. It's not the end of American democracy. America did *not* vote to rescind the Constitution.
To return to one of my favourite speeches:
That cuts both ways, people. Democracy only works when we are prepared, after the debate, after the discussion, after all argument has been made and the votes have been counted, to abide by and accept the result. Otherwise, what we are saying is that we wish to have a tyranny. A tyranny of righteousness, perhaps, since naturally we would want nothing but what is right and fair. But we are refusing to accept the fundamental principle of republican democracy: that we are governed not by the best or the wisest or the richest, but by the consent of our fellow citizens, expressed in the election of executives and legislators who carry out the nation's business on our behalf.
We elected Bush for another term. Yes, *we* did so. Because, as citizens, we do things together. Those of us who didn't vote for him are certainly entitled to (IMO, required to) complain, bitch, protest, and, to the extent allowed by law, obstruct those parts of his agenda to which we are opposed. If you're prepared to go to jail for what you think is right, ignore even that "to the extent..." phrase.
But this is not the end of the world. It's not the end of American democracy. America did *not* vote to rescind the Constitution.
To return to one of my favourite speeches:
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
That cuts both ways, people. Democracy only works when we are prepared, after the debate, after the discussion, after all argument has been made and the votes have been counted, to abide by and accept the result. Otherwise, what we are saying is that we wish to have a tyranny. A tyranny of righteousness, perhaps, since naturally we would want nothing but what is right and fair. But we are refusing to accept the fundamental principle of republican democracy: that we are governed not by the best or the wisest or the richest, but by the consent of our fellow citizens, expressed in the election of executives and legislators who carry out the nation's business on our behalf.