Apologies to the Right

from JoeUser Forums
We on the left were wrong. Not necessarily about our policies, positions, and ideologies. Not in our suspicion of war and support for tolerance, surely. I still believe that the left's positions on social issues matter, are important, and should be considered in the national dialogue.

But we were wrong, apparently, that there was an untapped upswelling of support in the country for these positions. All eleven anti-gay-marriage amendments passed. President Bush clearly received the popular majority and squeezed out an electoral advantage in a close race. The GOP picked up seats in the Senate and House. And Kerry has conceded – gracefully and in a timely fashion, all things considered.

The right won this election without bin Laden in chains, without independently confirmed evidence of Saddam’s WMD, without a concrete upturn in the economy. The right won this election despite missing munitions in Iraq, despite crunching the Geneva Convention, despite continued chaos in Iraq, despite high voter turnout on the left. And depressing though this election may be for some (almost half) of us, this is important information about who we are as a country and what we truly value.

I will admit that I worry about the next four years. A nexus of similar (or, at least, tenuously aligned) ideological positions has successfully secured even greater control of the nation and perceives a mandate to promote its “right way” in US policy. I fear more economic woes, greater intolerance, increasing social divide, and increased turmoil abroad. I fear these things, but I don’t necessarily look for them to happen. I certainly don’t hope that they will happen.

Those in power will (rightfully) take credit for things that turn out well. And they should (rightfully) be held accountable for those things that don’t. They definitely have a “vision” for America, and they have four more years to push us that direction. Much as I have protested that vision in the past, I reluctantly acknowledge it is the path we have elected to take.

But I offer to the right the same advice I would have offered to the left if Ohio or Florida had broken the other way: listen to your opponents. Don’t shut them out of the political process. Now is not the time to gloat and exploit advantage unnecessarily. I am not just speaking to the politicians, either. If blog sites like JU really do hold the hope for a dynamic public sphere filled with civil discourse and democracy in action, then we need to use this virtual space to find common ground between us. A house divided against itself is an invitation to Al Qaeda (among others).

So, to the right, I apologize. I am sorry for doubting that the right's views represented the majority of the voting populace. I am sorry for not trying harder to find compromises we could all believe in and work for. And mostly I am sorry for the role I and many on the left have played in participating (albeit with the right!) in partisan bickering and debating with the main objective of being “right” rather than serving the greatest good.

Show me in these next four (if not two) years that your vision really is in the country’s best interest. I am listening. I am watching. And I will be living your America.
politics
7,224 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
" So, to the right, I apologize. I am sorry for doubting that the right's views represented the majority of the voting populace. I am sorry for not trying harder to find compromises we could all believe in and work for. And mostly I am sorry for the role I and many on the left have played in participating (albeit with the right!) in partisan bickering and debating with the main objective of being “right” rather than serving the greatest good.

Show me in these next four (if not two) years that your vision really is in the country’s best interest. I am listening. I am watching. And I will be living your America. "

No need to apologize. Your post was facinating and insightful. I enjoy debate and learning from people with all views and beliefs. As a conservative, I wish all Democrats and liberals had your attitude and spirit of cooperation. You are a shining example to both sides of partisan politics. May we all learn and follow your example.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I hope you have an opportunity to live in "our" America


That, frankly, depends on those in power's willingness to govern from a postion of dialogue. I can participate in calling for that, asking for that, begging for that. But if that is to happen, it requires the powerful to, at least in part, share their power of their own free will. We'll see if that happens. I hope so.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bungy,

Thanks for stepping up to the plate and being conciliatory. I appreciate it & extend my respects.

Only one little thing that struck me as symptomatic of the problem the Democrats & others on the left still have:

They definitely have a “vision” for America, and they have four more years to push us that direction.


You need to pause and consider whether "they" are pushing or the remainder of America is pulling. The distinction is telling. And the challenge for you and like-minded individuals is to make the case for your "vision" without worsening what you perceive to be the divisions in America. More Barack Obamas & fewer Teds & Als and you guys will be OK.

Thanks again & Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
And the challenge for you and like-minded individuals is to make the case for your "vision" without worsening what you perceive to be the divisions in America.


I agree, Daiwa. But I think this is an even bigger challenge for the "they" in power. I am basically in a position where I have to be concilliatory (although I want to believe I would be similarly gracious if the situation were reversed). I think all competing visions necessarily "push" (or, more neutrally, "influence"), but they don't have to "shove." And even if I don't offer resistance, I still probably need to be "taken along" this path or vision or whatever. The trick for those in power, I think, is to use their advantage to move the country toward their vision without trampling over the basically powerless because they can.

Thanks for the shout-out to Obama. I am proud to have participated in voting the man into office, and I think he will be a powerful voice for unity. I also agree that the challenge on all sides is to make a case for various "visions" without worsening the divisions in America.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bungy32 -

You're heart's in the right place, I have no doubt.

FWIW, I believe the Democrats have been hoisted on their own petard. I have never been a lockstep right winger and I'm very much opposed to the Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell crowd - they give me the creeps (politically speaking) just as much as they do you. But in evaluating the current cast of Democrats, more than once, I've asked myself, "How could I feel good about supporting and rallying behind people who are so obviously driven by hate? People who so clearly have no respect for legitimate differences of opinion and who choose to so viciously demonize those who disagree with them." Where is the appeal in that kind of behavior? Most people of good will feel very uncomfortable going there and every time Ted Kennedy or Terry McAuliffe or Al Gore spoke, they drove me further away from even considering their candidate.

I also believe that the visciousness of their attacks revealed the weakness of their political case. As Peter Sellers might have said, "There was no there there." I would much rather have heard a reasoned argument of the issues from them, but they simply couldn't put forward a constructive affirmative case for themselves, instead mounting attack after attack after attack, betraying their disdain for both their opponent and any who might be inclined to support the positions of their opponent. Worse, they invented a lot of garbage out of whole cloth, revealing how truly bereft of ideas they were. It seemed all about "getting" Bush from the very beginning, not about a new vision or direction for America, which was all just cover for the hit. The sore loser aspect was a big part of it, in stark contrast to the 1960 election (which many voters still remember) in which the Republicans, having a far stronger case for contesting the results than existed in Florida in 2000, chose to graciously concede defeat and move on. Thank goodness Kerry had a sudden attack of wisdom and chose to concede - pushing this election to the technical limit would have done great harm to his party.

Our civil discourse, thanks to the likes of Michael Moore and Eminem, has hit a new low, in my opinion. But hatred, spite and falsifications just don't play well in Peoria. Civil, principled disagreement might have gotten Kerry somewhere, but he and his handlers apparently had too little faith in their "principled positions" to rely on them, going the relentless attack route instead. And I agree with Draginol that the hatred backfired on them and galvanized Bush's support far more than it persuaded undecideds to jump on board the Hate Express.

My opinion is that the Democrats are doomed to retain their minority position as long as they leave control of the party in the hands of people like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama's current popularity is in part due to his rookie status and perceived potential, but unless the party finds more decent folks like him willing to run, the party's on a slow train to nowhere. Obama seems to be a genuine adherent to the concept of principled opposition, uncluttered by venality or hate. Then again, he received a political gift in Illinois, making it rather easy for him to take the high road, and only time will tell if his Senate performance confirms my perceptions of his character.

Anyway, sorry for being so longwinded. Props to you for your willingness to ask and consider the question of what all this means.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

I can very much appreciate the sentiment in the the post Bungy. I believe that there is some number of people (I fear smaller than what it should be) that can have an open honest discussion on what is good for America. I speak as a conservative, but no political spin matters more than what is right for the country.

I personally destest the partisan bickering that has gripped politcal circles. It seems to matter less and less if the the policies enacted by our officials work, as long as the spin in public is positive. Our Republic cannot survive this system if it remains this way for a prolonged period of time.

And I'll make you a deal. If you tell your left-of-center friends to not say things like, "I'm going to Canada", or "Great, Bush is going to blow up the world now" or whatever, I'll tell my right-of-center friends to stop gloating as if this were a personal challenge. Who knows--we'll start the 1st National Blogosphere Congress, and bipartisanship will reign.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa--

The last position I want to be put in is apologizing for the more vitriolic elements on the Left. At the same time, though, some of the more vocal "hate-speakers" you mention from the right seem, well, equally as problematic. Fairly early on in his presidency, I think, President Bush participated (I resist saying "created") an atmosphere of distrust by holding fewer press conferences than usual and doing much of the business of the White House in secrecy. Certainly, a certain amount of secrecy is necessary for national security, but I think that secrecy participated (again!) in that atmosphere of distrust. Now, based on what you've said, the generous response to this presidential tactic of secrecy is that it was in response to Democrat "hatred" -- no point in handing them ammunition on a plate, afterall. Possibly so. But then, if so, I think it is really important for his second term to find a way to break that cycle of distrust between the parties. Frankly, he is in the best position to make successful overtures in that direction (and seems to be doing just that in his victory rhetoric) in meaningful and substantive ways.

It is hard to listen to folks talk about Democrats as the "Party of Hate" when the Clinton years seem to have been all but derailed by vitriolic attacks from the right. At the same time, I self-reflectively acknowledge that pointing to that behavior serves almost no other function than "justifying" current Democratic behaviors (which, arguably, it doesn't). The bottom line is that I don't really think either party can wear the title of the "Party of Hate." They both deploy hate (and, well, fear) as political tactics, and I think the people most worn down by those tactics are the voters.

GruntSGT--

Nope, no Canada for me. I also don't think President Bush will blow up the world, but I am sometimes afraid that he might consider actually using tactical nuclear weapons as a component of his pre-emptive doctrine. I am not saying that he will use such weapons nor do I have any evidence that he is planning to. So maybe it is an irrational fear. My point, though, is that I am trying not to be guided by such fears, and I am trying to come out of this election cycle ready to do good work for the good of the country in my own small way -- which of necessity means finding ways to work and dialogue with the proponents of the dominant ideologies.

Also, while I think gloating is not the best choice for those who feel their candidate/party is in power, I do think there is something (if not quite a mandate) for conservatives/GOP to rally around in this election. No, it wasn't a landslide, but I think the President won a tight race by a decisive margin, fair and square. And his opponent, John Kerry, did the right thing for the country in conceding when he did. I do wish that the country I live in was not "Bush Country" -- it will be a long time before I can let go of that desire. But the truth of the matter is that it is "Bush Country," and part of being an adult is accepting and dealing with the reality of your present conditions. The option of making it not Bush Country is past; that option failed. Now it is time to learn from that failure by accepting what it means that it failed (and not distracting ourselves by looking for facile excuses for why it failed).

Anyway, that's what I can bring to the table by way of meeting on some common ground for the Blogosphere Congress. I will do my best not to speak/write from a place of "hate" for Bush, but it may be asking too much that I regularly express "like" for the man. I can admit to a considerable amount of "respect" for him, though (begrudging though that may be at times). Hopefully that is a start.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bungy -

You are right about the vitriol directed at Clinton from the right and I didn't like it, either, but I think in tone and intensity it was several notches below what we've experienced from senior Democrats since the 2000 election.

And I meant to convey that people like you would do well to "fire the calcified hate-mongers" like Kennedy, Gore & McAuliffe. I did not mean to characterize the entire party as The Party of Hate. Far from it - I happen to believe the majority of Democrats are people of principle & good will who are conscientious and passionate advocates who don't need or want vindictiveness as a weapon. Two of my 3 business partners fit that description and while we disagree strongly on most political issues, we can achieve consensus on the business issues we routinely face without rancor. It's that kind of respectful cooperation that we need now. And I don't believe the likes of Kennedy, Gore, McAuliffe, et al, fairly represent people like you any more than Jerry Falwell or Bob Dornan fairly represents people like me.

Cheers,
Daiwa