Concession
Around 10:00 last night, my grandson opined that Bush would win and that his vote had counted for nothing. I reminded him that we vote for three reasons:
- to win;
- to reduce the margin;
- to make our opinion heard.
After he went off to bed, I called my mother to see how she was holding up. She was not optimistic, but her thought was that Kerry is a good man, so why should we want him saddled with the mess that Bush has made of both domestic and foreign policy? Her thought was that things are so bad in this country that it's a mess we shouldn't wish on our best friend. Why should someone we support have to struggle to clean up something that is so impossible?
I held on until 2:00 in the morning. I went to bed with some small sliver of hope in my heart, but it took a long time to get to sleep. All this morning, I've looked for more of those slivers of hope, driven in large part by the strength that Kerry's lack of concession provided.
There was hope because neither pollsters nor network news organizations have standing under the constitution to declare the outcome of an election. Only the final vote tallies in each state will determine who the electors are for each state and only the votes of the electors will, in the final moment, actually determine who has won the election. I know that the science of polling can tell us a great deal. I also know that the networks have their own agenda (without even hinting at partisanship here). And I know that there are comparatively few votes left to count no matter how much closer they might make the race or how unlikely they are to change the outcome.
But there is something unseemly about declaring an election over before all of the votes have been counted.
And there is something sickening when one man can make the ultimate determination of the outcome by conceding the election.
Still, that's where we are. The election is over because John Kerry has said that it is.
Although, of course, it's not. The votes still have to be counted. The electors still have to meet. What fun it would be if there were some interesting changes in outcome over the next few days as those votes are counted. There are, after all, still a million and a half votes yet to count in Florida. What if Florida shifts? Will the concession then count?
Whatever. Shrug. Hmph!
What matters to me right now is how I will find the will to have any hope for the future of American society. The country will continue. Democracy may have been bruised, if any of the allegations of fraud turn out to be true, but the Republic still stands. The society, however, is starting to become something that I really, really, really won't be liking.
And, as I look down the road, what I see is less acceptance of difference, more distance between those who have and those who do not, more emphasis on survival of the fittest, continued decline in civility. I see back alley abortions, guns and circuses, further decline in public health, town square religiosity hiding gross hypocrisy, the dumbing down of America, more war on science.
When I was younger, I could say, "My grief is my sword," and continue to fight for what I believe in. On a day like today, I'm just tired and sad and wondering whether idealism is even possible.
Maybe tomorrow I will feel stronger. The battle cry is now, "Don't mourn, organize!" But--for a while--I'm just going to be sad.
posted by Carolyn A. Parker @ 11:15 AM
2 Comments:
I hope you know me well enough to understand the spirit that this is offered in: I know you're disappointed, and I hope you feel better soon.
Had things gone differently, I might have written something like this: "What matters to me right now is how I will find the will to have any hope for the future of American society. The country will continue. Democracy may have been bruised, if any of the allegations of fraud turn out to be true, but the Republic still stands. The society, however, is starting to become something that I really, really, really won't be liking. And, as I look down the road, what I see is less acceptance of difference, more distance between those who have and those who do not, more emphasis on a welfare state, continued decline in civility. I see immorality disguised as social reform, drugs and circuses, further decline in common sense, intellectual elitism hiding gross hypocrisy, the dumbing down of America, more war on religion."
I admire and respect your opinions. I like the way you look at things, and I usually find myself considering something that never occurred to me when I read you. A lot of the time, I don't comment, or if I do, it's just a quick "interesting post" because, frankly, I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion, most of the time. I just feel overwhelmed by your intellect and knowledge. I don't mind that, just explaining that in a battle of wits, I would find myself the proverbial unarmed man.
I was talking with my brother when he was here for the funeral. He said that we (Americans) tend to boil things down to the lowest common denominator. So, then,if that's true, are these the negative labels each "side" wears?
Democrat/Liberal/Left: Pro-Abortion, Anti-Gun Rights, Anti-Religion, Pro-Homosexual, Intellectual Snobs, Anti-Family Values, Unpatriotic, Elitists.
Republican/Conservative/Right: Anti-Women's Rights, Gun Nuts, Religious Fanatics, Bigots, Uneducated, Anti-Science, Jingoistic, Elitists.
We need to find some common ground. Badly.
Ah, Jack. Dear man that you are, you've said exactly the right thing. I'm not really one to stay "defeated" for long. Whenever I'm headed down, I pretty much aim to hit rock bottom--but I just hate to stay there.
So, the pity party is almost over. Happily, you've brought up a marvelously salient set of points. The most important is that we are not mirror images of one another. There are, in fact, many points on which we share common ground.
With the battle over, this really would be a mighty fine time to start looking at that common ground to see what we can salvage.
Take your potential "statement." There are some points on which it differed from mine. However, some of those differences are not points with which I would, in all cases, disagree.
F'rinstance: "more emphasis on the welfare state." As long as "welfare state" is not a code to eliminate all entitlements, I am not averse to taking a long hard look at that. Prior to the current version of welfare reform (which seemed, at the time, a bitter pill to swallow), we did do things that created dependency on welfare. That cycle clearly needed to be broken. In some ways, however, it was done too harshly, too crudely, and, I think, with a little too much zeal for the suffering of those who were supposed to be "helped" by either welfare or its reform. On the flip side of that, there are some folks, let's call them "the less fortunate," who will always need some help from the community. As a so-called Christian nation, there is every reason to think that the state (as community) can and should help those who are temporarily down and out to get back on their feet, to help those who are permanently disabled to participate more fully in community life as well as to have some semblance of a decent standard of living, to help those who have been disadvantaged by systemic problems to overcome those problems. Love thy neighbor as thyself and all that. We might quibble about how to do this, but we probably do have common ground here.
It's at least worth discussing what "welfare state" means and working toward less dependence on it--where appropriate--as long as it's not an either/or kind of thing.
"Immorality disguised as social reform": I've got to think about that for a bit. I guess it depends on what is being defined as immoral and what is being called social reform. Social change, however, happens often without the intentional intervention of any group or insitution, and we've certainly seen some social change going on around us. One instance which is easily identified in this line of thinking is likely to be the various issues associated with the gay community. Not to presume what your own thoughts on this might be, it's still something that bothers a lot of folks around the country. I am not as concerned about it. Got gay friends. Got gay relatives. Got gay co-workers. Like 'em. Want 'em to be happy. Don't feel threatened by their behavior or their need to be married. But nothing I can say or do is going to advance the so-called homosexual agenda one iota. The changes that are happening in America in relation to acceptance or non-acceptance of gay Americans is happening without anyone's concerted effort. There is an audience for "Will and Grace." (I don't watch it.) A majority of Americans support either gay marriage or civil unions. (I'm content to call any bond created in law a "civil union" and anything sanctified by a religious institution a "marriage," in which case My Prince and I share a civil union created by the Judge Leslie Taylor.) Even some military leaders are thinking that "don't ask, don't tell" is a silly policy and gayfolk should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces. Racism was once a moral position in America. Anti-Semitism was once a moral position in the western world. Homophobia is less and less a moral position in America. But homophobia, racism, anti-semitism and all the other patterns of belief that distinguish us on the basis of some identity or another will always matter to some folks. It may simply be a matter of distinguishing between social reform and social change.
Depending on what is being considered immoral, we might have common ground here. More likely we need to share some thinking about the difference between reform and change.
"Drugs and circuses": Very common ground here. :)
"Further decline in common sense": Could be common ground here, but it would, of course, depend on what we're callin' common sense. Some sociologists call "common sense" nothing more than the prejudices formed before the age of 10. I tend to disagree with that, but there still may be some room disagree on what exactly we're talkin' about here. Common sense based on evidence and reality might give us something to work with.
"Intellectual elitism hiding gross hypocrisy": Woohoo! Give a girl a compliment and then hit her where it hurts! [grin] On a more serious note, I can almost agree with what you have to say here--except that I don't accept "intellectual elitism" as a dodge for ignorance and mental laziness. When folks are willfully ignorant, willing to accept any statement as truth without questioning it, and refuse to look at more than one side of an issue, they are not being brow-beaten by any intellectual elite. They are simply lazy. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, can wear many disguises, and, yes, it should in all cases be exposed and excoriated. (And, btw, you, I think, are neither ignorant nor lazy. Anyone who can write--and think--like you do is not going into a battle of wits unarmed. I'd say you're packin' bazookas.)
"More war on religion": I guess the questions here are "whose religion?" and "who's makin' the war?" "Religion" is really, really, really a broad concept. Some would--and have--argued that communism qualifies as a religion, that communism and Christianity share a large number of moral values, that science can be construed as religion, and other things I'd guess wouldn't be very popular to say. Religion defines the difference between the world as we know it and the world that we cannot see. It explains how things are, how they should be, and, to some extent, what will be. It often looks to an external authority for guidance, whether that authority be the ancestors, one or more deities, the state, or some more nebulous concept of the collective unconscious. If it is making war on a particular religion to say that practitioners of that religion may not impose their beliefs on those who believe otherwise, then, yeah, there's gonna be some of that kind of war. For me, that's fine. I really don't like someone else shoving their religious beliefs down my throat.
On the other hand, I recall an occasion in which I was accused of religious zealotry because I defended in a public forum the legal right of a particular religious institution to do what it had a legal right to do. Ironically, that particular religious group was one with which I was quite familiar and seriously didn't care for. Still, they had a right to do what they were doing, and I said so--to my own detriment. I'm sure that some folks saw that whole situation as "war" for or against that religion. To me, it was just a zoning case.
I've gone on at length, Jack, because I really needed the distraction of talking about issues right now. But please know how much I value your comment--now and at other times. If there were one person to hear me right now, I'm glad it's you, because you and I clearly look at some things differently but can talk about it without rancor. It gives me hope that more dialogues like this can happen in the coming days and months. I am desperately looking for common ground.
Post a Comment
<< Home