When Dukakis lost to G. H. W. Bush, Saturday Night Live had a skit in which John Lovitz, playing Dukakis, kept saying “I can’t believe I’m losing to HIM…”
I think that, along with the fervet belief in the myth of the stolen 2000 election, captures the feeling of the Bluest people out there. They really do think Bush is stupid, and now they have lost to him twice – and this time, convincingly.
“I can’t believe we lost to HIM… AGAIN!”
BB:
Instead of dropping back and questioning their false fundamental belief, they continue to whine and hate. Not a smart move.
Even scarier for the Blues out there should be the fact that they lost seats in both houses.
One would think that they could see the writing on the wall - that this country is moving to the right.
I know BB doesb’t want to hear the ‘M’ word - but I think ‘mandate’ might be appropriate in the context of the balance of power tipping more decidedly to the right.
Does anyone remember election night in 1994? While this year’s election sent many on the right into a punch-card induced ecstacy - I think election night 1994 was my most vivid memory of beating the left.
rainjack:
Remember it well. You are referring to Newt and the contract with America. It was a great night for the republicans.
I don’t think that it is a mandate for President Bush. Perhaps a mandate for the republican party. Is it the same thing?
I can’t see why everyone is so surprised. I mean Kerry didn’t offer anything significantly different than Bush. You essentially had the same candidate. It’s strangely funny to see people like Springsteen and Jon Stewart give such ardent support to Kerry when he represents the same power structure as Bush. Are they all really this ignorant or is it just the lesser of two evils choice? Makes one want to throw up his hands in the air and give up. But to do that would give “them” the idea that “they” one so I can’t but…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Even scarier for the Blues out there should be the fact that they lost seats in both houses.
One would think that they could see the writing on the wall - that this country is moving to the right.
I know BB doesb’t want to hear the ‘M’ word - but I think ‘mandate’ might be appropriate in the context of the balance of power tipping more decidedly to the right.
Does anyone remember election night in 1994? While this year’s election sent many on the right into a punch-card induced ecstacy - I think election night 1994 was my most vivid memory of beating the left.[/quote]
The “M” word is fine, if you want to make that argument. The “M” word I don’t care about is “Most”, as in “Most votes ever.” I haven’t done the math, but I have a feeling that, given the turnout, Bush would have had the most votes ever even if he won by less than 1% (assuming he got more than 50%).
Mark Steyn dissects some of the angry, bitter rhetoric as only he can:
Believe it or not, it wasn’t just rednecks who voted for Bush
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 07/11/2004)
The big question after Tuesday was: will it just be more of the same in George W Bush’s second term, or will there be a change of tone? And apparently it’s the latter. The great European thinkers have decided that instead of doing another four years of lame Bush-is-a-moron cracks they’re going to do four years of lame Americans-are-morons cracks. Inaugurating the new second-term outreach was Brian Reade in the Daily Mirror, who attributed the President’s victory to: “The self-righteous, gun-totin’, military-lovin’, sister-marryin’, abortion-hatin’, gay-loathin’, foreigner-despisin’, non-passport-ownin’ rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land ‘free and strong’.”
Well, that’s certainly why I supported Bush, but I’m not sure it entirely accounts for the other 59,459,765. Forty five per cent of Hispanics voted for the President, as did 25 per cent of Jews, and 23 per cent of gays. And this coalition of common-or-garden rednecks, Hispanic rednecks, sinister Zionist rednecks, and lesbian rednecks who enjoy hitting on their gay-loathin’ sisters expanded its share of the vote across the entire country - not just in the Bush states but in the Kerry states, too.
In all but six states, the Republican vote went up: the urinating rednecks have increased their number not just in Texas and Mississippi but in Massachusetts and California, both of which have Republican governors. You can drive from coast to coast across the middle of the country and never pass through a single county that voted for John Kerry: it’s one continuous cascade of self-righteous urine from sea to shining sea. States that were swing states in 2000 - West Virginia, Arkansas - are now solidly Republican, and once solidly Democrat states - Iowa, Wisconsin - are now swingers. The redneck states push hard up against the Canadian border, where if your neck’s red it’s frostbite. Bush’s incontinent rednecks are everywhere: they’re so numerous they’re running out of sisters to bunk up with.
Who exactly is being self-righteous here? In Britain and Europe, there seem to be two principal strains of Bush-loathing. First, the guys who say, if you disagree with me, you must be an idiot - as in the Mirror headline “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?” Second, the guys who say, if you disagree with me, you must be a Nazi - as in Oliver James, who told The Guardian: "I was too depressed to even speak this morning. I thought of my late mother, who read Mein Kampf when it came out in the 1930s [sic] and thought, ‘Why doesn’t anyone see where this is leading?’ "
Mr James is a clinical psychologist.
If smug Europeans are going to coast on moron-Fascist sneers indefinitely, they’ll be dooming themselves to ever more depressing mornings-after in the 2006 midterms, the 2008 presidential election, 2010, and beyond: America’s resistance to the conventional wisdom of the rest of the developed world is likely to intensify in the years ahead. This widening gap is already a point of pride to the likes of B J Kelly of Killiney, who made the following observation on Friday’s letters page in The Irish Times: “Here in the EU we objected recently to high office for a man who professed the belief that abortion and gay marriages are essentially evil. Over in the US such an outlook could have won him the presidency.”
I’m not sure who he means by “we”. As with most decisions taken in the corridors of Europower, the views of Killiney and Knokke and Krakow didn’t come into it one way or the other. B J Kelly is referring to Rocco Buttiglione, the mooted European commissioner whose views on homosexuality, single parenthood, etc would have been utterly unremarkable for an Italian Catholic 30 years ago. Now Europe’s secular elite has decided they’re beyond the pale and such a man should have no place in public life. And B J Kelly sees this as evidence of how much more enlightened Europe is than America.
That’s fine. But what happens if the European elite should decide a whole lot of other stuff is beyond the pale, too, some of it that B J Kelly is quite partial to? In affirming the traditional definition of marriage in 11 state referenda, from darkest Mississippi to progressive enlightened Kerry-supporting Oregon, the American people were not expressing their "gay-loathin’ ", so much as declining to go the Kelly route and have their betters tell them what they can think. They’re not going to have marriage redefined by four Massachusetts judges and a couple of activist mayors. That doesn’t make them Bush theo-zombies marching in lockstep to the gay lynching, just freeborn citizens asserting their right to dissent from today’s established church - the stifling coercive theology of political correctness enforced by a secular episcopate.
As Americans were voting on marriage and marijuana and other matters, the Rotterdam police were destroying a mural by Chris Ripke that he’d created to express his disgust at the murder of Theo van Gogh by Islamist crazies. Ripke’s painting showed an angel and the words “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. Unfortunately, his workshop is next to a mosque, and the imam complained that the mural was “racist”, so the cops arrived, destroyed it, arrested the television journalists filming it and wiped their tape. Maybe that would ring a bell with Oliver James’s mum.
The restrictions on expression that B J Kelly sees as evidence of European enlightenment are regarded as profoundly unhealthy by most Americans. When one examines Brian Reade’s anatomy of redneck disfigurements - "gun-totin’, military-lovin’, abortion-hatin’ " - most of them are about the will to survive, as individuals and as a society. Americans tote guns because they’re assertive citizens, not docile subjects of a permanent governing class. They love their military because they think there’s something contemptible about Europeans preening and posing as a great power when they can’t even stop some nickel’n’dime Balkan genital-severers piling up hundreds of thousands of corpses on their borders.
And, if Americans do “hate abortion”, is Mr Reade saying he loves it? It’s at least partially responsible for the collapsed birthrates of post-Christian Europe. However superior the EU is to the US, it will only last as long as Mr Reade’s generation: the design flaw of the radical secular welfare state is that it depends on a traditionally religious society birthrate to sustain it. True, you can’t be a redneck in Spain or Italy: when the birthrates are 1.1 and 1.2 children per couple, there are no sisters to shag.
What was revealing about this election campaign was how little the condescending Europeans understand even about the side in American politics they purport to agree with - witness The Guardian’s disastrous intervention in Clark County. Simon Schama last week week defined the Bush/Kerry divide as “Godly America” and “Worldly America”, hailing the latter as “pragmatic, practical, rational and sceptical”. That’s exactly the wrong way round: it’s Godly America that is rational and sceptical - especially of Euro-delusions. Uncowed by Islamists, undeferential to government, unshrivelled in its birthrates, Bush’s redneck America is a more reliable long-term bet. Europe’s media would do their readers a service if they stopped condescending to it.
Mark Steyn wrote another column on the same lines for American consumption – he’s prolific, and good:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn07.html
Condescending Dems still don’t get it
November 7, 2004
BY MARK STEYN
Mustn’t gloat, mustn’t gloat. Instead, we must try and look sober and reflective and then step smartly to the side and let the Democrats tear themselves apart.
I’m reluctant to intrude on family grief, especially as the Dems are doing such a sterling job all by themselves. But, when big shot Democrats look at Tuesday’s results and instantly announce the reason they flopped out was because . . .
Whoa, hang on a minute, my apologies. There’s been a clerical error here: That was my post-election column from 2002. My post-election column from 2004 goes like . . . well, actually, it goes pretty much the same. It’d be easier just to take the second week in November off every two years and let my editors run the timeless classic whither-the-Democrats? column. All that changes is the local color. In 2002, I was very taken by the band at Missouri Democratic headquarters attempting to rouse the despondent faithful with Steve Allen’s peppy anthem, "This Could Be the Start of Something Big,‘’ and noted that the party faced the opposite problem: This could be the end of something small.
As they’ve done for a decade now, the Democrat bigwigs worried about it for a couple of weeks and then rationalized it away: In 2000 they lost because Bush stole the “election”; in 2002 they lost because of that “vicious” attack ad on Max Cleland. The official consolation for this year’s biennial bust hasn’t yet been decided on, but Tom Daschle’s election-eve lawsuit alone offers several attractive runners, including the complaint that Democrats were intimidated by Republicans ‘‘rolling their eyes.’’ Could be a lot more of that if this keeps up.
So it seems likely – just to get my 2006 post-election column out of the way here – that in a couple years’ time the Democrats will have run on the same thin gruel as usual and be mourning the loss of another two or three Senate seats. You want names and states? Well, how about West Virginia? Will the 88-year old Robert C. Byrd be on the ballot in 2006? And, if he’s not, what are the Dems’ chances of stopping West Virginia’s transformation to permanent “red state” status?
It also seems likely – just to get my 2012 post-election column out of the way here – that in eight years’ time the Dems will have run on the same thin gruel as usual and, thanks to the 2010 census and the ongoing shift of population to the South and West, lost another five House seats and discovered that the “blue states” are worth even less in the Electoral College – though in fairness their only available presidential candidate, the young dynamic Southerner 94-year-old Robert C. Byrd, managed to hold all but three of Kerry’s states.
I had a bet with myself this week: How soon after election night would it be before the Bush-the-chimp-faced-moron stuff started up again? 48 hours? A week? I was wrong. Bush Derangement Syndrome is moving to a whole new level. On the morning of Nov. 2, the condescending left were convinced that Bush was an idiot. By the evening of Nov. 2, they were convinced that the electorate was. Or as London’s Daily Mirror put it in its front page: “How Can 59,054,087 People Be So DUMB?”
Well, they’re British lefties: They can do without Americans. Whether an American political party can do without Americans is more doubtful. Nonetheless, MSNBC.com’s Eric Alterman was mirroring the Mirror’s sentiments: “Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the ‘reality-based community’ say or believe about anything.” Over at Slate, Jane Smiley’s analysis was headlined, "The Unteachable Ignorance Of The Red States.‘’ If you don’t want to bother plowing your way through Alterman and Smiley, a placard prominently displayed by a fetching young lad at the post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco cut to the chase: “F— MIDDLE AMERICA.”
Almost right, man. It would be more accurate to say that “MIDDLE AMERICA” has “F—ed” you, and it will continue to do so every two years as long as Democrats insist that anyone who disagrees with them is, ipso facto, a simpleton – or “Neanderthal,” as Teresa Heinz Kerry described those unimpressed by her husband’s foreign policy. In my time, I’ve known dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and other members of Britain’s House of Lords and none of them had the contempt for the masses one routinely hears from America’s coastal elites. And, in fairness to those ermined aristocrats, they could afford Dem-style contempt: A seat in the House of Lords is for life; a Senate seat in South Dakota isn’t.
More to the point, nobody who campaigns with Ben Affleck at his side has the right to call anybody an idiot. H. L. Mencken said that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Well, George Soros, Barbra Streisand and a lot of their friends just did: The Kerry campaign and its supporters – MoveOn.org, Rock The Vote, etc. – were awash in bazillions of dollars, and what have they got to show for it? In this election, the plebs were more mature than the elites: They understood that war is never cost-free and that you don’t run away because of a couple of setbacks; they did not accept that one jailhouse scandal should determine America’s national security interest; they rejected the childish caricature of their president and paranoid ravings about Halliburton; they declined to have their vote rocked by Bruce Springsteen or any other pop culture poser.
All the above is unworthy of a serious political party. As for this exit-poll data that everyone’s all excited about, what does it mean when 22 percent of the electorate say their main concern was “moral issues”? Gay marriage? Abortion? Or is it something broader? For many of us, the war is also a moral issue, and the Democrats are on the wrong side of it, standing not with the women voting proudly in Afghanistan’s first election but with the amoral and corrupt U.N., the amoral and cynical Jacques Chirac, the amoral and revolting head-hackers whom Democratic Convention guest of honor Michael Moore described as Iraq’s ‘‘minutemen.’’
At some point in both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns, your typical media liberal would feign evenhandedness and bemoan the way the choice has come down to "two weak candidates.‘’
But, in that case, how come the right’s weak candidates are the ones that win? Because a weak candidate pushing strong ideas is better than a weak candidate who’s had no ideas since Roe vs. Wade.
Yale Free Press takes on Keith Olbermann and messes up his tin-foil hat and his FL conspiracy theory:
http://yalefreepress.blogspot.com/2004/11/keith-obermann-wheres-your-tin-foil.html
Jonah Goldberg weighs in, amusingly, on the Angry, Bitter Losers:
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200411081212.asp
November 08, 2004, 12:12 p.m.
The Sore-Loser Party
Understanding Smiley, Dowd, Raines, Krugman, Maher, Sarandon, et al.
Enough.
The first resort of a sore loser is to gripe about how the game itself was unfair, how the other team doesn’t play nice, how the very act of winning is all the proof necessary that the other side will “do anything” to win. The second resort is to simply make junk up about the other guy that makes you feel better about yourself.
“The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry,” writes Jane Smiley, a woman who couldn’t catch a clue if you used one as a pestle and her brain pan as the mortar. Smiley’s now-famous hissyfit places a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the Republican base is “ignorant” while the Democratic one is enlightened. A similar point was made by the British Daily Mirror, one of whose headlines asked, “How Can 59,054,087 People Be So DUMB?”
One might ask if the Democrats really want to place so much emphasis on “ignorance” of the base as a defining difference between the parties. By all means let’s break out the number-two pencils and pit the homeschoolers, tractor drivers, and Sunday-school teachers against the voters who wouldn’t have shown up at the polls lest they miss a chance to meet P-Diddy.
There are other complaints as well. Take the two leading liberal columnists at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. As we all know, one’s a whining self-parody of a hysterical liberal who lets feminine emotion and fear defeat reason and fact in almost every column. The other used to date Michael Douglas. But both of them have been writing a string of columns insisting that the Bushies ran a campaign of “divisiveness,” “primitivism,” and “fear.” To be fair, and to everyone’s surprise, Krugman’s post-drubbing column wasn’t a whine-fest so much as a cri de coeur about how his whininess was justified all along. The column read like a quickly dashed-off buck-up memo about how Democrats should keep fighting. Conveniently Krugman is now going into hiding for a few months to work on an economics textbook. (Nothing like telling the troops to tough it out in the trenches as you head to the bunker.) Thank goodness Dowd has picked up the slack. Her columns of late aren’t the clever highbrow snarks they once were; once she knew how to sweeten the bile. Now her op-ed page real estate hits your desk like a bucket of vomit with some Body Shop potpourri sprinkled across the surface.
For all their screeching about the politics of fear and division, neither has taken any time to explain how the Democrats’ insistence that young people will be drafted, that blacks are being systematically denied the right to vote, and that your disabled relatives won’t be able to walk again if Bush is reelected constitute the sort of sunny, upbeat, inclusive politics of hope they favor.
The most hysterical part about Dowd’s column Sunday (as in hysterically funny, not hysterical in the sense of Krugman explaining why the latest employment numbers are so high) was when she defended William Jennings Bryan’s defense of creationism in the Scopes trial, on the basis that Bryan believed Darwinian theory bolstered capitalism. She might have a fraction of a sliver of a historical point (Herbert Spencer: Ptooey!). But to make this argument, she’s basically conceding that her problem isn’t with creationism per se ? normally considered a codeword for the sort of “right-wing ignorance” the Smiley crowd despises ? but rather that her problem is with creationism when creationism helps the Right. Now that’s a principled position!
But that brings us back to this whole “ignorance” thing. What Smiley, Dowd, & Co. object to is not ignorance qua ignorance, but what the Marxists called false consciousness (indeed, Smiley even talks like a character out of a Tom Wolfe novel with her glib references to “big capitalists” and right-wing “greed”). Gary Wills’s question sums up the attitude nicely: “Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?”
Hating the “Haters”
For example, Saturday night, my wife forced me to watch Bill Maher’s HBO show because we’d heard that Andrew Sullivan tore Noam Chomsky apart. That’s not actually what happened. Maher actually did a one-on-one interview with Chomsky. It was more like Maher was granted an audience with Chomsky. Maher’s style was only slightly less deferential than our own Kathryn Lopez’s would be with the pope. Which only makes sense, since Chomsky is something akin to the Black Pope of America-Hatred. Sullivan did a fine job ridiculing Maher about all that, but ultimately the show wasn’t worth its price in agita. I had to listen to Susan Sarandon ? Hollywood’s Patron Saint of Sore Losers ? explain that maybe Kerry really did win and that some grassy-knoll Republicans absconded with the election.
But even worse was Maher’s mindless righteousness about his own atheism. For years Maher has been auditioning for his Profile in Courage award by saying “brave” things about the unreality of Jesus and the silliness of religion. Every mention of religion causes a dirty smile and joyful sneer to spawn across his face. The other night he was pounding the table with great satisfaction for having the courage to be a “rational” person and hence an unbeliever ? and of course the audience was applauding like so many toy monkeys.
There’s no time here to dismantle fully the edifice of condescension and ignorance constructed by Maher and Smiley (I put Dowd in a different category). But what offends them so much about religion is that it is a source of authority outside ? and prior to ? politics. What has offended the Left since Marx, and American liberalism since Dewey, is the notion that moral authority should be derived from anyplace other than the state or “the people” (conveniently defined as citizens who vote liberal). Voting on values not sanctified by secular priests is how they define “ignorance.” This was the real goal of Hillary Clinton’s “politics of meaning” ? to replace traditional religion with a secular one that derived its authority not from ancient texts and “superstitions” but from the good intentions of an activist state and its anointed priests. Shortly before the election, Howell Raines fretted that the worst outcome of a Bush victory would be the resurgence of “theologically based cultural norms” ? without even acknowledging the fact that “theologically based cultural norms” gave us everything from the printing press and the newspaper to the First Amendment he claims to be such a defender of.
What Maher, Raines, and Smiley fail to grasp is that all morality is based upon transcendence ? or it is merely based on utilitarianism of one kind or another, and therefore it is not morality so much as, at best, an enlightened expediency or will-to-power. It is no more rational to vote based on a desire to do “good” than it is to vote based on a desire to do God’s will. Indeed, for millions of people this is a distinction without a difference ? as it was for so many of the abolitionists progressives and civil-rights leaders today’s liberals love to invoke but never actually learn about.
Love, in fact, is just as silly and superstitious a concept as God (and for those who believe God is Love, this too is a distinction without a difference). Chesterton’s observation that the purely rational man will not marry is just as correct today, because science has done far more damage to the ideal of love than it has done to the notion of an awesome God beyond our ken. Genes, hormones, instincts, evolution: These are the cause for the effect of love in the purely rational man’s textbook. But Maher would get few applause lines from his audience of sophisticated yokels if he mocked love as a silly superstition. This is, in part, because the crowd he plays to likes the idea of love while it dislikes the idea of God; and in part because these people feel love, so they think it exists. But such is the extent of their solipsism and narcissism that they not only reject the existence of God but go so far as to mock those who do not, simply because they don’t feel Him themselves. And, alas, in elite America, feelings are the only recognized foundation of metaphysics.
I didn’t intend to get off on the tangent of religion. I’m not particularly religious myself, after all. Nevertheless, I think the great irony of this election is that for all the talk of how the bigoted Right won, the Left’s loss has sparked far more bigotry. Their clever trick is to defend their hatred of the religious by calling it a hatred of bigotry itself ? a rationalization no liberal would tolerate from any other kind of bigot.
Anyway, I should wrap this up. Look, I understand that the entire Popular Front of the Left lost ? and big ? last week. I understand they thought they were going to win. I understand that many of them believed all of the nonsense about Bush’s being a fascist crusader and I understand that some actually believed P. Diddy’s axiom that you should vote (Democratic) or die. (Although it should be self-evident that a man who chooses the name P. Diddy is not a man to take very seriously. Last time I checked, Henry Kissinger never contemplated calling himself “Special K.”)
But for those of you who think your grief and disappointment justify your pious nastiness and blame-shifting for your own failures: Do keep in mind that it is precisely such self-indulgence and arrogance that costs you elections.