UK lefties' view of US election - interesting reading

Status
Not open for further replies.

Preacherman

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
13,306
Location
Louisiana, USA
The Guardian, a leftie newspaper in England, has a special section gathering together all its commentators' views on the US Elections. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/ for an interesting (and often highly amusing) read.

One, in particular, is worth reading: Simon Schama's views on religion and the elections (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1344144,00.html).

Onward Christian soldiers

The hopefuls in the Democrat camp really believed victory in the US election was within their grasp. How did they get it so wrong? They failed to appreciate, says Simon Schama, that their country is now in fact two nations that loathe and fear each other - Godly and Worldly America

Friday November 5, 2004
The Guardian

In the wee small hours of November 3 2004, a new country appeared on the map of the modern world: the DSA, the Divided States of America. Oh yes, I know, the obligatory pieties about "healing" have begun; not least from the lips of the noble Loser. This is music to the ears of the Victor of course, who wants nothing better than for us all to Come Together, a position otherwise known as unconditional surrender. Please, fellow curmudgeons and last ditchers, can someone on the losing side just for once not roll over and fall into a warm bath of patriotic platitudes at such moments, but toot the flute of battle instead; yell and holler and snarl just a wee bit? I don't want to heal the wound, I want to scratch the damned thing until it hurts and bleeds - and then maybe we'll have what it takes to get up from the mat. Do we think the far-right Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, in the ashy dawn of his annihilation in 1964, wanted to share? Don't think so. He wanted to win; sometime. And now, by God, he has.

"We are one nation," the newborn star of Democrats, Senator-elect Barack Obama, exclaimed, even as every salient fact of political life belied him. Well might he invoke Lincoln, for not since the Civil war has the fault line between its two halves been so glaringly clear, nor the chasm between its two cultures so starkly unbridgeable. Even territorially (with the exception of Florida, its peninsular finger pointing expectantly at tottering Cuba), the two Americas are topographically coherent and almost contiguous. One of those Americas is a perimeter, lying on the oceans or athwart the fuzzy boundary with the Canadian lakes, and is necessarily porous and outward-looking. The other America, whether montagnard or prairie, is solidly continental and landlocked, its tap roots of obstinate self-belief buried deep beneath the bluegrass and the high corn. It is time we called those two Americas something other than Republican and Democrat, for their mutual alienation and unforgiving contempt is closer to Sunni and Shia, or (in Indian terms) Muslim and Hindu. How about, then, Godly America and Worldly America?

Worldly America, which of course John Kerry won by a massive landslide, faces, well, the world on its Pacific and Atlantic coasts and freely engages, commercially and culturally, with Asia and Europe in the easy understanding that those continents are a dynamic synthesis of ancient cultures and modern social and economic practices. This truism is unthreatening to Worldly America, not least because so many of its people, in the crowded cities, are themselves products of the old-new ways of Korea, Japan, Ireland or Italy. In Worldly America - in San Francisco, Chicago, San Diego, New York - the foreigner is not an anxiety, but rather a necessity. Its America is polycultural, not Pollyanna.

Godly America, on the other hand, rock-ribbed in Dick Cheney's Wyoming, stretched out just as far as it pleases in Dubya's deeply drilled Texas, turns its back on that dangerous, promiscuous, impure world and proclaims to high heaven the indestructible endurance of the American Difference. If Worldly America is, beyond anything else, a city, a street, and a port, Godly America is, at its heart (the organ whose bidding invariably determines its votes over the cooler instructions of the head), a church, a farm and a barracks; places that are walled, fenced and consecrated. Worldly America is about finding civil ways to share crowded space, from a metro-bus to the planet; Godly America is about making over space in its image. One America makes room, the other America muscles in.

Worldly America is pragmatic, practical, rational and sceptical. In California it passed Proposition 71, funding embryonic stem cell research beyond the restrictions imposed by Bush's federal policy. Godly America is mythic, messianic, conversionary, given to acts of public witness, hence the need - in Utah and Montana and a handful of other states - to poll the voters on amendments to their state constitution defining marriage as a union between the opposite sexes. But then Worldly America is said to feed the carnal vanities; Godly America banishes and punishes them. From time to time Godly America will descend on the fleshpots of Worldly America, from Gotham (it had its citadel-like Convention there after all) to California, will shop for T-shirts, take a sniff at the local pagans and then return to base-camp more convinced than ever that a time of Redemption and Repentance must be at hand. But if the stiff-necked transgressors cannot be persuaded, they can be cowed and conquered.

No wonder so many of us got the election so fabulously wrong even into the early hours of Tuesday evening, when the exit polls were apparently giving John Kerry a two- or three-point lead in both Florida and Ohio. For most of us purblind writers spend our days in Worldly America and think that Godly America is some sort of quaint anachronism, doomed to atrophy and disappear as the hypermodernity of the cyber age overtakes it, in whatever fastness of Kentucky or Montana it might still circle its wagons. The shock for the Worldlies is to discover that Godly America is its modernity; that so far from it withering before the advance of the blog and the zipdrive, it is actually empowered by them. The tenacity with which Godly America insists the theory of evolution is just that - a theory - with no more validity than Creationism, or that Iraqis did, in fact, bring down the twin towers, is not in any way challenged by the digital pathways of the information age. In fact, such articles of faith are expedited and reinforced by them. Holy bloggers bloviate, Pentecostalists ornament their website with a nimbus of trembling electronic radiance and, for all I know, you can download Pastor John Ashcroft singing the Praises of the Lord right to your Godpod.

Nor, it transpires, is the exercise of the franchise a sure-fire way for the Democrats to prevail. The received wisdom in these Worldly parts (subscribed to by yours truly; mea culpa) was that a massively higher turn out would necessarily favour Kerry. P Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign was credited with getting out young voters en masse who ignored the polls in 2000. We saw a lot of Springsteen and Bon Jovi and ecstatic upturned faces. Who could possibly match their mobilisation, we thought? Answer: Jehovah and his Faithful Servant St Karl the Rove. The biggest story of all in 2004 is the astounding success of the Republicans in shipping millions of white evangelicals to the polls who had also stayed at home four years earlier. We thought we were fired up with righteous indignation - against the deceits of the propaganda campaign for the Iraq war, against the gross inequities of the tax cuts - but our fire was just hot air compared to the jihad launched by the Godlies against the infamy of a tax rollback, of merely presuming to diss the Dear Leader in a time of war. And the battalions of Christian soldiers made the telling difference in the few critical places where Godly and Worldly America do actually rub shoulders (or at least share a state), Ohio above all.

By the lights of the psephology manuals, Ohio ought to have been a natural for the Democrats: ageing industrial cities such as Akron and Dayton, with big concentrations of minorities, suffering prolonged economic pain from out sourced industries. Cleveland and Cincinnati are classic cities of the Worldly plain: half-decayed, incompletely revived; great art museums, a rock'n'roll hall of fame, a terrific symphony orchestra. But drive a bit and you're in deep Zion, where the Holsteins graze by billboards urging the sinful to return to the bosom of the Almighty, the church of Friday night high school football shouts its hosannas at the touchdowns, and Support Our Troops signs grow as thick as the rutabaga. At first sight there's not much distance between this world and western Pennsylvania, but were the state line to be marked in 20ft-high electrified fences the frontier between the two Americas couldn't be sharper. The voters of the "Buckeye State" cities did care about their jobs; they did listen when Kerry told them the rich had done disproportionately nicely from Bush's tax cut. But they were also listening when their preachers (both black and white) fulminated against the uncleanliness of Sodom and the murder of the unborn. In the end, those whose most serious anxieties were the state of the economy and the Mess-o-potamia were outvoted by those who told exit pollers their greatest concern in 2004 was "moral values".

Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon. It wasn't that the Kerry campaign didn't notice the confessional effect. It was just that they didn't know what to do about it. Making the candidate over as some sort of altar boy (notwithstanding directives from Rome instructing the faithful on the abhorrence of his position on abortion) would have been about as persuasive as kitting him out with gun, camouflage and dead Canada geese; a laboriously transparent exercise in damning insincerity.

In Godly America the politics of impassioned conviction inevitably trumped the politics of logical argument. On CNN a fuming James Carville wondered out loud how a candidate declared by the voting public to have decisively won at least two of the three televised debates could have still been defeated. But the "victory" in those debates was one of body language rather than reasoned discourse. It registered more deeply with the public that the president looked hunched and peevish than that he had been called by Kerry on the irrelevance of the war in Iraq to the threat of terror. And since the insight was one of appearance not essence, it could just as easily be replaced by countless photo-ops of the president restored to soundbite affability. The charge that Bush and his second war had actually made America less, not more safe, and had created, not flushed out, nests of terror, simply failed to register with the majority of those who put that issue at the top of their concerns.

Why? Because, the president had "acted", meaning he had killed at least some Middle Eastern bad dudes in response to 9/11. That they might be the wrong ones, in the wrong place - as Kerry said over and over - was simply too complicated a truth to master. Forget the quiz in political geography, the electorate was saying (for the popular commitment to altruistic democratic reconstruction on the Tigris is, whatever the White House orthodoxy, less than Wolfowitzian), it's all sand and towelheads anyway, right? Just smash "them" (as one ardent Bush supporter put it on talk radio the other morning) "like a ripe cantaloupe". Who them? Who gives a ????? Just make the testosterone tingle all the way to the polls. Thus it was that the war veteran found himself demonised as vacillating compromiser, the Osama Candidate, while a pair of draft-dodgers who had sacrificed more than eleven hundred young men and women to a quixotic levantine makeover, and one which I prophesy will be ignominiously wound up by next summer (the isolationists in the administration having routed the neocons), got off scot free, lionised as the Fathers of Our Troops.

Well, the autumn leaves have, just this week, fallen from the trees up here in the Hudson Valley and the scales from the eyes of us deluded worldlies. If there is to be any sort of serious political future for the Democrats, they have to do far more than merely trade on the shortcomings of the incumbents - and there will be opportunities galore in the witching years ahead (a military mire, a fiscal China syndrome and, hullo, right before inauguration, a visit from al-Qaida). The real challenge is to voice an alternative social gospel to the political liturgy of the Godlies; one that redefines patriotism as an American community, not just a collection of wealth-seeking individuals; one that refuses to play a zero-sum game between freedom and justice; one in which, as the last populist president put it just a week ago, thought and hope are not mutually exclusive. You want moral values? So do we, but let them come from the street, not the pulpit. And if a fresh beginning must be made - and it must - let it not begin with a healing, but with a fight.
 
"One of those Americas is a perimeter, lying on the oceans..."

Lots of states are on the oceans, Virginia for example, but he focuses on only those very few that support his rather sophomoric point of view. He needs to get out and see more of the country.

John

P.S. - And what is this "toot the flute of battle" stuff?
 
" By the lights of the psephology manuals, Ohio ought to have been a natural for the Democrats: ageing industrial cities such as Akron and Dayton, with big concentrations of minorities, suffering prolonged economic pain from out sourced industries."

I live in Dayton, the statement above is correct. Dayton has serious problems that neither Kerry or Bush care about. I voted for Bush because he is the lesser of two evils in regard of the 2A.

Thanks Peter for the article, it was a good read...
 
Just more evidence that the fact that the left direly hates/fears those that believe, and tend to focus on them over and above the many other (huge) pieces of the pie. Like the fact that people can want and desire a certain standard of moral compass in a person they want as president-something that is hardly exclusive of believing Christians.

By focusing on the fact that many religious people voted thier conscience as the main reason for thier lack of power gain, the left is simply missing the fact that non-religious folks turned out in droves to cast their conscience too on similar grounds: John Kerry's morals simply changed with every change of the breeze at best, his voting record (when he bothered to show up) was horrendous, and I don't even have to mention his pathetic attempts to be all things to all people, such as the photo ops of him and his shotguns, and many others. Et al.

People may not agree with all of Bush's policies and beliefs (I certainly don't myself for that matter), but he says what he means and does what he says, providing evidence of some kind of moral and ethical compass that John Kerry never has had or shown. People voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. for similar reasons, especially when compared to thier rivals in their respective races.

The fact that he won this time by several million votes, coupled with the fact that many Kerry votes were votes against Bush rather than votes for Kerry, despite everything else that may have sunk others in differring times, says much about just how badly John Kerry was thought of. Which of course belies the point: when are the Dem's going to fix thier own moral crisis and come up with a candidate that actually appeals to anyone else than the radical and noisy left wing small percentage of thier party?

Methinks a Zell Miller, or someone even remote to his ethics and record, could have easily won that election for the Dem's. Easily.

Cruc
 
It boils down to, the Europeans are baffled that Americans want to be Americans, not Europeans.
 
"The voters of the 'Buckeye State' cities did care about their jobs; they did listen when Kerry told them the rich had done disproportionately nicely from Bush's tax cut."

This is why I can't take these types seriously. They act like they arrived at such beliefs as jobs are the responsibility of the federal government or that taxation should be used for social change as a result of logic and reasoning. They can't see that these views are not facts but beliefs based on their worldview.
 
heh. I guess they still consider us their 'colony'. Sort of like an errant child. :rolleyes:
 
What these simpleminded "Two America" catch-phrase propagandists on both sides are missing is that while President Bush was the clear winner in both the popular and electoral race the election was still a 51/48 win. These idiots are looking at a simple map with 2 colors on it showing the state wins and ignoring the fact that it doesn't represent anything related to population and voting of the populations in those states. America is not 2 nations, not 2 peoples (one "godly" and the other "wordly" :barf: ). There is a continuum of opinion about which candidate was the better choice with only the hard ends of the spectrum on either side claiming my fellow "nose holders" as being in their camp.

The probable truth is that the vast majority in the middle of this spectrum voted against instead of for or for the lesser of 2 evils. This http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ site gives the more complex, but much more accurate visual presentation of how the country voted.
cartcolorslarge.png
 
They act like they arrived at such beliefs as jobs are the responsibility of the federal government

They de facto are, in a country where you have to get re-elected. What would the election results have been if we were at 20% unemployment instead of the low fives? And no, kindly don't tell me about academic notions of economic efficiencies. We're talking electoral politics here, not economic theory, or what vested proponent of economic theory A believes the public "should" believe regarding economic philosophy.
 
I take it that image takes into account population density?

Simon Schama is a well known historian. He has produced some very popular TV programmes on the history of the UK. And so on.

Riley - less errant child and more reckless teenager. I would put a smilie here to indicate that I am not serious, but I don't do smilies.
 
"Godly America and Worldly America"
or as another map showed it, The United States Of Canada and Jesusland :D
 
These idiots move from misunderstanding to rank error, driven by their own pride and arrogance. The derided "red states" are far from isolationist. Heck thanks to technology this backwards redneck in the middle of nowhere, Alaska, can do business with Malaysia, Israel, and Belgium. I would have done some with Kuwait if it weren't for certain export restrictions.

The writer of that article seems to think everyone west of the Hudson is some gap-toothed yokel trying to turn the clock back to 1850.
 
Opinions are cheap. He has one and clearly (however incorrect or inconsistent) stated it. Big deal. He is clueless and looking from afar.

He has obviously never been to Cincinnati. It is worlds apart from Cleveland (and even Dayton). He overlooked that Cincinnati is solidly red. He is trying to explain a complex situation in too simple terms that are limited by his preconceived notions.

Still, I'd enjoy an evening talking with him or a week to show him the real America.
 
This is the typical liberal elitist blather.

This guy is clueless, but he needs to make up some story about how great those that believe like he does to justify his beliefs, because his beliefs don't justify themselves.

He acts like America has turned away from Europe. Obviously, he either hasn't been paying attention to what's happened in the world, or doesn't want to know the facts.

The US has reached out to Europe on Iraq and terrorism over and over and over and over again. It's Europe that has turned away from the United States.

The European Union, with France acting like it's in charge, has set itself up as a counter to American power and influence. I understand banding together to make sure that they can have sufficient influence in the world. What I don't understand is that France appears compelled to work against the US more often than with the US.

Every nation publically admittied that Sadam had violated the terms of the perce for the Gulf war. Sanctions were approved, but they were undercut by corrupt dealings by our "allies" in Europe.

When we went to enforce the many, many rulings that Sadam had violated the security council resolution, the French and Germans opposed us. Not because they believed that further negotioations would solve the problems, only a fool would believe that Sadam would suddenly start keeping his word after breaking it so many times. They opposed the US, because they didn't want the US exerting power on the world stage.

One thing that the War in Iraq showed is that the European Union may be becomming an entity with economic influence to rival the US, but economic power is the only type of power they are willing to use.

Actually, they showed that they aren't really even willing to exert economic influence because they have too much corruption in their midst for econimic sanctions to be effective.

If worldly means ignoring the crimes against humanity being committed by your neighbors as long as they give you good trade deals, then the Europeans are apparently worldly. If the choice is between that definition of worldly, and being Godly, I'd much rather be Godly.

The Europeans hate Bush because he's a man of conviction. He believes in doing what's right. The Oil for Food scandal should give you a good idea of why the Europeans, as well as some people in America don't like a man of conviction. They don't want to be held to his standards. They were much more comfortable with Clinton, who weathered scandal after scandal while in the Whitehouse.
 
The population density maps would be more relevant if we lived in a country where the electoral process wasn't specifically designed to suppress the influence of population density.

In this country, the individual is the point. So it doesn't matter that NYC (the population of which is likely to have similar needs/desires from it's gov't) sees things differently than Bozeman, MT (the population of which will also tend to want similar things, but different things from NYC's electorate). NYC has no authority to impose it's will on Bozeman, even though there are more New Yorkers.

That's by design and is in accordance with basic American principles and philosophy: that the individual has rights that may not be subverted by the majority. The problem is, some people in this country don't care what those principles are and will do anything to get their way. Including ignoring or actively subverting the basic structure of the American philosophy in order to 'bring to heel' the portions of the country they feel are 'holding back progress'. The beauty of the American electoral system is the way it empowers the few to resist the many, without resorting to arms.

- Gabe
 
St Johns said:
I take it that image takes into account population density?

Simon Schama is a well known historian. He has produced some very popular TV programmes on the history of the UK. And so on.

his book was horrifically bad though - i like books, and will read even food packets for want of something to do, but his book was the same kind of flowery rubbish that this article is filled with.

lets face it, the only acceptable TV historian who also writes is Michael Wood (Bettany Hughes comes more into the category of fox)
 
The funny thing is that there is actually more blue in some of the "red" states than in the "blue" states. Looks like more square miles of Texas voted for Kerry than California.

The opposite is also true ... the red counties of "blue" CA probably amount to more square miles that ALL of the blue counties in the whole USA.


I just hope that in 4 years all of those that voted for Bush, even reluctantly, will remember all the vile slander that has been heaped on them by the Demoleftists post election. They obviously don't want the votes of the folks from the "red" states :fire:
 
why do these people think they are superior to those who belive and have faith in god?because science cant prove the exsistance of god?boy if people thought religion was under attack before ,these people sound like their getting ready for all out war!what gets me is the contempt thay have for religion,like that jackass bill mhare,some how you are stupid if you have faith or belive in god,when i was a boy my grandfather the preacher use to tell me that in the last days the world would become like this,those on the side of god would be presecuted by the ungodly,seems he was right. :( but i also belive the left is takeing out its anger and frustation on the religious because they see the religious as judgemental,repressive,bigoted and racist,"why else would 11 states vote down same sex marriage"?,as long as they look down on the right there will never be a middle ground.
 
He also kinda missed-out on the fact that San Diego is a solidly red county, NOT a part of "Worldly America".

Funny how in Worldly America when the power fails they have riots and looting to look forward to....in Godly America we have guns and flashlights; and a strong sense of right vs. wrong, not to mention plenty of food.

So long as these folks hold fast to their leftist dogma and hatred for those who refuse to submit to their propaganda they will continue to diminish in influence. They are incapable of "Getting it".
 
:scrutiny: :what:

Thank you, Preacherman!

I thought I was reading a High School student's paper (shows how dated I am - this is probably considered College level now); you know, a youth's first attempts at defining the outside world. . .?

The Democratic Underground would probably adore these flaccid trumpeteers.

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top