Cliopatria: A Group Blog
Aaron Bady (∞); Chris Bray (∞); Brett Holman (∞); Jonathan Jarrett (∞); Robert KC Johnson (∞); Rachel Leow (∞); Ralph E. Luker (∞); Scott McLemee (∞); Claire B. Potter (∞); Jonathan T. Reynolds (∞)
Ralph Luker is off conferencing, so someone has to do the"Noted Here and There" post.... I'm not quite as broad in my reading as the Supreme Cliopatriarch, but here's a run through our blogroll, anyway.
I will not post speculations about 2008. No. No. No. Not even about 2006.
World Reaction: My brother, currently in London, sent me the Daily Mirror's front page and roundup of (negative) world reaction. A more balanced survey can be found, as usual, at the World Press Review (which has reactions from China and Korea separately, as well as Kenyan reaction to Barack Obama's victory).
Abu Aardvark says that Jihadists are thrilled by Bush's victory and that the Bush administration has some serious rebuilding to do diplomatically. Caleb McDaniel starts the process with an open letter of apology, which my brother might find useful with his London colleagues. Anyone who wants to leave behind US citizenship will find this useful (via wood's lot). Anne Zook comes out of blog-retirement briefly and suggests we turn over"leader of the Free World" status to a country that has its priorities straight: New Zealand.
Radical Redistricting: Or perhaps we should revise our borders? Two proposals for linking blue states with Canada are floating around the web. Cliopatria's Tim Burke considers the possibility of dividing the union, because of the failure of federalism to protect us from each other, but rejects it because"I recognize the advance of universal human rights as a matter of slow, persuasive and voluntaristic transformation rather than civil or statist enforcement." As it happens, though, the state-level divide creates an illusion which is not sustainable on closer examination: county-level maps and cartograms [weighted maps] show a much less clearly divided nation, as well as, for me, calling the Electoral College thing into stark question.... again.
Voting Patterns: Hugo Schwyzer has a few of the voting gaps noted. Over at Crooked Timber it is pointed out that the original 13 states, the anti-slavery Union, and the Black voters who supported and benefited from the civil rights movement are the ones who voted for Kerry, a powerful coalition of historical freedom fighters. Andrew Sullivan notes that Gays and Jews voted more or less the same way, and that self-identified" conservatives" were a powerfully consistent bloc as well. Daily Kos takes on the question of a mandate, and Brandon at Sirius shortens our reading list considerably:"I think we have good reason to ignore any post-election analysis that assumes that Kerry somehow failed, rather than what seems to be the case, namely, that he did extremely well but Bush did better." Gayrights was important, and will continue to be.
Meaning? Historian Garry Wills, in the New York Times, calls the election the End of the Enlightenment, but that presumes that the Enlightenment was deeply embedded in US culture to begin with. Tim Burke echoes many of us when he suggests that the Bush Administration and its supporters will have to bear the responsibility for their policies.
In other news: Arafat is likely to be dead soon, and aside from wondering why it matters so much, I note Brian Ulrich's thoughts on the possibility that we may not have a single successor to deal with, but a committee.
Finally, for some relief, David Nishimura notes the discovery of Roman Cosmetics and an international gathering for the exchange and promotion of Testicle Cuisine. And if you think the Anglophone Blogosphere is big, you're right, but the Iranian Blogosphere is catching up, and seems likely to be more important in Iran than our own exercise in really, really cheap speech.
P.S. Chapati Mystery has a new guest-blogger who speaks to the Supreme Court issue: don't rely on Senate liberals, too easily mollified by litmus test invocations of precedent, to prevent the appointment of"Bork-Scalia-Thomas-Federalist Society" types who could, as a court majority, rival the Dred Scott and Korematsu courts for sheer moral vacuity.
Hugo Schwyzer is an American author, speaker and professor of history and gender studies at Pasadena City College
In 2001, I developed and taught a course on Gay and Lesbian American History at PCC. I taught it for three consecutive semesters, and then took some time away from it. I will teach it again in the fall of 2005.
In the aftermath of the success of some eleven anti-gay marriage initiatives across the country in Tuesday's election, it's easy for those of us who advocate marriage equality and full inclusion to get depressed. This depression is exacerbated by the real possibility that conservative turnout was bolstered by anti-Same Sex Marriage sentiment, and that that boost in traditionalist votes played a decisive role in the president's re-election. It's not a happy time.
But history gives us a more comforting perspective.
Gay and Lesbian political history is not old. It's difficult to establish an exact beginning point; some place it with the "Society for Human Friendship" of the 1920s, or the Mattachine Society of the 1950s; the popular imagination dates it to the Stonewall Uprising of June 1969.
Few folks remember that the very first time gay and lesbian issues were on the ballot, those of us fighting for GLBTQ equality were soundly defeated. The story is well told in Dudley Clendinen and Adam Nagourney's magisterial Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America. In June 1977, reacting to a modest human rights ordinance adopted in Dade County, Florida, former beauty queen and Christian activist Anita Bryant mounted a campaign called, slyly enough, Save Our Children. Bryant and her SOC called for the repeal of the ordinance, which was the first in the country to grant protection in housing, public accomodations, and employment to people based on their "affectional or sexual preference."
Today, we think of Miami-Dade County as a fairly liberal part of Florida. (I don't know much about Florida. My fiancee and I spent a glorious weekend on South Beach and Key Biscayne last year -- those were exciting and lovely. What little I saw of the rest of the city and state was less appealing, frankly...) In any event, Miami-Dade was far more conservative 27 years ago. When Bryant's referendum to repeal the human rights ordinance went before the voters, the anti-gay forces won 69%-31%, carrying every section of Miami except for Coconut Grove. Even Jewish liberals in the beach areas voted against the ordinance.
The gay and lesbian community had no history at the ballot box. This was setting precedent -- and what a disheartening precedent it was! And yet, it marked the coming-of-age for what is now the senior generation of GLBTQ activists. And it also set the stage for some smashing successes. Less than 18 months later, gay rights supporters would have their first major win at the ballot box.
In November 1978, a conservative Californian state senator named John Briggs got an initiative on the ballot called Proposition 6. It was designed to bar openly gay and lesbian teachers from public school classrooms. Briggs, taking a page from the Bryant playbook, was using children as the wedge issue. The conservatives were confident. But a newly galvanized coalition of gay activists, led by San Francisco's Harvey Milk, managed to turn the tide. They even (as I wrote in June) managed to enlist Ronald Reagan's opposition to Prop. 6. And on November 7, 1978, California voters resoundingly rejected the Briggs initiative, 58-42. 17 months after their first defeat by the voters on one side of the country, gays and lesbians had their first victory on the other. And three weeks later, following Milk's assassination, the political movement had its first martyr.
As one of my local heroes, California state senator and lesbian activist Sheila James Kuehl points out, "no group has ever fought for civil rights in this country without eventually attaining them." The struggle is hard. There will be setbacks. But all is by no means lost, and we must have some intelligent and thoughtful perspective on just how far we've come. As Amp at Alas, A Blog points out,
Measure this fight in generations, not in elections. In 1984, marital rape was still legal in most states and not even Walter Mondale would have dared come out in favor of civil unions.... (Today)Massachusetts has same-sex marriage, and with the failure of the FMA that's not going away.
Since I last taught my course on gay and lesbian history (in the fall of '02), the movement has had a series of dramatic successes. The Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (undoing the monstrosity of Bowers v. Hardwick); the elevation of Gene Robinson as a bishop in the Episcopal Church, and of course, the "Massachusetts miracle" which shows no signs of being undone anytime soon. The fact that even President Bush seems to have no problem with civil unions or domestic partnerships is a sign of just how far we have moved the debate in a very short period of time.
I am a heterosexual man. (I don't like the term "straight"; I'm enough of an evangelical to believe, as my friend Richard Mouw points out, that none of us are "straight." We all fall short of a mark, we are all bent and twisted to one degree or another.) But from my childhood, I have believed that I was called to play a small part in the struggle for full inclusion for my gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered brothers and sisters. (I apologize for the hubris, let me reemphasize the "small" in the previous sentence!) I do this work through teaching and outreach. As a hetero Christian man, I can, frankly "go places" where my queer friends cannot. Indeed, if I were a gay man, I might not have dared teach the course that I teach, even with tenure. My heterosexual privilege gives me a strong defense against homophobic attacks.
Yes, I'm still allowed to marry. Next year, I will get married for the fourth time to a woman I love with all my heart. God and the state give a man like me second, third, and fourth chances to "get it right." I'm grateful for that, and at the same time, palpably furious that our society will not give even one such chance to my queer brothers and sisters. It makes me shiver with rage and frustration, frankly. But I can swallow my harsh words, speak gently to those with whom I disagree, and try and offer the perspective that my profession teaches me to offer.
Though short, GLBTQ history in this country has had its shares of highs and lows. In the early 1980s, the community was hit simultaneously with the ascendancy of the Reagan right and the dawn of the AIDS crisis. The movement survived then, and it will survive the disappointments of November 2004.
In another 27 years, I will be 64 and ready for retirement. I imagine I may well still be teaching GLBTQ history in one form or another. And I am sure of this: if the next 27 years see half the progress that we have seen in the 27 since Anita Bryant's victory in Miami, then we will have marriage equality in every state in the union by the time I retire. My faith in history, my faith in people, my faith in progress, and my faith in God all assure me that that is more or less a certainty. And that is a great comfort this week.
Notice that I wrote business. And quite deliberately. Here at Chicago, the Graduate School of Business just moved into a brand new and gorgeous facility. I hang out there often to soak up the vibe. Lately, they have had some job fair or interview runs going on and I have peeked at more than a few resumés and cover letters. I am quite impressed. They look good. One applicant had obviously done his McLuhan homework because he had pulled, bold quotes scattered around the cover sheet. Or maybe he just reads FHM or something (blatant cheap shot there).
Looking down at my own printed material, I can't help but notice their lackluster nature. Please don't even start with the"work is what counts". I know. But presentation is crucial in my view. We are programmed to read with our nose so close to the text that the entire outside world is a blur. The world that appreciates clean and pressed clothes, a haircut, eye contact, smiles, chit-chat about local sports and weather. The world that would like you to tell them why 8th century Arab generals hold any relevance in two succinct sentences.
So, the question I ask of my senior colleagues is...How important is presentation in the first round of job searches? Does a well-formatted CV jump out? Fonts? Graphics? Pull Quotes? What about the teaching dossier? The dissertation chapter?
My application will be read by History faculty (though not exclusively South Asian or Islam) and I would like to make a good enough impression to be asked for a job talk (at which time I would need advice on what to wear to a job talk. I hear Italian designer suits help).
There are some cogent points here about how hard it now is to discuss the complexity of political and moral decisions. Any hint that you can empathize or understand the other person's or group's decision is quickly labeled as some degree of intellectual weakness or even treason to your cause. Heck, I've even caught flack for making "reasonable liberal" style remarks in my short time here at Cliopatria.
I must say that I am dismayed at just how grumpy people feel free to be regarding their political opponents these days. I may not agree with all sorts of people on all sorts of things -- abortion rights, affirmative action, the death penalty, etc -- but this doesn't keep me from seeing them as perfectly intelligent human beings making their way through a complex and often frightening world. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them stupid or evil (although it is important to recognize that some folks manage to be one or both). As someone who has made a living out of crossing cultural boundaries I tend to be pretty tolerant of people thinking, believing, and acting in ways that are fairly"foreign" to me. Goodness knows that if I were to think of conservative Americans as irrational or barbaric, I would have a hard time not thinking similar thoughts about many of my Islamic or African friends.
Perhaps this situation is at the crux of what makes it hard to be a"liberal." The very perspective demands that one be tolerant of diversity -- but being tolerant of your political opponents places you at a decided disadvantage. On the other hand," conservatives" have the advantage of just calling the other guys"wrong." Sure makes things easier.
USA Today has this map of the electoral results according to county (via Red Ted and Outside the Beltway). Initially, I would say that Democrats are not only more urban, but that they are highly clustered within urban networks. There are a number of blue splotches, such as along the Mississippi, that defy state boundaries, probably indicating a large conurbation. One oddity: not one county in Oklahoma preferred Kerry--I thought Native Americans would have given him a significant vote.
Update: Crooked Timber has many more maps that show more variation and detail. The red/blue map is stark, but the others are useful as well.
(The first paragraph was also my response to Hala Fattah just below.)
For the immediate impact of this election on Iraq I am truly sorry. Unless someone in the White House has learned something and just doesn't want to admit it, war without victory (however defined) seems to be the future in Iraq. Those who see the situation more clearly must keep trying to bring to Americans, and the rest of the world, a clear vision of what is happening.
For the long term, however, I think we better start pulling ourselves out of our funk and looking at the returns.
In time of war and confusion, nearly half the country voted for a new leader. I think we all forgot just how hard that is to pull off. That cannot effect policy in the short run, particularly because of the Senate gains, but once Republicans other than Bush stop smiling and starts adding, they are going to be wondering what that means.
After 25 years of liberal bashing, nearly half the country voted for a Massachusett's liberal. You know, that could be a trend of sorts.
Democrats got lots of new voters, too, even if not as many as they hoped. Hopefully party wonks are already at work figuring out who they are and what they want.
Gay marriage helped conservative republicans. That's horrid and deeply sad. This is a big step backwards. But I truly do not think that issue has the legs of the abortion issue. Abortion concerns questions of what is life and what is murder. Closer exposure to abortion does not change a pro-life person's mind very often.
Gay and lesbian relationships work differently. Generally speaking--and I know there are horrid exceptions--familiarity brings improvement. As long as gays and lesbians maintain and increase the visibility of their lives, and as long as those of us who support them keep doing so with equal visibility, inch by inch, with occasional setbacks, the "great work" will continue forward.
I don't think I'm being a Pollyanna here. Hard times are ahead, but they are not times without hope.
I wrote this in an e-mail this morning:
The most shocking thing about this election, with the possible exception of the depth of voter fraud and nullification, is the almost complete lack of movement in the vote: except for New Hampshire, and a few states whose margins of victory last time were under a percent, no states changed hands. Eight million more voters, hundreds of millions of dollars, millions of words written, and it doesn't seem to have changed anyone's mind, in spite of the incredibly important events of the last three years. That's polarization.
Well, Republicans have been saying that their policies will make America stronger and better. Republicans have been saying that we've been on the wrong path. They think they have a mandate, because they have power, but what they really have is a competent and unrestrained drive for victory. Republicans have been saying that they're not fascists, or proto-fascists or pseudo-fascists. Now we'll see.
p.s. I was right, I'm sorry to say. Last November I wrote:
The incumbent Bush-Cheney ticket, one of the tightest pairings in recent presidential politics, can and will trounce any Democratic challenge that attempts to unify the party and appeal to the electorate through political diversity rather than ideological focus. It will be particularly obvious if the vice-presidential candidate comes from the pool of failed presidential candidates, because the primary campaign sniping will be replayed immediately in the press and by the other side. To overcome the Bush/Cheney advantages of unity and [early] money will require near-perfect candidates running a better-than-perfect campaign and some luck to boot.
...
But assume that the economy stays ambiguous, that the situation in Iraq remains only mildly troubling, that no new terrorist attacks happen. Or even assume that these factors don't remain stable, but counter each other: if the situation in Iraq becomes a crisis, but the economy improves, for example. Then political clarity -- ticket unity -- will decide the next election, as it has decided the last five.
Other predictions are put to the test by HNN staff here. The economists and political scientists came out pretty well, it seems. I have doubts, even about my own model, because of the contingencies inherent in this process. There are also some interesting analyses of what might come in this second term culled from HNN's archives here. What makes them interesting is that none of them were written with a second Bush term in mind; most come from around the last midterm elections.
The other image is that of a chortling Bush celebrating his resounding defeat of Kerry. So this is the famous democracy you've all been touting? A democracy that re-elects mass murderers and religious bigots? Give me Shaykh Zayed's patrimonial, family-based, tribal-sourced system any day. At least I can live the rest of my days in peace.
That said, I am not without my concerns about the current direction of American politics. First, the role of religion in the whole election was a bit spooky for a staunch secular humanist such as myself. The degree to which religious belief has fed into, for example, squashing civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans makes me quite sad. Religious factors have also deeply influenced the (now likely to continue) restrictions on stem-cell research and will likely fuel an even more staunch assault on the right to an abortion. Of course, many conservative and religious readers are likely to be happy about this. While I respect their right to be happy, I'm currently exercising my right to be bummed about it all.
Alternately, there is the whole Patriot Act and Homeland Security boondoogle. Frankly, I just don't think either one has done much good, and both have set frightening precedents for bureaucratic bloat and the erosion of civil rights. Next, there is the issue of the budget. Our current crop of un-tax and spend Republicans are digging a frighteningly deep deep hole for future generations. That is just plain bad.
And, of course, there is the war. Clearly, a majority of the American public aren't as upset about the economy and civil rights as they are concerned about security. Given 9-11 this is perhaps understandable. But, I remain deeply skeptical about whether the current"steady" course in Iraq and elsewhere is working to make us (or anybody else) more secure. Goodness knows the Russians have held the course"steady" in Chechnya for the past ten years, and have only experienced an ever-expanding spiral of violence and a consistently declining degree of civil liberties -- all in the name of increased security. Of course, America is not Russia and Bush & Co. are not Putin & Co. The Russians were shaky on the whole freedom and liberty thing even before they went into Chechnya. But the experience there has done them no good, and I hold very real fears that the longer the War on Terror continues, the more likely we are to lose what makes us special as a country.
There are no easy choices here, and we face very real threats. There are bad people out there who wish us harm, and we can't wish them away. Bombing them isn't always a bad idea. But, trying to protect ourselves in a ham-fisted way is all too likely to lead to any number of undesirable situations. What I fear most is that we breed a crop of leaders who owe their positions in power to maintaining a climate of fear. Here's to hoping we are smart enough not to let that happen.
The sign was typical of the preaching throughout the area leading up to yesterday's elections. There were rumors of sermons on"right voting" that were quickly dismissed. Such sermons in other areas may have been more motivating than we first believed. When this election is analyzed, historians will have to contend with how religious institutions inserted themselves in politics. The Democratic Party will have to contend with the loss of Catholics voters, despite running a Catholic candidate. Or because they ran a Catholic candidate.
It's no stretch to say that Catholics may have harshly judged one of their own. That was the fate of Wilhelm Marx, the Chancellor of Germany whom Hindenburg defeated for the Presidency in 1925. A Catholic from Cologne, Marx was regarded as a very pious man, and he should have received overwhelming support from German Catholics. However, nationalists attacked him for the coalition he formed between the Center and the SPD. Some priests, like von Galen (known as the"Lion of Muenster" for his opposition to Hitler), helped nationalists spread doubts about the coalition, spreading fears that the two parties were actually merging, and that the Center was going secular. The rhetoric against the coalition was successful, counteracting Marx's piety. Catholics voted in small numbers.
The loss of religious voters may have no end. Last election the Democrats ran two men who upped the publicness of their faith. Kerry seemed to exhibit enough faith that he might hold Catholics and Jews in place. It does not appear that Democrats can make inroads by appearing to be more spiritual. However, full secularism would only prove to some voters that the left is g-dless.
Practical example? Consider how the 1980s might have been different if Gerald Ford had been reelected in 1976.
However, the plug-ugly second draft of an essay that just oozed into my computer seems to have shaken that noble resolve a bit loose. So I’m stuck with a rant that’s raging to breathe free.
What to do?
There is a story about two Buddhist monks going down the road. Their vows include not touching a female. On the road they come across a woman who has hurt her leg. One of the monks picks her up and carries her to a nearby place where she can get aid. The second monk accompanies them but does not touch the woman. They leave and walk, and walk, and walk. The first monk is serene. With each step the second monk is fixated more, and more, and more on the way his brother monk had broken has vow.
Finally the second monk speaks: “How could you break your vow like that? How come you keep walking so calmly when you did something so upsetting?
To which the first monk replies: “You are upset because you are still carrying her. I have put her down.”
So with apologies to anyone insulted by the metaphor (or anything else), my one rant in the hope that afterwards I can put the lady down
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
In waltz time
ARGH ARGH ARGH
ARGH ARGH ARGH
ARGH ARGH ARGH
ARGH ARGH ARGH
ARGH ARGH ARGH
ARGH ARGH ARGH
ARGH ARGH ARGH
ARGH ARGH ARGH
ARGH ARGH ARGH
ARGH ARGH ARGH
ARGH ARGH ARGH
ARGH ARGH ARGH
In iambic pentameter
I’M PISSED I’M PISSED I’M PISSED I’M PISSED I’M PISSED!
or
THE FOOLS THE FOOLS THE FOOLS THE FOOLS THE FOOLS !
quotation from Harlan Ellison (originally concerning the Partridge Family)
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD! CAN SUCH THINGS TRULY BE?
with apologies to Edgar Allen Poe
“I think it is his mind! Yes, it is this! A pale blue mind with a film over it. Whenever it falls upon me my blood runs cold . . . .
more pretentious literary allusions
I want to retreat to my tent like Achilles. I want to wander Dublin on Blooms Day; sulk on a Stout, and disappear into a run-on sentence past Adam and even yell and affirm something yes yes yes but there is no peace the war began with the NCAA tournament and people cheered in the bar and you didn’t always know which team they were rooting for while the blues singer sang and the beer slid down and now the blind are voting for the blind to lead the blind and one day we may see through a glass darkly but when will us liberals be loved Buddy couldn’t you spare a ballot for the new boss who’s not quite the same as the old boss but sing it Celene Dion we will make it though the end of night and our love will go on, if we make it to the life boats if
//A breath//another breath//
open the window shade//a blue sky over the rusted oaks on a hill about a mile away//
it really is a beautiful day. I saw two morning stars as I drove in before dawn.
Patience is a virtue though displeasing often
I still have a lock of her hair, so I’m not the first monk. Another rant may come, and the hair of daily events will goad my anger and despair. But the hair is also a remembrance of the story, and the moral not intended when I started, that the chance to do good is still on the road, even if we do have to bend our vows sometime and we do have to carry a load a long time
I looked at that student’s paper again. Not great, but it’s salvageable, if he revises one more time.
Jeff Jarvis wants the healing to begin, and proposes"The Pledge" for bloggers and other pundits:
After the election results are in, I promise to:He qualifies the first item as follows:
- Support the President, even if I didn't vote for him.
- Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him.
- Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better.
- Unite as a nation, putting country over party, even as we work together to make America better.
I do not mean blind support, love-it-or-leave-it support, with-him-or-against-him support. I mean acknowledging that the president is the president and especially in a time of war, we need to stand together against our enemies -- namely, Islamofascist terrorists -- and not act, as too many have during this administration (and the one before it) that the enemy is in the White House. No, we're on the same side.No, thank you. First of all, with the caveats in place, all that remains is a promise not to incite armed rebellion. Second, I'm not going to foreclose my rhetorical and organizational opposition to what I believe will be an abysmal four years in any way, not until I start seeing some show of faith from the other side.
But this is why I quickly follow with the pledge that we should criticize the President -- even if he's the President we voted for -- because this is not a love-it-or-leave it nation; this is a democratic nation where the wisdom of the crowd is often wiser than the wisest man (and certainly than either of these candidates). So I don't want to see people blindly attacking or blindly supporting the president.
This is meaningless blather:"blindly attacking" as though there were no rational basis for opposing the president's policies, appointments, priorities;"wisdom of the crowd" as though this were an election without distortion, deception, massive voter nullification and suppression;"we're on the same side" and"stand together against our enemies" as if the now-perpetual"war on terror" had somehow subdued the president's partisan nature or Kerry and the Democratic leadership had somehow substantively differed from the president on the principle of fighting terrorism.
I've been nice: I put aside my concerns about 2000 and treated Bush as the functionally legitimate president long before many other liberal democrats, and got brickbats for it. But this election isn't over (absentee ballots, provisional ballots, patterns of vote fraud) and I am not going to restrain myself when I see my country being divided, degraded, deluded, disgraced. And for those of you who say this is just 'sour grapes' I ask you to look into your hearts and tell me that there won't be a 'night of long knives' once victory is assured, tell me that you would be so magnanimous in defeat as you claim to be in victory, tell me that you will repudiate the dirty tricks and fraud and hold true to Jarvis' call for honestly critical citizenship.
I was wrong four years ago when I said that American voters were too smart to fall for a hard-liner in moderates' clothing; I was wrong this year when I believed that American voters were smart enough to see the dangers of endorsing this administration and party, when I believed that these issues could really bring new voters with new ideas into the electorate (One state switched from 2000. Just one. That's extraordinary) And for those of you who say this is just 'sour grapes' I ask you to look into your hearts and tell me that a different result wouldn't have you questioning the"wisdom of the crowd." I am terribly sad, I am very fearful, I am disappointed. I very much hope that I am wrong.
Now, we have to let the wheels of the election grind on a bit longer, we have to endure hypocritical, self-serving lawyerly maneuverings and partisan administrative tricks until the whole charade is over. Who knows? When all the votes that can be counted are counted, my guy might yet win.... I still think this is a bad election.
[comments disabled on this post]
First, to Jonathan Reynolds, whose wife did a fine dance after voting for the first time today in Southgate, Kentucky. Jonathan and Mrs. Reynolds are expecting the birth of their first child in the next few weeks.
Second, to KC Johnson, who will be on leave next semester from his department at Brooklyn College, to become a visiting professor of history at Harvard University. KC, how sweet it is!
Finally, to Tim Burke, who has bought a house, recovered from the flu and is having his say about the election.
A thought and a question:
Thought: Even if only a third of these are true they suggest a coordinated attempt by the Republican party to commit voter fraud.
Question: Do Republicans have a similar list of alleged Democratic activities?
This is a classic intimidation tactic against minorities, one that Lyndon Johnson experienced first-hand in 1964. For a sense of how some things have remained constant in American politics, the Miller Center has put together an audio exhibit of Johnson's reactions to such tactics in 1964.
