History News Network

Departments

Allan Lichtman

Allan Lichtman (∞)

Mr. Lichtman is a professor of history at American University and the author of The Keys to the White House (1996).

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Be Not Misled by the Blue and the Red - By Karyn Strickler

Americans are stupid. Following the first “legitimate” election of George W. Bush, which was against the self-interest of most American citizens, it is a tempting theory with only one problem: it’s not true.

Americans may be under-informed due to the domination of corporate media and they are no doubt too comfortable to want to rock any boats -- at least not yet.

But when provided with adequate information on both sides of an issue, voters will usually make a thoughtful and fair decision. As a grassroots, political organizer I’ve seen it happen on some of the most complicated and divisive issues of our time.

Granted a look at a red-blue map of the country’s 2004 electoral results, can make a progressive person feel like the nation is hemorrhaging and on the verge of certain death.

Still, taking the election results at face value for the moment -- without even addressing the rising tide of charges of voting “irregularities” in the Presidential election -- take another look at the American voter.

Only seventeen states went solidly for Bush in percentages ranging from the high of 71 percent in Utah to the low of 58 percent in South Carolina. All of the other states in the Union that were not blue states can reasonably be called swing states, with some closer than others (http://www.indyvoter.org/article.php?id=278).

Even in states where Bush won -- if in fact you believe that he actually won the vote of people, as opposed to the vote of electronic machines without a paper trail -- it was close enough to send the message that Americans are unmistakably and emphatically disavowing the incumbent’s agenda: forty-nine percent of voters in Iowa, Ohio and New Mexico; forty-eight percent of voters in Nevada and forty-seven percent of people in Florida said an emphatic, “No,” to four more years of Bush’s despotic prospectus.

Bush may have gotten the most votes in history, but he also had more people voting against him than any other Presidential candidate in history.

The 58 million plus Americans who voted against Bush’s re-election constitute more votes than any winning Presidential candidate to this point in American history. The number of people voting against Bush is almost 1.2 million more votes than Ronald Reagan won in 1984 and over 8 million more than voted for Bill Clinton in 1996.

Let’s also bear in mind that the majority of the red states have small populations when compared to the blue states. So while the percentages were higher, the total numbers of votes in red states were significantly lower than those in blue states. Maps of the country, adjusted for population, give a very different perspective and show that, with the possible exceptions of Utah and Idaho, Americans are not generally being misled by George Bush regardless of their state of residence.

When the size of the states on the coast are blown-up to reflect population, the United States looks like a kindergartener’s rendering of an American eagle about to take flight. Actually, the U.S. is not really all that red in color either. When controlling for swing areas, the country has much more of an overall bluish, purple cast
( http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ ).

Where is this purple eagle, this symbol of America, going? I don’t know exactly, but I can tell you where it’s not going. It’s not going to proceed passively down George W. Bush’s phony path of “moral values,” with a paltry 21% of his base indicating that was the basis of their vote.

The vote against Bush in the 2004 Presidential election is a scathing indictment of his policies.

The half of the population of the world’s only superpower who voted against Bush, including the men, women and children, (an unprecedented one million strong) who took to the streets of Washington, DC in the "March for Women’s Lives" last Spring, are not going to stand idly by while Bush eradicates the right to choose safe and legal abortion.

Mommas, who have grown sick of needlessly sacrificing their children in Bush’s imperial oil war, will continue to fight back with the furor of a mother grizzly protecting her cub, as the peace movement is invigorated by Bush’s election victory.

Voices inside and outside the Republican Party, including those of Ron and Nancy Reagan, are growing ever-louder at the idiocy of protecting the rights of zygotes, but not those who could benefit from stem cell research to end diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons.

If it were to become a part of the U.S. Constitution, the proposed amendment banning gay marriage, would disgrace our nation by being the first amendment to limit, rather than expand, individual rights. Ultimately Americans will not stand for such an injustice.

At the beginning of his term Bush announced, smirking proudly, that he was going to end asbestos damage lawsuits; limit medical malpractice suits; and ban class action lawsuits of all sorts. What Dubblyak had not figured out is that Americans will not allow his tort reforms to prevail. We know that a society based upon the rule of law must allow “the little guy” to sue corporations and others who violate their rights; otherwise, the rule of law has no meaning, and renders us a lawless society.

There is scientific consensus, and agreement from the business community to the Pentagon, that we cannot continue to ignoring the ever-increasing threat of global warming while the Bush Administration profits from pillaging our forests, and fouling our air and water.

The 84% of Americans who support the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are not going to stand idly by, as Bush and his right-wing Congress gut the Act. Americans know that the ESA keeps us healthy by safeguarding the species we rely on for life-saving medicines to fight cancer and other life-threatening diseases. It protects undiscovered cures for diseases like HIV-AIDS. The ESA protects forests, the lungs of the earth, purifying our air. It protects wetlands, the kidneys of the earth, filtering our water. A strong Act is an early warning system – like the canary in the coal min – identifying threats to human existence.

We know that Bush has begun to over reach, because even the Republicans say that Bush’s plan to revamp Social Security is dead on arrival.

If Georgie has figured all Americans into his bogus “mandate,” as he begins to govern in his second term, that phony cowboy is in for a real rough ride, when the Americans who voted against him unite.

Hope springs infernal, because the mandate of the huge minority that voted against him is to use the democratic process to bring the fires of hell to bear upon Bush and his Congressional allies who think they have the green-light from God to take away Americans’ rights and liberties.

Copyright held by Karyn Strickler, a writer and an activist living outside Washington, DC. You can reach her at fiftyplusone@earthlink.net .

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 11:13 AM | Comments (1) | Top

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Bush: A Blank Check Abroad

George Bush’s Second inaugural address marks one of the most extraordinary turnabouts in the history of the American presidency. In 2000, Bush campaigned on a “humble” foreign policy and warned against going around the world and telling other peoples how to live. In his 2001 inaugural address he was still the compassionate conservative, focused on the domestic scene. Now, he has issued one of the most ringing declarations of an aggressive foreign policy in the history of the American presidency.

Bush has assumed the messianic foreign policy of the progressive presidents Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt with his determination to place the mark of American values and priorities on nations worldwide. Indeed, language from Wilson’s second inaugural could easily slide in Bush’s 2005 address:

We are provincials no longer. The tragic events of the thirty months of vital turmoil through which we have just passed have made us citizens of the world. There can be no turning back. Our own fortunes as a nation are involved whether we would have it so or not.

Although Bush’s address was short on the details of policy, it contains several contradictions that must be dealt with as bricks are added to the scaffolding. First, it is difficult to become the vanguard of democracy without legitimacy in the eyes of the world. Bush’s attempt in Iraq to impose democracy at the point of a bayonet has undermined America’s standing as the beacon of democracy and liberty, as evidenced by the reaction of much of the world (especially the Arab world) to his speech. Moreover, as Wilson discovered in Mexico, and Bush is learning in Iraq, imposing your will by force on foreign nations is a dubious and deadly project.

Second, is Bush serious about the promotion of democracy worldwide or will he apply the “Bush doctrine” selectively to so-called unfriendly nations like Iraq, Syria, and North Korea, but not to pro-American regimes in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt? How will the doctrine affect relations with Russia and China? During the Cold War, the U.S. often talked about promoting democracy, but sustained brutal pro-American dictatorships in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Administration officials say they will work privately to promote democracy in friendly states, but too often that is an excuse for doing little or nothing.

Third, Bush seems to love democracy and liberty more abroad than at home. This is an administration that ran the most exclusive, anti-democratic inauguration in history. It has crafted policies on torture and detention that have outraged the world, sought to deny ordinary Americans redress in the Courts, attacked freedom of the press, manipulated scientific information, and restricted liberty through elements of the Patriot Act and its interpretation.

With breathtaking scope, George Bush has sought to write for himself a blank check in foreign policy, justifying not only the continued use of force in Iraq, but also any other initiative he chooses to pursue abroad. His address names no specific enemy – not Al Qaeda, not Osama Bin Laden, not Communism, not terrorists. In addition, with respect to our allies, Bush asked for their friendship, cooperation, and counsel, but not their partnership. Thus, the president has assumed for himself unlimited latitude and discretion in foreign affairs. Will Congress have the courage to provide checks and balances?

Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 at 7:31 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Home Newsletter Submissions Advertising Donations Archives Internships About Us FAQs Contact Us All Articles