During the election reporting last night, I spent a good time switching between CNN, C-Span, Fox News (come on, I had to hear how they were going to spin all of this), and local news. From about 6pm to 1am I watched and listened and, on occasion, I yelled at my TV set as if it could hear me*. And one thing that I noticed was a consistency in response I heard from voters who called into the programs (C-Span), or were interviewed: I voted for the democrat (or independent) __________, because I was voting against __________.
On October 28th, Lance from Quietly Making Noise wrote an excellent post, A Crisis of Perception, where he said: “I have not seen the country vote for anyone in decades. We really vote against; against the lesser of the two evils or not at all.” To this I added my two cents, saying (and agreeing with Lakoff) that people vote their imagined identity, not the facts.
It seems, as both Lance and I suggested, when the people voted, they voted against what they didn’t want . . . not for what they wanted. They voted, as Burke might have said, “Thou Shall Not,” instead of “Thou Shall.”
This is a troublesome thought to me, as I sit here and watch the Democrats celebrate and dance. Indeed, I was dancing along with the Democrats, those little figures joyously celebrating inside my TV Box, until it occurred to me that because they got in power by the voters saying “Thou Shall Not,” they could be in for a lot of trouble in ’08.
Voters, at least the ones I heard last night, could not say specifically WHY they voted the way they voted, but relied on the general: “No more status-quo;” “We need a change;” “Enough corruption;” “Iraq must change.” But like a lot of the commercials we were indoctrinated with, specifics were lacking. In their defense, it is hard to divide the rhetoric of campaigns from the issues. But, if we only know what we are voting against, and not specifically what we are voting for, there is a problem.
Yes, it is good to know what you don’t want, god knows it is a step in the right direction, but you also must know what you want as well. Yet, if voters are fuzzy on the specifics of what they want, they are bound to be disappointed in what they get. We want change, that much is very clear from last night’s results, but what kind of change and can real change happen? Now that the Democrats have won, it is imperative that they get together and agree on an overall vision, and draft out specifics in their agenda. Next they must articulate this agenda clearly and directly to the voters who voted them in. Even if there is debate need on the specifics, a general vision must be solidified. If this does not happen, then when 2008 rolls around, democrats will be accused of not having a plan, of being wishy-washy on agendas, and having no direction. Getting the House was easy compared to what must be done now, as it is not enough to have the House (and hopefully the Senate) for only two years if we really want to enact change. They must hold their positions for a while, because change takes time.
I am now going to go listen to Bush’s press conference to hear his response and I might blog about it later. But remember, we must start to articulate what we want and not only what we don’t want. Let us work to create a vision before it is too late.
* (taking a note from Dave Away From Home’s use of footnotes – good idea Dave, thanks) I was especially angry at how voters voted to ban same sex marriage all over the country—and We say We stand for Liberty, Equality and Freedom for All in the United States—yeah right, my ass. We are just continuing a long line of exclusions and exceptions to our grand vision.
BREAKING NEWS: Rumsfeld’s is Resigning! Well, we are on our way.
I also think it is bad to vote against. But when there is nothing to vote for then what else do you do?I somewhat voted against but mostly for folks, I ended up voting about 60% rep, a couple for inds and about 40% dems. The folks that concern me are the cool-aid drinkers on both sides, anyone who voted straight line i’m thinking is a cool-aid drinker, and the vote againsters.
I believe the folks are mostly in the middle neither far left freaks or far right neo cons.
The reason I believe that folks voted against was becaiuse of the ammendments that passed or didnt pass. The ones that passed/failed mostly leaned heavily conservative i understand yet the votes went the other way. That can only tell me that its the people they voted against not the fundementals.
just my take.
js
footnote
** I like Daves take too. haaaaa
Js, all good points you have made. Yet I am still concerned because voting simply against does not necessarily equate voting for a vision. I think my fellow Dems have some very good agenda points, most of them do, that I can back but we still need to articulate a completer vision. Although the fine points such as social security, minimum wage and the larger and complex questions regarding Iraq are all important fragments that need to be gelled into a whole. That my fellow dems have a problem in articulating what they think this “whole” is, the underlining philosophy, worries me. Voting for change is ok, but voting for change in general without considering what that change will consist of, is not so good. There needs to be a connector. Anyway, forgive the babbling. Back to work I go. R
i would like to know when are people going to call to task some of these faith based morons who, i believe, have brought these elections so close. expecially in virginia – they carry large congregations and they are completely blind to everything except homosexuality on the move!! in addition, a lot of these pastors are just religious executives – wheeling and dealing for political dollars. i don’t recall jesus throwing his support behind any sympathetic roman candidates or advising his apostles to do so! what he did say was to render to caesar the things that are caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s.
Abena, I feel your frustration here and I spent a lot of time questioning this on my old blog. Regardless, there is a very long tradition connecting religious, particularly forms of Protestantism (as seen today in evangelicalism) to the ethics of hard work (in the US the American dream), to divine province and predestination. The concept being that if god has smiled upon you, you will be well off both in the realm of money and power (although I am generalizing here). This form of religious thought has its roots also in early capitalism and particularly in Americanism. It is ironic that, although not directly stated in our constitution, we have traditionally set up a separation of church and state that this separation has been contentious at best and nonexistent at worse. What is also interesting, as regards to this post’s main concern, is that what they have well installed is an overall vision that helps mobilize their base. For some reason, progressives worry that because of our want for recognition of difference and the validness of diversity that we can’t propose or articulate an overall vision in worries of alienating that diversity. However, we can create an overall vision and still honor diversity—they two can live in the same pot if you know what I mean.
In your reply you touched on the big issues. The problem I have with all of them Dems/Reps/Libers/Inds/ Not one of them, zero is willing to take on SS, the welfare state, the Ul (use-less not UN) the huge amounts of money we send everywhere all over the globe to folks that dont respect what we do for them. The reason is there isn’t one of them, as far back as I can remember that is willing to put there legacy or reputation on the line to tend to these matters. There hasn’t been any that were willing to sacrifice their office to do the right thing, very few are willing to stand up when it is unpopular amongst their party, Leiberman being one of the only I can remember standing against his party, maybe though his stance will be helpful in getting others to do it since he was an overwhelming success. Anyone who toes the party line and agrees all the time is a cool-aider no doubt, and they are hurting our country.
The second post I agree that the backbone of the country was religious freedom. For anyone to be against the religious nuts would also have to be against the nuts who will march in the street for the “right” to suck the brains from a half born healthy child. The nuts are what keep the other 90% in check.
I still don’t know (other than abortion, and redistribution of wealth) the Dems plan is, I assure you though if it is good I will be all for it. Please have them tell someone!!!!!!!!!
js
Wow! Like you I wanted to yell and scream and shout, but I kept it all in reserve. Partly because of all the legal challenges ahead with the Senate, but moreover because our vision as Dems is fractured like you said. I agree that we have a long road ahead, with all eyes on us. And our report card will come in ‘08, which, also tempers my mood.
I too flipped from channel to channel. Interesting to note was the very very somber mood here on the ship! When Bush won in 2000 there was a chorus uf cheers all over the ship. Last night and today, no one was watching the news this time. Its almost as if they (the military) new it was coming and resigned themselves to whatever happened. And now with Rummy’s resignation, I am being spoon fed a very politically correct statement of what I am to say should someone ask my opinion.
Abena: I agree with you whole heartedly and also feel your same frustration. Jimmy Carter in his latest book goes into great detail on how the evangelicals became the religious right and gained control of the House, and eventually the Presidency. And he is one of the only devout evangelical Christians I can respect.
JS, yes—extremists are dangerous no matter what costume they are dressed up in. What tends to make them more so is the fact that they are often the ones who live in that either/or world I was talking about a few posts back. They are also the ones who refuse to discuss issues and or see the other side of the coin which is also dangerous. Let us hope that our newly elected (and returning) officials are willing to really discuss issues, actually read the bills that are being passed and have some internal and external integrity about them. R
Lance, wow, you are being spoon fed politically correct statements to regurgitate?? I guess I should not be surprised but I am disappointed. I hope those in the military do not totally buy into the rhetoric that democrats don’t support the troops or care for the troops. President Bush, once again, said basically that during his press conference. He said it without saying it, if you know what I mean. Well, regardless, my fingers are crossed and I will be ready to write letters and be heard if that helps. R
Congrats on the results Rebecca.
Hopefully now your country can start to turn the corner. At least without the full support of his cronies Bush becomes a “lame duck” for the duration of his stay as el presidente.
There’s still a lot of damage limitation that can be done between now and the time he finally goes, but it will take many many years to undo the damage to date I suspect.
Still – a great result.
Coyote, yes it will take many years to undo the damage. But at least the first step is taken. Let’s just hope that the ensuing steps will be steps in the right direction. The next two years should be interesting.