I just delivered this speech on the floor of the Yale Political Union about 15 minutes ago. It was my first political speech ever so I was a little nervous, but as I got into it I really felt like I connected with all of those present. I got a ton of applause and even some Republicans came up to me afterward and congratulated me. Just thought y'all might want a laugh and read it.
The topic was resolved: America was wrong.
I, of course, took the affirmative. My speech is below the fold.
Has America made a mistake? This poses a grave question and I hesitate to say yes, since as a progressive, I put much faith into the collective wisdom of the American people. But America has errored, and catastrophically so. To see why, one must examine what was at stake, how the candidates stacked up, and ultimately how the election was decided.
Few deny that this election holds nearly unprecedented importance as our nation is currently engaged in a global battle against jihadism, fighting a war in Iraq, facing a healthcare crisis with 43 million Americans uninsured, and plagued with job losses and economic stagnation. An aging Supreme Court suggests several court appointments looming, most notably in the case of Judge Rehnquist who was hospitalized with an aggressive form of thyroid cancer.
I see no reason to restate the case for either candidate as much has been said tonight and for well over a year. What I will point out, is that life's experts overwhelming endorsed Senator Kerry. For instance, 48 scientific and 10 economic Nobel laureates endorsed Kerry. By contrast, only 6 economic Nobel laureates endorsed President Bush: not a single science Nobel laureate likewise approved of Bush. Similarly, 189 Republican and Democrat former foreign ambassadors and 12 former generals and admirals gave Kerry the nod. Am I saying we should only vote in the candidate who receives the most expert endorsements? No, but I am saying that America should at the very least consider the opinions of those with the greatest knowledge in their fields.
Americans similarly ignored the media's overwhelming endorsement of Kerry. 149 newspapers with a circulation of 17.7 million endorsed John Kerry versus 126 papers with a circulation of 11.6 million for Bush. "Liberal media?" Hardly; 45 of the newspapers which endored Kerry endorsed Bush in 2000: only 8 newspapers which endorsed Al Gore went to Bush. But why should Americans care about what the media thinks? Well, instead of just reading the paper everyday, the newspaper staff writes it, and thus has an unparalleled knowledge of current events.
But apparently the American electorate doesn't even take the time to read the newspaper everyday. That is, at least the 51% of America who voted for Bush. According to the October 18 PIPA poll from the University of Maryland, Bush-backers have mind-boggling, and frightening misconceptions about the very reality that we live in. To quote the pollster directly:
"Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points. Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions."
The poll also amazingly found that 58% of Bush supports do not think the US should have gone to war if US intelligence determined that no WMD weapons or programs were in Iraq and if Iraq were not found to have offered support to Al Qaeda. Let me say that again: if 58% of the Republican party would just look reality square in the eye, they would be against this war and against this president.
But when push came to shove, it wasn't the issue of terrorism, Iraq, healthcare, or the economy which decided this election. Sadly, and cynically, it was the classic GOP last minute push of what blogger Markos Zuniga calls "God, guns, and gays." Gay marriage amendments were on the ballots in 11 states, many of them swing states, on November 2nd, thus drastically increasing turnout of social conservatives. Furthermore, the NRA commenced its annual scare-a-thon of rural America, telling millions that "Kerry will take away your guns" and fully endorsing Bush as the only way to prevent this. All this is evident in the final voter demographics of election 2004: Among self described liberals, Kerry won 86%-13%, among "moderates" Kerry again won 55-45. Unsurprisingly, Bush won the self-described "conservative" vote 84-15. So how did Bush win the election? In 2000, self-described conservatives made up only 29% of the electorate: this year they made up 34%. So if anyone had the idea that Bush would become more moderate in his second term, think again: he owes his "base" even more than the last election; thus the only "mandate" the president has been given is one of culture war.
And to that I can only repeat the words of General William Tecumseh Sherman, "You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood and only God knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization. You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you are talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people, but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it!" I yield the balance of my time to questions.