Liberals have done more for the people in "fly-over" country then conservatives could ever have dreamt of, and now they've lost the ability to articulate that message so they've been painted as immoral, evil, anti-American and scornful of all that's good and wholesome in this country.
That's a Democrat problem letting these slurs get by. I don't scorn all that's good and wholesome in this country, I scorn people who want to ignore that the Enlightenment ever happened and want to impose their 16th-century world-view on my life. I don't force anyone to have abortions, take birth control, go to movies, watch television, marry whom they want, eat French food or read a Harry Potter book. But I am sure as hell not going to let anyone take these rights away from me without a fight and without calling what they're doing idiotic, narrow-minded and bigoted. And I am sick and tired of being called evil, immoral, anti-American and everything else that's being flung about by such living scum as Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and other such mouth-breathing troglodytes.
If asked now, I would say that I voted for my values last election as well. I voted for the values of openness, honesty, transparency and accountability in my government, I voted for the value of being a good world neighbor who believes cooperation often works better than force, in the value of individual rights, in valuing the person over the corporate body, the human being over the institution and the value of ensuring that if all individuals are ensured basic minimums like food, shelter, education and health care, they are better able to improve their lot then if they are left to scratch and scrabble their way up from hunger, and ignorance. I voted for the value of a secular government that does not interfere in my moral decisions, in my life more than necessary to create a strong social contract that respects everyone's basic rights. I voted for the values that have taken us from the oppression and superstition of the medieval feudal societies to open, scientific, tolerant, questioning societies we have (had?) today. I voted against the Taliban, the Christian Reconstructionists and all others who wish to roll back the social and political gains we've made as well as the scientific and rational view of the world that has been fighting the battle against ignorance since Classical times. If we don't fight this fight, we are in for another long period of darkness, suppression, ignorance and decline. I'd like to see someone come up with a faith-based computer, or an Old-Testament MRI.
Just in the last week, two school systems have introduced alternatives to Evolution into their curriculum. The barbarians are at the gate. They helped deliver the victory and now they want their share of the spoils. How long will the Republicans be able to keep them satisfied with crumbs and gestures? Only time will tell, but it scares the hell out of me.
What also scares the hell out of me, in a much more concrete and immediate sense, is this administration's cavalier attitude towards the rule of law. THE central tenenet of our government, which we inherited from the British, is that no man, no matter how low or how high, is above the law.
Now Bush has appointed Alberto Gonzales to be the head law enforcer in the land. He appointed to the Attorney General of the United States the main architect of the now-judged-illegal holding of prisoners indefinitely without hearing, without access to counsel, without the most basic rights we give a dog. The person charged with ensuring the government is a government of laws, not people, is the author of one and co-author of the other of the two memos that spelled out how the US President is not bound by the Geneva Convention (which he called "quaint") and other treaties and laws during time of war and thus torture is fine for us, or, if we don't want to do it ourselves, we have the right to send prisoners overseas to any country we want so they can be tortured there. The basic argument of the memos was that there really are no practical limits to the president's power in time of war. Think about that.
Gonzales is also the person who crafted the doctrine that it is the President himself (not the government, not a committee, not a judge, the person of the president) who has the power to declare someone an enemy combatent, even a US citizen taken on US soil, and thus hold them indefinitely with no rights merely on suspicion. If that isn't putting the vampire in charge of the blood bank, I don't know what is? If these doctrines don't make your blood run cold, then you don't understand the history of this country and how we've fought and died to throw down regimes built upon this warped vision of power and authority.
And for these people, the enforcers of the Counter-Reformation, the defilers of our Constitution and most basic principles, call me evil, anti-American and the greatest danger to the country just because I will not give up basic rights without a fight, ...
Give me a break.
[Update]
I originally wrote this as a response to Democrat bashing about how "we" hate the red states, how we sneer at the "heartland of America" as we fly over, blah, blah, blah...
I had finally reached my limit (years ago) and the whole "values" myth got me thinking of what I was voting for. I believe we all should vote for our values, vote for whomever we believe shares those values because policies change, and you may not know the details on recommendations, but if you trust a candidate to govern from the same value base as you do, then you probably won't go wrong.
That's already what those 22% believe they're doing. The disconnect comes from really knowing what a candidate's values are. I think that's a problem we have on the Democratic side. I think that's the key that people are talking about when they say that the Democrats need to make clear ideas rather than just policies.
When you talk about Policies, the values are inferred, and rarely can you rely on people inferring the correct conclusion. Instead, you leave yourself open to your opponents drawing the conclusion for you. The Republicans are good at explicitely expressing their values. By not doing the same, we lose the values war because people don't understand what we stand for.
Kerry and Edwards can stand up and talk about the "Two Americas" and "we've got your back" all they want, but those statements mean nothing to most people. You can talk about supporting widely-available health care, but that's not a value, that's a policy that comes from a value.
I tried to mention a few of the values I hold dear in the diary entry above. These are broad, important, every-day values that all can identify with. These are the kinds of values we need to be addressing. And then directly tie policy to these values, but don't make the policy the highlight.
I kept hearing this past election, "But I don't hear any details from Kerry?" Well, they didn't hear any details from Bush either. What they seemed to be saying was, "I don't know what kind of person Kerry is. I don't know what values he possesses." Part of this is the fault of the Democratic message machine, and part is the fault that the Republicans know to damage your opponent's character first, to cause doubt about their values up front. This makes it hard when you finally get around to addressing your own values to erase the doubt.
People are much more likely to believe your enemies then they are to believe your friends.
What values do you hold dear when you step into that voting booth?
Plane Crazy