A deep sense of malaise has descended over me. I have a question that I would like to talk about as family and without malice and resentment (is that a contradiction?). Despite the decision to generally steer clear of politics, I feel like we are a unique group and a unique opportunity.
Essentially, the same states and the same folks voted the same way they did 4 years ago (on both sides), yet, back then, the state of the nation and the issues were very different then today. Consequently, the split seems not based on policy and performance (those kind of differences are debatable and tolerable), but rather seems to be between radically different world views represented by Bush and Kerry. Religion and morality seems to be at the core.
I would like to know how those on both sides really think, feel, and believe. What is the truth beneath the rhetoric and the spin. I am missing something important.
I'm not baiting for an argument, and I don't want to rehash the campaign or unleash a diatribe against one side or the other. I'm not interested in what the media or the candidates said, just the opposite, I want to hear the real truth; what really mattered to you in this election.
Anybody game?
6 comments:
Thanks, Penny, for being the first to step into this quagmire. I hope we can hear from cousins on the other side of the isle, too.
I'm going to stick my neck out here, and I'm trusting all of you not to stomp on it. I know I am in the minority in the family on political views.
I disagree with the premise that people who voted to re-elect President Bush did not do so based on policy and performance. Yes, moral values play a part but equally important is that I do think President Bush has done a good job and I agree with his policies.
Aside from the moral values which affect such issues as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research there are also the issues of taxes, the economy, and what is the right approach to make those things work successfully. I also am very glad it was George W. Bush in the Oval office on 9/11 and not Al Gore, and I definitely wouldn't want John Kerry at the helm either.
It's also a mistake to think that people who are in support of the war on terror are in favor of war. War is horrific but sometimes there are things worth fighting for. Imagine what might have happened, how many lives would have been saved, if the U.S. had stepped up to the plate a little earlier in WWII. I am in the camp that says peace is achieved through strength and that weakness, or appeasement, is an invitation to people with evil intentions to see how far they can get.
I would caution anyone to realize that those of us who come to different conclusions than you, do so with equal consideration and forethought. Contrary to the popular myth, it's not a knee jerk reaction or mindless religious fervor.
Melanie, thanks so much for entering this discussion. You may be surprised at the number of others who agree with you in the fam. It may not be so lopsided.
I'm curious about perception. The majority of those that voted against Bush in 2000 feel that he has not performed well, and those that voted for him 4 years ago feel that he has done a good job. In searching my own perceptions, I feel that even if President Bush's performance in office was significantly different, my vote would not have changed. Ultimately, policy reflects a world view, and it's a world view that prevailed in this election. That's not to suggest a knee jerk reaction or mindless religious fervor, quite the opposite, all of us from both sides want a president who we perceive as leading us and the country in a ethical manner to better ends. The question is, is what we believe to be ethical and better, that different?
Is that a rhetorical question or did you want an answer? I think there are some pretty significant differences in each side's idea of what is ethical, and the right way to go about addressing social ills.
Melanie,
Not a rhetorical question.
My point, in a way. The average person on either side of the divide DOES want to, and attempts, within their capabilities to, act ethically. We are all "sinners" and fail at some level, but the great majority of our actions are honorable. Most of us are good people trying to do the right thing. What is different is the perceived truth on which we make those ethical and moral decisions. Now, I'm not talking about the crack-pots who are murdering and maiming people, but, say, our family members on this blog. Hard working people acting honorably according to what they believe to be the truth, much of that "truth" being shared across the different communities to which they belong. Yes, we can still argue about the truth (that discussion is as old as civilization) with different sides feeling smug and superior. We also will probably never agree on all of it. But, can we agree that most regular people choose to act in accordance with the ethics or morals of the truth as they, and their community, understand it? Would you have it different?
Aunt Saundra,
Right on.
Scott,
Not sure what you are asking. I think I mentioned that I think each one comes to their own conclusion thoughtfully, with due consideration. To believe otherwise, or be smug as you say, is arrogance, in my opinion.
The Republicans were out of power for a lot of years, and it was not easy for their supporters to lose elections and not feel represented by government. It's just the way our system works. The pendulum swings first one way and then the other.
Post a Comment