Well, the election is over.
Now, the real damage begins. And it’s up to us to try to limit it.
Kerry is set to concede the election. Let’s hope that he and his supporters are not set to concede the nation. After all, I’ve already heard (in the background, as I just turned on the TV) that Bush “has a mandate.” Since when did convincing just over 50% of voters count as a mandate? First of all, even many who voted for Bush — from what I’ve heard — didn’t say, “We want George Bush to do whatever George Bush wants to do!” I think they just said, “We prefer George Bush as President to John Kerry as President.” That’s not exactly “a mandate” even if it were larger than a bare majority of voters.
Frankly, I expected Bush to win. And I’m not even convinced that we can rightly blame voters. When my wife asked what I thought, I told her it was a foregone conclusion. I expected he would win by about 3 to 5 percentage points. (I haven’t yet looked to see exactly how much he won by; thanks to a bout of flu and my belief that the election was literally “in the bag,” I went to bed early last night and just got up just a few minutes ago.) Republicans have been winning by about 7% throughout the counties that have implemented Diebold voting machines, so taking into account that some places still use non-electronic forms of voting, I smoothed it down to 3% to 5% overall and accepted that that would be the spread.
The fact is that the United States, as it was laid out by the Founders, ceased to exist long ago. Today, in its place, sits an Administrative State. The primary reason for that is that we, as a nation, do not understand the form of government we were given by our forefathers. In that nation, government had a limited function and corporations that tried to dominate politics were exercising their power ultra vires. Today even many lawyers don’t know what that phrase means.
To make matters worse,
One of the Republican Party’s major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Nicholas D. Kristof, “Living Poor, Voting Rich” (November 3, 2004) The New York Times.
Expect to see more of that. Expect to see the economy sputter along for another few years, flirting with recession the whole way, before President Schwarzeneggar tries his hand at a more moderate form of Republicanism. (Yes, there will be a constitutional amendment before 2008 that allows foreign-born citizens to run for President. My guess is that there will be at least two more constitutional amendments. One of those will be the Federal Marriage Act, or some similarly-named amendment to ban gay marriage. The other — as yet unwritten — will deal directly with the ptolemaic difficulties engendered by the pretense of honoring the Bill of Rights in an Administrative State.) If you’re looking to make some money, defense bonds will be where you want to go. They’ll be about the only places to make any money, as more jobs are outsourced and the only American jobs will be in upper management, which is closed off to the majority of Americans.
But even that’s just the start.
The truly scary stuff doesn’t begin until after the second or third year of a Bush-appointed Supreme Court. I predict he will seat at least four justices throughout his term, probably in the first year — certainly in the first two. After that, we’ll see the damage activist judges can really do. (You thought only “liberals” had activist judges? You really have been sleeping, haven’t you?)
I’m not sure if Roe will be the first to go, but go it eventually will. The new Supreme Court will probably not blatantly approve laws outlawing all abortion. I have a feeling even the new Republican America would not swallow that — although they could. More likely, you’ll see states passing laws requiring a certain amount of counseling (with pro-life or faith-based groups vetting the therapists) and/or putting up other barriers to abortion. Those barriers will be upheld as a valid exercise of state police powers. (For those who don’t know, that’s not an accusation that we’re going to be living in “police states”; that’s the term used in law when discussing the power of the state to act in relation to the health and welfare of its citizens.)
I also expect a circumscribing of the anachronistic and troublesome Due Process clause of the Constitution. There will likely also be “reinterpretations” that chisel away at the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. I’d argue that we’ll officially extirpate the Ninth Amendment, but there’s no need for that; it’s never followed anymore anyway.
The real questions for me are: How far does the pendulum swing before Americans (who heretofore have sat like frogs in slowly-heated water) rebel? Will the moaners and the criers give up? (I mean, it’s okay to be pissed, but “Maybe this country doesn’t deserve us anymore”? “Take it and run”? Maybe some of these folk should consider heading off to another country.)
The thing to do is start to educate people about what the Constitution really stood for, what the Founders really hoped for us, what our country really could be.
Rather than moaning and crying, we need to ask ourselves how we can ever re-implement the original Constitution of the United States. What do we need to do for that to happen?
And let’s get on with it.
21 responses so far ↓
1 JasonC // Nov 3, 2004 at 11:01 am
After four years of this bullshit, you’d do well to permit us a small “moaning and crying” grace period.
2 nick meyer // Nov 3, 2004 at 11:09 am
Quit crying!!! It”s over.
3 Rick Horowitz // Nov 3, 2004 at 11:38 am
Well, I don’t have a problem with a grieving period. After all, it’s not just an election that’s been lost. And folk like Nick will be awhile in finding that out, but they will find it out.
The fact of the matter, though, is that the vote demonstrates that there are boatloads of stupid people out there. And crying in your beer isn’t going to educate any of them. Nor will it slow the onslaught of Corporate Power that we’ll be facing come January, when the new Congress is seated.
Bush believes that people voted for him because they want what he wants. Karl Rove has already told CNN (according to a what they just said a moment ago on the show) that Bush is going to lay claim to a great “mandate.” But Bush is mistaken about this.
When you lie to people and you get them to buy into the lie you told, what they are supporting is what you made them think you stood for. That is what Americans voted for, if they voted for anything. I know from conversations with Nick, my next-door neighbor, that when I tell him things Bush really supports, Nick does not support those things. He just doesn’t believe that Bush does, either.
Now that Bush has nothing to stop him, we’ll see what he believes. It will show in his actions. “A city set on a hill cannot be hid.” (Matthew 5:14.) Bush is now King of the Hill.
The sad thing is that it’s probably too late for a full salvaging of our country’s true principles — Supreme Court Justice appointments will ensure the Bush view endures at least another 30 or more years, unless there is a revolution — but the good thing is that Bush will feel emboldened to perform his acts out in the open.
When he does, the tide will start to turn.
And we must be prepared. So, today, I don’t agree with telling people,
Instead, I propose that we continue to work to ensure that there is resistance to making things worse and that we fight to have people held accountable.
That is my attitude toward America. I encourage you to make it yours.
4 Bill Reiland // Nov 3, 2004 at 12:52 pm
Not a mandate? The democrats’ savior, President Clinton, never received more than 49% of the vote in any election. President Bush had 3.5 million more votes than his opponent, while gaining seats in the house and senate. This I believe reveals the truth that the majority of Americans believe in the values which the President and the Republican party stands for.
You quote the New York Times (clearly an unbiased publication)about the evil rich that are receiving tax cuts. It has been said that the downfall of democracy will be once men realize that they can vote for themselves funds out of the treasury. Our economy is growing and improving (thanks to the President’s tax cuts) – the problem will be that the congress hasn’t cut spending enough. We must learn that our deficit problems are not caused by lack of revenue but too much spending on social programs and “benefits”.
Inasmuch as the Michael Moore crowd will continue to spout lies and attempt to delegitimze the President, this election has revealed that the extremist illusions forwarded by the extreme left and the mainstream media are not taken at face value by the general populous and their claims be revealed as being impotent.
Has Dan Rather called Ohio for President Bush yet? He was being very cautions in calling states for the President last night. Where was that caution last week when the New York Times and CBS fed Kerry the lies concerning missing weapons, or where was that caution when they brought forth forged and fraudulent documents in CBS attempt to mislead the American public? The mainstream media is proving itself to be illegitimate.
The media is correct however in its claims that the nation now needs to re-unite. However, the majority does not need to compromise its standards and values in order to “reach across the aisle”. President attempted that 4 years ago, he brought Ted Kennedy in to write the education bill, met with democratic leaders to reach compromises and received no cooperation from them. It is now their turn to reach across the aisle.
I’m sure I’ll now be attacked as being a stupid, Christian, right wing nazi that has been guillable enough to fall for Bush’s lies. So be it.
5 Rick Horowitz // Nov 3, 2004 at 1:49 pm
I don’t know about the “nazi” part. 😉
When was the last time you heard me say that Clinton had a mandate? The fact that I don’t believe Bush has a “mandate” does not imply that I think Clinton did. Heck, I didn’t even vote for Clinton until his second run!
Let me be clear: I have no doubt that some people — and I’m guessing you’re one of them — want Bush to take the ball and run with it. In that sense, some folk gave him a mandate. I don’t believe you can say the country gave him a mandate; I didn’t believe you could say that of Clinton, either.
Your comment leads me to assume that you mistake me for a Democrat. That is, indeed, a mistake. Did you read my article, “A Pox on Both Houses”? If you did, you’d see that I agree with you about the fact that spending hasn’t been cut enough.
And I think this because I believe both of the main parties that have a death grip on the nation are going beyond whatever “mandate” they have a right to expect.
I’ll say it again, for probably the tenth time this last week, our government was intended as a limited government.
The only reason I ended up voting for Kerry over Bush is that in the past (and, sadly, that’s now “only in the past”), when the Democrats screwed up, they picked my pocket; when the Republicans screwed up, they shredded the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, today, when the Republicans screw up, they do both.
6 nick meyer // Nov 3, 2004 at 2:11 pm
Welcome to Bill. A refreshing view is always welcome on Rick’s blog.(ha-ha)Don’t go anywhere soon. Rick just might come around!!
7 Rick Horowitz // Nov 3, 2004 at 2:17 pm
Nick, you’ll find that Bill actually is an intelligent person. If he continues to comment, you’ll enjoy him.
He knows how to build arguments. And his last post, as you may have noticed, actually was an argument. (Oh, wait, I forgot, you can’t recognize those, right? ;))
At any rate, the flaw I see in Bill’s argument is that I agree with him: Bill Clinton didn’t have a mandate. And you can’t argue that Bush has a mandate just because Bill Clinton didn’t have one. It’s entirely possible for two Presidents to govern without mandates.
And I think that we’ve become pretty warped as a nation if we think that someone with the support of less than half the nation has been given “a mandate.”
But maybe that’s why we get the kind of Presidents we get: Our expectations (or standards, or both) are set way too low.
8 Bill Reiland // Nov 3, 2004 at 11:15 pm
Rick, I guess we simply disagree on the definition of a mandate. It seems clear to me. President Bush received more popular vote than any president in recent history. People across the nation have agreed that the left is simply not working…which is why the republicans picked up several seats in the house and senate in addition to electing President Bush.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that any president should have free reign. I just simply don’t think that the republicans should have to compromise their core values in order to appease the left.
That being said, I believe President Bush to be an honorable man. He is not out to shred the bill of rights or invalidate the Constitution. If I understand your postings correctly, it seems your grounds for saying such is based on the patriot act. Although it may be somewhat flawed, we have to reach a medium by balancing liberty and freedom vs. security. If I am free to do whatever I want without government control, I could walk next door and kill my neighbor [not that one:)]. However, the government has seen fit to restrict my freedom by making murder illegal in order to protect the general public. Analagous is the patriot act. The government is restricting the freedoms and rights of very bad men who want to kill Americans. There are some checks and balances in the patriot act (which admittedly could be strengthened), but overall it is an effective tool in combatting terrorism and in routing out people that want to kill you and I. From what I understand about the patriot act, the powers given to the goverment are powers that previously existed in limited cases, but is now expanded to terrorism matters.
But, this is just my humble opinion.
By the way, I hope you feel better.
9 Rick Horowitz // Nov 4, 2004 at 8:07 am
Bill, I hope Nick is reading this, because, as I told him, you’re a pretty intelligent guy and you actually build arguments.
You’re correct that we apparently disagree over the meaning of “mandate.” Imagine the following scenarios:
Bush won by more than any President in recent times. I’ll give you that. I won’t even argue about it.
The thing that concerns me is that the President who won — according to all the networks based on “morals” — did so by repeatedly lying. Perhaps when he lied to us about Saddam Hussein, it was not deliberate. He may have had faulty information (although numerous people in the FBI, CIA and his inner circle have denied this). But there can be no question that he and his Vice-President knew they were lying during the campaign. For reasons of space (and because I’m actually working on a blog entry covering the same material), I’ll give just two examples here.
Kerry comes out and says, “I will never cede our right to protect ourselves to another country.” And for those who have read the Declaration of Independence of the United States, what he said was virtually exactly what it says.
Damn! They thought they were required to explain themselves!
Yet after Kerry said this, Bush and his team could not stop saying — repeating it like a mantra — that Kerry would give up our right to defend ourselves unless the rest of the world went along with that. And they repeated this story even after knowing he’d never said that and even after he repeated that it wasn’t true. So much for morals.
The second example comes from the Vice-President. He sat on stage at a debate and actually told two lies with one statement. He said that he had never met John Edwards until he walked onstage at the debate even though he was up at the Senate “most Tuesdays.” First, it’s been stated that Cheney wasn’t up at the senate “most Tuesdays.” But let’s ignore that little lie. The most egregious lie is that he’d never met Edwards. This would be odd, since there are pictures of them literally bumping elbows at a prayer breakfast — a prayer breakfast, no less! — February 1, 2001. They also met and shook hands before a television appearance on April 8, 2001. They also met at Elizabeth Dole’s swearing in as NC Senator.
So much for morals. I think the lesson for our nation, particularly for our children, is that it’s okay to lie and cheat if you’re trying to win.
And those are just two of the lies the team that won based on morals told during the campaign. There are many more.
But, then, this does pretty well fit the profile for the religious right-wing that wants to claim the moral high ground and tell other people how to live.
As to the last element of your post, the balancing of liberty and freedom versus security, that was done a long time ago. It was voted on. Some people recognize the document that implemented the balancing: The Constitution of the United States. And I’d like to remind you that the people who wrote that document were fighting for their very survival as people and as a nation. We’re just fighting for the right to steal oil without having the owners of the land where the oil is found fight back.
The Constitution of the United States was specifically written with the goal of ensuring that the tyranny of the majority did not make live miserable for the minority. The belief at that time — no more, since we’re now a benevolent (for the time being) fascist state — was that individuals all had a right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In those ancient days (not really that long ago, if you think about it; string together a few 80-year-olds and you’re back at the beginning of our country), the values of the United States of America were for individual freedoms.
Those days are gone. And, in their place, we have the belief that getting a little more than 50% of the votes (note that that’s not 50% of the people) to support you is “a mandate” and lying your ass off to get there is one way to earn the label “moral.”
10 Mark King // Nov 4, 2004 at 8:42 am
Bill,
There are a number of things in your comments that I disagree with. One thing you mention, however, is not something I merely disagree with — it is patently false. You talk about Congress and spending.
Bill, if you will research the issue you will find that budgets are written and sent to Congress by the President. When Reagan was running up what were (at that time) record deficits, he put out the myth that Congress was spending the money. The fact was, had it not been for the fiscal responsibility of the Democrats who controlled Congress during the Reagan years, the Reagan deficits would have been even higher. Congress actually cut Reagan’s spending proposals.
Congress today may not be cutting enough of Bush’s spending proposals. That’s an argument someone could make.
But the fact is spending begins with the President. He writes the budget and sends it to Congress. He is also the one who is determined to bring in fewer revenues than were brought in during the Clinton years while spending more money than Clinton ever dreamed of spending. How can any reasonable person believe that this is not a recipe for fiscal disaster?
11 nick meyer // Nov 4, 2004 at 8:57 am
Rick, After reading just two posts from Bill I must agree with you that he is an intelligent individual. We can argue the meaning of a mandate till the cows come home and no one that has a set opinion will change his or her mind. I do agree with Bill that our President is an Honorable man. I did not cast my vote for him just because I happen to be a Christian. I happen to agree with him on many vital issues. I fully agree with the notion that we should attack before we are attacked. Irag posed an immediate danger and I know you do not agree, but I feel we were justified in our decision for Military action over there. Not to mention the freedom we have given to a people that had never been able to exercise that God Given right before. Kids are going to school. Medical attention is being given etc… So we have not found WMD yet, we have freed a country from oppression and tyranny. My views on abortion, stem cell research, gay marriages also align with the Presidents train of thought and belief. Granted, the Patriot act needs tweaking but overall we are in dangerous times and the need to protect the law abiding people of this great country are of major importance. If you are’nt doing something wrong in the first place, you should not have to worry.
12 Rick Horowitz // Nov 4, 2004 at 9:32 am
Nick, I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again:
Remember that when the Founders wrote the Constitution, they had just finished a huge war. It was actually fought right here on American soil. And during that war, it was very difficult to know who were the good guys and who were the bad guys just by looking at them. (Remember Benedict Arnold?) They were all white guys.
And the British, at that time, used to do exactly the kind of things the USA PATRIOT Act allows today. But that damn George Washington, that idiot Thomas Jefferson, that fool Alexander Hamilton and that bozo James Madison — to name just a few — those tiddlywinks went and argued that the government had no rights except those few we gave it!
So convinced were they that the government didn’t have the power to do whatever it wanted in the name of freedom and security that they didn’t even think a Bill of Rights was necessary!
Nick, I like you, but the thing that scares me about you — and the thing that makes me rag on your way of “thinking” (and makes me put it in scare quotes) — is that you say things like this without even pretending that there are counter-arguments. Why not address the facts I just laid out above?
You want to say that “if’n you ain’t doin’ nuttin’ wrong in da fust place, you shuddent awta hafta wurry.” And you point out that the United States is endangered by Iraq, a country that couldn’t even fly its airplanes over its own space without having them shot down immediately by Americans. But the people who wrote our Constitution fought a war on their own soil where the enemy looked just like them (if they took off their coats). And the British had better (and more) weapons, I might add. Yet they — not some “bleeding heart liberal from Massachusetts” — wrote the Constitution.
And they included waaaay more freedoms than any American has today.
13 nick meyer // Nov 4, 2004 at 9:47 am
Rick you need to also think about the differences in weapons we are talking about. Our founding fathers did not have to worry about airplanes being flown into buildings, suicide bombers in cars, nukes etc… Different times call for different measures.
14 nick meyer // Nov 4, 2004 at 9:56 am
And another thing. This appeal you are working on. Okay, you say the police lied. Rick look at the character of the person you are helping. How much crap did he pull and not been caught for. Yet you feel because his rights have been violated he does not belong in prison. So lets get him out and let him wreak havoc on innocent people before he is legitimately caught. The cops set their sights on him for a reason Rick. I am not pro-police but am a realist. Just out of curiosity, what does his rap sheet look like?
15 Rick Horowitz // Nov 4, 2004 at 10:32 am
Nick, I’m proud of you. You’ve actually provided some reasons for what you’ve said. Let me praise you for that.
Let’s take your last two comments one at a time.
Different Weapons
The British weapons were every bit as destructive to the colonists as the weapons available to Iraq were to us. (Actually, more, because the British could actually use theirs against the colonists.) Furthermore, you seem to forget that nearly all the terrorists who have ever attacked the United States were Saudi Arabians, not Iraqis. So if we’re going to justify attacking someone, let’s make sure we’re justifying attacking the right people.
And if attacking people because they don’t like us and have weapons of mass destruction is really a valid reason, then what about North Korean, guy? They hate our guts. Their leader is certifiable. But we don’t attack him. (But I guess Iraq is an easier target because they don’t have China to back them up.)
The British could have, with their weapons, destroyed entire cities. In fact, during the war, they sometimes did. Check out The American Revolution: Writings from the War for Independence sometime. It’s a collection of letters written by people who lived then, to their friends, relatives and sometimes to their commanding officers. Some of the letters are written by people like Patrick Henry. Others are written by British soldiers. Some of them are “tally sheets” listing the number of people killed and towns destroyed. The damage done then was much worse than any damage done here so far. And there were fewer people, so the percentage of damage (since Republicans sometimes like that better than numbers) was higher.
Appeal
Nick, I’m not going to get too personal. But you happen to know “a bad guy,” too. That guy has done some pretty crappy things that many people could never forgive. I guarantee you that his rap sheet looks worse than the guy I’m defending right now. And, to make matters worse, when the cops stopped my guy, they didn’t even know he had a rap sheet. In fact, in their testimony, they thought he was a Mexican-American guy — but he’s white. They stopped him because he was driving a particular color of car — the same color as a car that was used in a murder about three weeks earlier in another part of Fresno. How’s that for a good reason, eh?
Suppose, now, that your friend that we’re talking about here was driving his truck and he got stopped because someone in another part of Fresno used a truck the same color as his to commit a murder. And suppose, for the sake of argument, that your friend’s wife, unbeknownst to him, owned a gun and kept it under the seat without telling him. So now your friend is stopped and the police discover your friend’s record. And — uh-oh! — you can figure out the rest yourself, eh?
We have rules in the United States. People don’t go to jail for being bad people. They don’t go to jail for being creeps. They don’t go to jail for being ugly (lucky for some of us on that last one, eh? ;)) and they don’t go to jail just because in their past, they did illegal things (assuming they already served their sentences on those things). They go to jail only when they commit crimes.
And — under the written law and the Constitution — people are considered innocent until proven guilty.
Not the other way around.
16 Mark King // Nov 4, 2004 at 10:33 am
Nick:
Interesting premise. Attack before we are attacked, by someone who we know was no threat to us.
This logic would mean we should arrest and execute people BEFORE they commit murders. I mean, we should nip this in the bud, right? When should the police show up at your door, Nick?
17 Bob // Nov 4, 2004 at 11:40 am
It’s so refreshing to see respectful dialogue!
Welcome Bill !
18 nick meyer // Nov 4, 2004 at 12:40 pm
Mark that is pretty far reaching . I do not expect them anytime soon as I am a law abiding citizen. Rick, out of curiosity is the “bad guy” you refer to me. I will admit I made mistakes but as you can attest to I am a changed man. I do not argue with what happened to me. I deserved to be punished. Mark, hypathetically speaking, what position would we be in today if we had not helped Winston Churchill? There were the same number of people in the world then who happened to have the same view as yours!! Again with our President I fully agree we need to be on the offensive as well as defensive at the same time. Rick, I would not have everything I have were it not for this adminstration. As an example first time home ownership is at an all time high. On our street alone I can see three new families that are first time buyers. I am not in the elite category as you call it, but my childrens future is very well secured finacially with the decisions we have made regarding investments etc… David will never have to worry. His education is already in place,(thanks Grandpa) and it may not seem like it but I do make great money. (hence our toys) The only things not paid off are the truck (which will be by Jan. 15th with my bonus) and the house. More than enough insurance (it’s great to have an agent for a wife) and if something should happen to either one of us the house is paid for. I thank GOD everyday that I live in America and a land with the leadership to have the courage to protect me and my family.
19 Mark // Nov 4, 2004 at 1:38 pm
Nick,
I absolutely think we should go on the offensive — against those who have attacked us and those who offered our attackers help and support. Osama bin Laden. The Saudis. The Pakistanis. Bush absolutely refuses to do anything about these guys. And with the election results, nothing will be done about these folks for at least another four years.
Iraq was never a threat to us or our interests.
North Korea actually has nuclear weapons and has actually made threatening statements about us. Is Bush moving against North Korea? Not on your life.
The Iraq mess was about empire and about profits for Bush’s buddies. The profits have been working out nicely. The empire thing is turning into a nightmare for the administration — as it should.
It was never about freedom. People in Saudi Arabia aren’t “free.” People in lots of other countries aren’t “free.”
Eventually, a Democratic president will have to clean up this mess in Iraq. The sad thing is, way too many Americans and innocent Iraqi civilians will pay for Bush’s mistake with their lives before it’s over. It is shameful and tragic.
20 Bunny Chafowitz // Nov 5, 2004 at 8:07 am
Nick,
In reference to your post on November 4, I’m sorry to point out that medical care is not being given to the people of Iraq.
On the news just last night it was announced that Doctors Without Borders was pulling their services from Iraq. CARE International ceased to provide medical care to the wounded because there is no security for their aid workers. This agency’s director is a hostage with decapition looming in her future.
CNN showed waiting rooms, hall ways, entrances to hospitals filled with people….just waiting for help. There aren’t enough supplies abd there aren’t enough medical support staff.
The Bush administration did not plan on how to wage the peace and the people of Iraq suffer for it now.
21 nick meyer // Nov 5, 2004 at 10:02 am
Granted, with what is happening with the insurgency medical aid has been suspended. That does not alter the fact that medical aid was being given and will resume when it is safe to do so.
Leave a Comment