There's a tear in your beer
Almost as good as the Bush victory itself is the liberal reaction to it.
BBC Radio this morning insisted that the election proved the country is just as "deeply divided" as 2000. This is, of course, laughable given that Bush has actually won a majority of the popular, the first time a president has done so since 1988. Does anyone recall the "deeply divided" being bandied about in 1996?
Best of all is the headline in the Village Voice: It's Mourning in America. The article itself, (link above) is hilarious. The author, Rick Perlstein, does not give up hope of a Kerry victory, but his main purpose is to explain what went wrong. The answer, of course, is Republican lies. Specifically, and bizarrely, Perlstein focuses on the rantings of one evangelical minister in Ohio.
James Dobson, a man with a radio program and head of the organization "Focus on the Family" has come out against the Ted Kennedy-sponsored hate crimes bill. Perlstein gives the follwoing explanation: "Dobson and his cohorts have been railing that is not just a step but a giant leap down the same slippery slope that found a Swedish minister named Ake Green sentenced to prison for preaching against homosexuality from his pulpit."
He then links to the bill itself as proof that this is a lie. But Dobson never says the bill itself would have this effect, he says it opens the door to it. That's the nature of a slippery slope argument. Democrats should be familiar with the logic, judging from the cries of "Selma" when Republicans argued that public universities should not give extra admissions consideration to candidates based on race.
Perlstein suggests that these "lies" are the only way the Republicans can win. He continues, breathlessly:
Of course, Democrats are above this sort of thing. When they say George Bush will take away Social Security benefits for current retirees, that's not scare-mongering. And more parallel to Perlstein's own example, how about a different exaggeration of a hate crimes bill, namely the NAACP advertisement in 2000, which said George Bush's refusal to sign the bill had almost the same effect on James Byrd's daughter as Byrd's dragging death.
What of Dobson's slippery slope argument, while we're on the subject? It seems an unlikely eventuality, but he has understandable concern. After all, speaking out against homosexuality is regarded in many circles as "hate speech" today. Conservatives are worried that if the thought behind a crime becomes as important as the crime itself, how long before people are prosecuted "preemptively" for inappropriate speech, when no crime has been committed?
Of course, you avoid the trap entirely if you prosecute based upon the crime. A man gets beat up. Straight or gay. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, someone is going to get jailed for assault. Today, absent any new laws. "Because he was gay" is no more an acceptable mitigating circumstance than "because he is black". No, today the only acceptable reason for violence against somebody is if they assault you first. You can't even hit someone because they're robbing you in many cases, though my philosophical hero, John Locke, argues if someone tries to rob you, you have every right to kill him.
Back to the issue of the day, however, as I wrote the above, Kerry has told Bush he will concede Ohio and the election. This is a good move, though it must have been difficult for him. He's conceding that those provisional votes do not matter, thus contradicting his mantra of "count every vote." Realistically however, he had to realize that since provisional votes can't be counted for 11 days, and he'd be holding the outcome hostage on less than a shoestring chance of winning. Kudos to John Kerry for this move.
BBC Radio this morning insisted that the election proved the country is just as "deeply divided" as 2000. This is, of course, laughable given that Bush has actually won a majority of the popular, the first time a president has done so since 1988. Does anyone recall the "deeply divided" being bandied about in 1996?
Best of all is the headline in the Village Voice: It's Mourning in America. The article itself, (link above) is hilarious. The author, Rick Perlstein, does not give up hope of a Kerry victory, but his main purpose is to explain what went wrong. The answer, of course, is Republican lies. Specifically, and bizarrely, Perlstein focuses on the rantings of one evangelical minister in Ohio.
James Dobson, a man with a radio program and head of the organization "Focus on the Family" has come out against the Ted Kennedy-sponsored hate crimes bill. Perlstein gives the follwoing explanation: "Dobson and his cohorts have been railing that is not just a step but a giant leap down the same slippery slope that found a Swedish minister named Ake Green sentenced to prison for preaching against homosexuality from his pulpit."
He then links to the bill itself as proof that this is a lie. But Dobson never says the bill itself would have this effect, he says it opens the door to it. That's the nature of a slippery slope argument. Democrats should be familiar with the logic, judging from the cries of "Selma" when Republicans argued that public universities should not give extra admissions consideration to candidates based on race.
Perlstein suggests that these "lies" are the only way the Republicans can win. He continues, breathlessly:
For every time a leader whom ordinary, decent people want nothing more than to trust as a source of authority—a president, a minister, a leader of an outfit like the Maryland Family Values Alliance—says something untrue, it gets repeated by these decent people as truth. That feels like civic death to me.
Of course, Democrats are above this sort of thing. When they say George Bush will take away Social Security benefits for current retirees, that's not scare-mongering. And more parallel to Perlstein's own example, how about a different exaggeration of a hate crimes bill, namely the NAACP advertisement in 2000, which said George Bush's refusal to sign the bill had almost the same effect on James Byrd's daughter as Byrd's dragging death.
What of Dobson's slippery slope argument, while we're on the subject? It seems an unlikely eventuality, but he has understandable concern. After all, speaking out against homosexuality is regarded in many circles as "hate speech" today. Conservatives are worried that if the thought behind a crime becomes as important as the crime itself, how long before people are prosecuted "preemptively" for inappropriate speech, when no crime has been committed?
Of course, you avoid the trap entirely if you prosecute based upon the crime. A man gets beat up. Straight or gay. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, someone is going to get jailed for assault. Today, absent any new laws. "Because he was gay" is no more an acceptable mitigating circumstance than "because he is black". No, today the only acceptable reason for violence against somebody is if they assault you first. You can't even hit someone because they're robbing you in many cases, though my philosophical hero, John Locke, argues if someone tries to rob you, you have every right to kill him.
Back to the issue of the day, however, as I wrote the above, Kerry has told Bush he will concede Ohio and the election. This is a good move, though it must have been difficult for him. He's conceding that those provisional votes do not matter, thus contradicting his mantra of "count every vote." Realistically however, he had to realize that since provisional votes can't be counted for 11 days, and he'd be holding the outcome hostage on less than a shoestring chance of winning. Kudos to John Kerry for this move.
Comments