Since Wednesday morning the punditry on all sides has expounded upon the
strategy and tactics of how the election was won (or lost), what ideas it
confirmed or repudiated, yada yada yada. Having had some time to digest it
all, I think I’ve established why the results bother me so much.
In 2000, the problem was a sense that Bush was installed by mistake: the
mismatch between electoral and popular results, the Supreme Court ruling, the
lingering question whether the verifiable votes in Florida truly represented
the will of its electorate. In 2004, there was no mistake (barring some
improbable bombshell during the final count of absentee/provisional ballots
in Ohio)…and that’s the true source of dismay. It appears that a (small)
majority of Americans prefer the vision currently outlined by the Republicans,
and that’s what bothers me. (I’ll admit that’s partly because it’s
uncomfortable to be in the minority.)
I have always favored the vision of America that holds the principles of our
Founders in highest regard, judging all our choices for law and policy in the
light of how well they match those ideals. To protect and encourage diversity
and debate are paramount, for strength arises from collaboration and
synthesis and the public interest is served when ideas are adopted (or
abandoned) based on open examination of their intrinsic merits. Unfortuately,
this vision requires a great deal of effort to maintain—not least due to its
requirement that people coexist with others whose viewpoints or lifestyles
they find strange, distasteful, or outright offensive—and it can be difficult
to explain in simple, concrete terms. (Eric Zorn, among others, has
pointed out that the Democratic Party, and the American
center-left in general, have done a very bad job of even attempting to show
that this vision has its own roots of ‘moral values’.) Moreover, this
viewpoint can be seen as an impractical luxury in ‘unstable times’, for the
very openness which is prized can be exploited by miscreants, foreign or
domestic, to disrupt our society.
However, last week’s results confirm that the majority has swung back to a
vision that instead exalts the people and place of America, judging our
choices based on how closely they match the needs and interests of the
archetypal American. This view is vastly easier to articulate, especially
to the less savvy citizenry, and it can result in quicker, more clear-cut
decisions on public-policy issues. Yet, it seems to me that this vision runs
a much higher risk of not only creating a ‘tyranny of the
majority’—marginalization of those views and groups that stray from the
archetypal norm—but also pursuing policies that ignore long-term damage due
to short-term, visceral (jingoistic?) attractiveness.
Despite the rantings of Ann Coulter and her ilk, my unease with the current
majoritarian view does not reflect a hatred or disdain for America and the
archetypal American. Rather, my point is that the views and interests of that
archetype aren’t ipso facto true and good, and even when they are that doesn’t
mean that they are the only or the best ways to achieve good things; all I want
is for other ideas to be considered and respected. We remain the most
powerful nation in the world, and that places upon us a responsibility
to be more deliberate and restrained in our actions, both in the world and
towards our own citizens. Hopefully the American public, despite its slim
but clear penchant for the viewpoint of the current Bush administration, will
exercise its responsibility to ensure that the more cynical, extreme elements
of the government do not overinterpret the recent ‘mandate’ and implement
damaging policies which the public will spend years fixing.
