H 23°, L 4° | Tomorrow: 
H 21°, L 6°For the past week or so, liberals on campus have been in a bit of a funk, and not without good reason.
Their hopes dashed after a stunning defeat last Tuesday, Democrats are in need of a bit of soul-searching. How could this have happened? How could Bush, the object of so much hate and anger, have been re-elected?
And he wasn’t just re-elected, but he was the first president since 1988 to win a true majority in the popular vote. Dubya didn’t just win Florida; he won big. Republicans didn’t just win the presidency, but they maintained control of both houses of Congress and gained four vital seats, including ousting Minority Leader Tom Daschle, in the Senate.
Twisting the logic of exit polls and manipulating their understanding of reality to best suit their own logic, as any political party is often prone to do, the Democrats blamed so-called values voters. These are people who supposedly cared more about things like gay marriage and abortion than the economy or the war in Iraq. Some have blamed fear in helping the Republicans as well; many believe they are more capable at defending this nation.
Both of these assessments are wrong, and by virtue of the very fact that these are the assessments being made by Democrats, they will continue to lose. In essence, the message boils down to a clear and simple point.
Get over yourselves, Democrats.
The elitism is nauseating. The self-righteousness makes even the most religious social conservatives seem cautious when speaking their minds. Religious faith is no match in terms of arrogance as supposed “intellectualism,” and Democrats prove this repeatedly. For all the alleged open-mindedness of the liberals, the fact that they cannot accept the idea that perhaps their proposals for change were rejected by a majority of the population is simply beyond their capacity. How dare the rednecks defy the vision of the anointed? How dare Republicans question their moral authority and logical infallibility?
Moreover, as if calling the other side stupid wasn’t bad enough, liberals love to blame ‘fear.’ Fear of death, fear of terrorism, fear of gays or fear of France. You name it, the Democrats want to blame it.
Let us not forget the fear tactics of the left, however: Republicans want to privatize social security! Republicans want to take away your ‘right to choose’ (one of the most hilarious and deceptive descriptions of an abortion imaginable, even for this pro-choice Bush voter)! Republicans want to start the draft!
Scared yet?
Democrats, you may say to yourselves right now that this doesn’t describe you, that I’m merely making gross generalizations. I’m making this up. Well, if that’s what you’re thinking, then liberals in this country have a lot of work ahead of them because these are the thoughts on the minds of many Bush voters. Regardless of whether or not you believe yourself to be open-minded, the perception of most of this country is the complete opposite. Simply the fact that you believe something does not in and of itself make it true.
Nevertheless, the Democrats will continue to blame this election’s crushing defeat, like many others, on some external force, as if fate itself were simply aligned against them as in an epic Greek tragedy. Until the Democrats can own up to their own weaknesses as a party and their unpopularity among a sizeable portion of the electorate, they will continue to lose.
Imagine if Kerry had won by exactly the same margin Bush had? We would have liberals screaming the word “mandate” at the top of their lungs. Bush lost big, they’d say. The GOP is dead, they’d say.
But when Bush wins, absolutely not. No mandate. No goodwill. The people were duped! It’s a scam! The bad guys win again! It is unacceptable for Bush ever to be seen as legitimate, just as any leader with whom they would disagree must prove to be as well for their world-view of moral perfection to remain intact.
It’s easier to blame it on the rednecks than to actually listen to what they have to say. It’s easier to blame homophobia than to actually respond to their concerns.
Did any Democrat actually stop to think that maybe, just maybe, people trusted Bush more to fight the war on terror because he’d actually do a better job than Kerry? Or that people actually believe that a strategy of preemption allows us to control the battle and will ultimately prove itself more effective? Or that the terrorists are merely beyond reproach for a peaceful resolution? Or that maybe people actually did believe that tax cuts were better for the economy than tax increases? Or that people might be somewhat wary of changing the definition of marriage, by pure judicial fiat, that had existed for the entire course of human history? Or that our health care system is superior to that of other nations precisely because it is privately run?
But these questions shouldn’t even be asked: the answer is obvious, right? No one in their right minds would ever believe any of those things. Right?
Keep on thinking that way, and Democrats will keep on losing, if not because of pure contempt for the close-mindedness of liberals, then for the fact that they do not seriously respond to our concerns. At all.
But hey, keep it up. Almost 60 million Americans were celebrating this past week because of that attitude, and after four more years, we would love to celebrate victory once again.
Zach Stern ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.
IP hash: 97c10822
“How could this have happened? How could Bush, the object of so much hate and anger, have been re-elected?”
Remember the presidential election in 1984? History repeats itself because nobody listened the first time. Of course liberals, especially Madison liberals, will be shaking their heads for the next few months over the whole thing. Too bad. Soooo sad. [tee-hee]
IP hash: df4cd19e
One, you watch way too much O’Reilly. I’ve heard him say this exact same thing for the past week and a half. So good job stealing that.
Two, while your points are valid, your evidence is not good, and in many cases not correct. For example, how marriage has existed in its current state for the entire course of human history. This is not correct. At all. You may just be mistaken, and I hope you are because otherwise you are trying to put major spin on this. Saying that marriage has existed in its current state between one man and one woman for the entire course of human history insinuates that the current form of marriage is a natural occurrence, not a societal construct.
IP hash: 5b49ab17
Great article! I think you hit the nail right on the head. Democrats have transformed to become the party of the elite…good luck in four years if you don’t change your thinking.
IP hash: 524935f1
Okay, a 51 vs 49 split hardly justifies saying “the perception of most of this country is the complete opposite” (in an all inclusive sense)to Democratic norms. Unless you haven’t noticed we have a winner-take-all-system. That means Bush is representing 49% of the population that ranges from mere dislike to disgust with his administrations. Same as during the Clinton years, Clinton was representing equally bitter Republicans.
Also you claim that if it was the flip outcome Democrats would say the “GOP is dead” but I doubt that because they still would have had the legislature. And then you are making a rather puzzling statement that the “DNC is weak” which more or less is what you are criticizing Democrats for doing “GOP is dead”? Since when did two wrongs make a right? Why are you even bothering writing this column? What is gained by crying foul for the same foul you think is okay for you to commit?
IP hash: 881ed367
Zack, great article. I don’t think that any conservative could have said any of your comments better.
IP hash: e246e685
Zach,
I think you raise valid points about the Democrats transforming themselves into hypocrites by using the same tactics as Republicans, and that, though there is no doubt that many Bush votes were motivated by wedge issues such as gay marriage, many voted for the president because they felt he was/is a better leader and his actions of the past four years was justified; it is a matter of a difference of opinion, not a difference of sanity, as some of my liberal comrades would like to claim. However, I wish you wouldn’t make a mockery of women’s right to choose, I feel that this insult diminishes much of the credibility of your piece. You (and you are not alone) are making the mistake of classifying pro-choice as a justification for abortion; it is nothing of the sort. Rather, many people (myself included) who are pro-choice think abortion is as horrible as the staunchest of pro-lifers; but we believe that the only thing worse is government officials thinking they have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. This is especially confusing because the party that was supposedly founded on the belief of less government intervention in the lives of citizens is the very party that is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and strip women of their rights. Good article, but I hope that I misunderstood the meaning that phrase. I do not believe that (1) pro-choice agenda is a sick and twisted justification for abortion or (2) to tell people that Republicans will take away a woman's right to choose is "fear mongering"; I would say that statement is a fairly accurate depiction of the GOP's agenda, especially when the euphuism of the neo-conservative, radical religious right is president.
-Lichtenheld
IP hash: b6e53b65
yes yes yes…this article was perfect. i’m an open-minded republican, but the lack of ability to discuss the issues on the democrats part helped me decide that my vote would not be with them. “…and Democrats will keep on losing, if not because of pure contempt for the close-mindedness of liberals” - that’s EXACTLY what i felt the tone was in madison this election year. all the anti-bush movies, books, bumper stickers, and bashing is what lost the election for you. oh, and teraayyyyzza didn’t help either.
IP hash: 0c530137
Ahh, Zach. I love Thursday… I get my double dose of retardness with you and AdSmith.
First, Democrats are not elitists. If respecting women, minorities, gays, the military, the poor, and the downtrodden, then yes, we’re elitist.
Alberto “I love torture” Gonzales. Who is pro-life. Nice bone to throw to those folks that elected you.
IP hash: 0c530137
That above written post was supposed to say pro-choice. I’m a little hungover, and it’s only 6:30pm!
IP hash: d8b8de16
“‘right to choose’ . . most hilarious and deceptive descriptions of an abortion imaginable” Until a small mammal is implanted into your lower abdomen and you birth it, are forced to drop out of school and find a job with fewer hours to care for it, then provide monetary support to it for the rest of your life, you cannot classify a woman’s right to have an abortion as hilarious or deceptive. Abortion is not a topic any woman takes lightly - it is expensive, it is a possibly dangerous invasive surgery, and it has undetermined psychological and physical effects. Males, until they attain the ability to house and birth humans, will never be able to understand what it is to be pregnant and what it means to contemplate abortion. On moral grounds, I respect that you value a blastocyst-fetus’ life force enough to protect it. However, a woman’s choice to abort her baby will never disappear, even if abortion is made illegal. What needs to be understood and pondered here are the repurcussions of overturning Roe vs. Wade - are you ready to prosecute women for aborting?
IP hash: 68fee7ca
Abortion = murder of an innocent baby
A women DOES NOT and WILL NEVER have the right to kill her child.