This started as a comment reply, but since I'd already suggested that sizable posts warranted their own blog, I figured I'd just post it here.
I am trying very hard to be sensitive. I am prepared and eager for debate. I'm not really sure how to approach this, I guess. I feel like it's an argument between the Black Panthers and the KKK, and I'm constantly being forced to choose a side.
I don't want to be on either side because they are both radical and both equally wrong for the country. Of course they both have strong core values. Of course they are right, and the other is wrong. My whole point is that the country is not made up of radicals, but rather moderates whose respective leanings have been so harshly polarized by demagogues that they are now now finding it very hard to stand up straight.
I do not think the citizens of this country are in a situation where they no longer have any choice but to pick a side and man the walls. We already have a two-party system, but the leadership of these two parties are merely leading us off different cliffs. I happen to be on the "winning" side of the red cliff-jumpers and I think it's going to take the clear assistance of the blue cliff-jumpers to snap my people out of their lockstep trance and change direction. But I cannot do it while they insist that the blue cliff is simply the better cliff to jump off of.
It is just as infuriating to me to hear Bush's "we'll cooperate with those who already agree with us" as it is for me to hear the "Red states are bible-thumping, fag-hating, racists" chant. They are both grating siren calls to bloody cliffs of blind intolerance. The two previous posts I made were an attempt to illustrate one side of the intolerance. Why the liberal side only? Because currently that is the losing side - and that's the side that has most frequently asked me to explain myself.
Apparently when I have described myself as a grudging Republican, that's not being clear enough. I'm on this side not because it's the best side, but because I currently do not see a better one. What I am trying to do is help create a better side to join. Trust me, there is no joy in being vilified on a daily basis. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't feel it were absolutely neccessary for myself, my friends, my family, my country - and the world.
A few of you will scoff at these words. To you I say I genuinely believe we are in a very serious situation that will require sacrifice, dedication, patience, and humility to survive. I can handle some ridicule and patronizing and am doing my best to avoid distributing it. Please join me.
Posted by Matt at November 10, 2004 12:56 AMI have covered my position, poorly, in previous posts. That is something I'll have to revisit and rectify. It's awfully hard to make concrete something as complex and dynamic as ones political beliefs. That said, the woman's post I linked to is a far better expression of why I voted for Bush.
To give you a simple reply regarding the "main swing issue" (with the hopes that it will be understood as offered with that caviat), it was Kerry's lack of vision for conducting the GWOT (Global War on Terror - Don't yell at me, I didn't give it that stupid name). For me, that absorbs 90% of my decisionmaking process.
I wanted to hear Kerry say, "We will build on the achievements of the current Coalition by reaching out again to the world to listening and respond to their concerns instead of dictating ours" instead of calling it a "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted."
I wanted to hear a plan from Kerry that included more details than Bush's plan (which wouldn't be hard). I wanted the Democrats to push for promoting Democracy while condemning fascism and totalitarian states. Hell, I could go on - but that's going to have to be a separate post.
Posted by: Matt at November 10, 2004 12:10 PMHey,
I appreciate this post more than the last couple. I didn't respond to the last couple because I was so angry although I do feel like this is an important discussion that needs to be held across differing belief systems.
What troubled me about your link to protesters is that it did not seem like a good explanation for the question of why did you vote for Bush. I do not decide my opinion on issues based on the belligerence or idiocy of the fringe of one side or another. And, I don't see why either side has to "disown" opinions as long as fringe members are not committing criminal acts. After reading all this, I get the impression that the main swing issue for you was that Kerry did not spend enough time distancing himself from "radicals."
Let me repeat again that this is an important conversation and I'm glad you're addressing it on your site. What I am left wondering is whether there are any policy issues that would have made a difference to you in deciding your vote. Or, to put it differently, what issues were important in your decision and what things made you waver between the two parties.