I don’t have much to say about President Bush’s inauguration today. It is what it is, and frankly I don’t feel like picking a fight with anybody right now. I’m also trying to put aside some of the negativity that has dogged my thinking over the past couple of years (more for the sake of my own mental health and blood pressure numbers than because I’ve changed my mind about anything) and part of this effort is a conscious decision to limit my political ranting here in this space.
Nevertheless, I would like to quickly point out two articles that grabbed my attention this morning. What I find interesting about them is the sharp difference in attitudes they show between those who are staying on the White House staff and those who are leaving.

The first article, a Washington Post essay that reports on the Administration’s attitude since the election, notes that “President Bush and his Cabinet nominees have been sending a firm message as they kick off a second term: no mistakes, no regret, no comment.” (Registration required if you want to read the whole article. Sorry. WaPo is that way…)
Contrast that with the words of outgoing Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who says in an interview for an Australian paper, that he is “disappointed that Iraq hasn’t turned out better. And that we weren’t able to move forward more meaningfully in the Middle East peace process… [and] that we didn’t stop 9/11. And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot.”

Make of this what you will. I know what I think about it, and how I feel about the fact that the folks running the show are apparently not willing to engage in any sort of self-reflection. Maybe that doesn’t matter these days, and maybe the voters actually prefer it this way. But like I said, I find the contrast interesting…

[Ed. Note: If you haven’t already, read the previous entry before this one.

In the last entry, I said that the Democrats need to figure out what our vision of the country and the future actually is. This is perhaps the biggest problem the Democratic Party has: what do we stand for, and what will we do if we’re elected? What are our core beliefs?

Continue Reading…

I’d like to finish my ruminations on this long dark midnight of the liberal soul with my thoughts about what I believe the Democratic Party needs to do in order to regain some influence over our country’s trajectory. Not that my lone voice is going to make any difference, of course. The odds that anyone in a position to actually accomplish anything will ever see this little blog, let alone adopt the ideas expressed herein, are approximately equal to the chances of Ozzy Osbourne being invited to speak at the next LDS General Conference. Nevertheless, there is a whole galaxy of liberal blogs and message boards out there that have been buzzing on this same topic for the last six weeks, so perhaps our collective din will somehow become loud enough for the DNC to hear.

The most important thing, I think, is that all Democrats, from the most liberal whack-job hippies to the “Republican Lite” Clintonian centrists, need to make a major attitude adjustment. Several, in fact, starting with the way we on the left handle defeat. I disagree with Republicans on damn near every matter of policy and a whole lot of philosophical points, too, and I certainly despise their contemptuous attitude toward their defeated opponents. But they’re absolutely correct about one thing: we lost, and we need to get over it. That motto should be printed on giant banners and prominently displayed at every Democratic meeting until we get the point and start acting differently.

Continue Reading…

Trying to disprove the old adage that there are no second acts in American life, former Vermont governor/presidential candidate Howard Dean is now apparently pursuing the chair of the Democratic National Committee, which, as I understand it, is essentially the core of the Democratic Party itself (somebody correct me if I’ve got that wrong). I was fairly dubious about the idea of Dean as President, but I think the idea of Dean as Chairman of the Party is pretty intriguing, especially after reading the transcript of a speech he delivered this afternoon at George Washington University. It’s a good speech, if you’re interested in such things, and a compelling vision of what the Democrats ought to be all about. (As it so happens, Governor Dean’s ideas about what the party needs to do correspond pretty heavily with my own. Make of that what you will.)

What really caught my eye, however, was a brief section in which Dean addresses the moral values issue I’ve been discussing here on Simple Tricks:

The pundits have said that this election was decided on the issue of moral values. I don’t believe that. It is a moral value to provide health care. It is a moral value to educate our young people. The sense of community that comes from full participation in our Democracy is a moral value. Honesty is a moral value.

 

If this election had been decided on moral values, Democrats would have won.

 

It is time for the Democratic Party to start framing the debate.

I don’t have anything more to add; I believe those ideas speak for themselves.

I’ve run across an interesting addendum to my previous entry, an article from the Washington Post called “The Anatomy of a Myth”. To view the article, you’ll need to register with the WaPo — which is free and painless — or you could try a generic login courtesy of bugmenot.com. If you’re at all interested in this “moral values” angle on the election, it’s well worth a look. The author, Dick Meyer, is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, and he provides an insider’s perspective into how this story evolved from a simple question into accepted fact, even though, in his opinion, it’s total bunk.

Continue Reading…

[Ed. Note: Hiya, kids! Sorry it’s taken so long to get the rest of my election analysis up for public consumption, but Real Life sometimes pulls even me away from the keyboard, and besides, it’s taken me a while to figure out exactly what I want to say about all this “moral values” stuff. If you missed Part I of this post or you just want to refresh your memory, click here. As always, I invite you to skip this one if you’re tired of reading about politics or don’t have time for a lengthy rant.]

[Ed. Note 2: the language in this post is a little rough in spots, so consider yourself warned.]

The post-election discussion has focused mainly on John Kerry’s loss, which makes sense since the presidential race always gets the most media attention. However, Democrats also lost seats in both houses of Congress this year as well as in many state governments. (From what I understand, we apparently did fairly well at the local, grass-roots level. Go figure.) While I personally believe there are a number of reasons for these defeats, the pundits and bloggers have been looking for a one-size-fits-all explanation. The one they seem to have fixed upon is exit-poll data which suggest that “moral values” were the deciding factor for a significant number of people.

Continue Reading…

I know the election is ancient history at this point, and that all the Democratic griping and navel-gazing has gotten tedious in the weeks since. Nevertheless, I have some things I want to say about the way things turned out, and given that blogs are essentially an exercise in self-absorption — uh, self-expression, I mean — I’m going to ask that you bear with me. Or don’t. I can’t make you stick around if you don’t feel like reading anymore on this subject. It’s not like I have a remote-controlled rifle pointed at you. If you’re absolutely sick of politics or don’t have time to read a long post, I invite you to come back in a day or two.

Continue Reading…

Neil Gaiman, a British comic book writer and novelist who lives in California and is generally a witty fellow, has an interesting idea on how to reform the whole political system:

I think that some country or other ought to try jury duty as a way of picking its politicians: if your name gets picked, and you can’t come up with a good enough excuse, you’ll have to give up four or five years of your life to helping run the country, which avoids the main problem of politics as I see it, which is that the kind of people you have to choose between and vote for are the kind of people who actually think that they ought to be running things.

What do you have to do to get people interested in seriously studying a proposal like this?

I see in this morning’s headlines that Attorney General John Ashcroft has resigned. Two thoughts occurred to me as I was reading about this development. First, if Mr. Bush is really as interested in “healing the country” as he said he was in his acceptance speech, he ought to consider nominating a Democrat for this position. I happen to know of a certain former trial lawyer and vice presidential candidate who isn’t doing much at the moment. And second, maybe now we can behave like grown-ups and uncover Lady Justice’s breasts…