We liberals embrace – and, indeed, thrive on – uncertainty. We see both sides of every issue, and balk at making grandoise statements or adhering single-mindedly to a goal. We’re freethinkers; it goes down to our brain chemistry, even. It’s our greatest strength; it’s why we fight for the little guy, lead civil rights movements, and refuse to cave to scare tactics that threaten our civil liberties.
DNC Hall, top; RNC Hall, bottom.
Unfortunately, this intellectual freedom is also our greatest weakness. When push comes to shove, it’s hard for us to fall into line and defend our beliefs. Modern politics requires discipline – there’s immense power in staying on message ((McCain’s Rove-trained campaign adviser, Steve Schmidt, has been able to cure McCain’s personal troubles staying “on message,” with Obama’s eroding lead as the direct result.)) – but instead of sticking together, and putting the ties that bind above niche issues, our tendency is to fume about what makes us different, and separate. We break more for third parties. We let resentment linger from the primaries. We shudder when our party, the Democrats, embraces religion.
But this election, for the sake of our common beliefs, we can’t let our differences get in the way. We have to stick together. Barack Obama may not be perfect, but he’s our last best hope.
Now more than ever, it’s time for us to put aside our differences, rally together, and – yes – fall into line. While I got in trouble for suggesting that at “Pharyngula,” it’s not arrogance, but an understanding of the way democracy works in America that reminds me that, in politics, you can’t always get what you want. Politics necessitates coalition building, and it requires us to compromise. That’s not a reason to break for third parties; if anything, it’s a reason to push for electoral reform (multimember districts) or a complete reworking of the constitutional system (Westminster system, here we come!) to give niche parties a voice. But until that happens, we need to accept that our only hope is to stick together, and stick with the mainstream party that best represents our interests. The Democrats.
A McCain presidency would be bad. Very bad. While we can ponder about the societal fallout, there’s no question that a McCain victory would be the end of many things – Roe, the nascent legal gay rights movement, the progressive Supreme Court, any hope of peace in Iraq – and could signal the utter defeat of liberalism as a powerful voice in America. McCain would be a setup for Pawlenty would be a setup for Palin… and America won’t survive that long under Republican rule. We can’t let McCain have this victory. An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the age of Democrats comes crashing down -
- but it is not this day. Unless we allow it to be. Unity may not be in our blood, but for the sake of our future ability to pursue our independently meaningful issues, we must form our own Last Alliance.
You know… as much as I’m opposed to a McCain presidency, it takes (no offense) a lack of perspective to think that he would lead to the demise of America, even if he was followed by one or even two more successors just like him.
Bush Sr. had a 90%+ approval rating once. Carl Rove was talking, without humor, about the “permanent majority” Republicans would enjoy in Congress. How many years ago were Republican Senators threatening to ban the filibuster, as if they’d never need it again? 2?
I’m for Obama now, but let’s not go crazy.
~ John
Posted by John | August 22, 2008, 7:26 pmI just read the 59 comments before yours and I think what PZ was responding to was the mass amounts of people saying he was anti-masturbation. Just my observation…
Great blog, BTW. It’s a must-read and a must-share. Thanks for the great insight.
Posted by Catherine | August 22, 2008, 8:17 pmi suspect you know my position on this matter … i’ve become such a harpy regarding the pumas that i think i am starting to sound like them …
i don’t think you are going crazy for obama, ames. i caution, too, against john’s seeming belief in a slam-dunk.
the democrats need to take a lesson from the republicans … a united front … one necessarily built on compromise … is critical.
if democrats lose this election because of infighting, then we are as stupid and as effete as the rovian-limbaughesque neocons have always said we were.
and didionville will be moving to canada. (europe, if the dollar strengthens, but don’t hold your breath for that with a mccain presidency.)
Posted by didionsmommy | August 22, 2008, 9:17 pmp.s. … i didn’t watch the video … but just looking at the photos of the stages …
is the rnc planning to reincarnate george c. scott, or is the dnc simply less fascist?
just a little levity …
Posted by didionsmommy | August 22, 2008, 9:57 pm…there’s no question that a McCain victory would be the end of many things – Roe, the nascent legal gay rights movement, the progressive Supreme Court, any hope of peace in Iraq – and could signal the utter defeat of liberalism as a powerful voice in America.
Ames, please don’t take this as condescending, but I think in this instance you’re letting your age show a bit. Or maybe it’s just a bit of the chicken little syndrome that liberals are prone to from time to time. But I have to ask, if none of those things you mentioned happened under Bush, who was far more passionate about opposing gay rights or ending abortion, and was supposedly controlled by the ruthless cabal of Cheney & Rumsfeld….what on earth makes you think it will come to pass under McCain?
I have to second John’s comments when he mentions a ‘lack of perspective’. Again, maybe it’s just your age, because we all know it’s not your intelligence. Far worse things have loomed on the horizon for America and we’ve weathered them all.
I respect your call for unity in the face of a republican machine that has always been at its best every four years, but you’re better than the predictions of doom if McCain is elected.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 22, 2008, 11:32 pmif democrats lose this election because of infighting, then we are as stupid and as effete as the rovian-limbaughesque neocons have always said we were.
and didionville will be moving to canada. (europe, if the dollar strengthens, but don’t hold your breath for that with a mccain presidency.)
Seriously? I always wonder why liberals threaten that. I don’t actually know any that have done it, but i don’t really get the premise.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 23, 2008, 12:47 amThanks so much Catherine!!!
And thanks PC for the half-compliment :). It may be a lack of perspective – America would survive – but with due respect, too, McCain would be ablet o do a lot that Bush only lusted after, and the thing that makes it different is, again, SURPRISE, the Supreme Court. Imagine Bush, but with a Court willing to rubber-stamp expansions of executive power & suppressions: gay rights is “stalled” without a listening SCOTUS (4/9 are openly hostile, and Kennedy won’t move farther than he already has); Roe is gone, and all legal scholars agree, if McCain wins; and I don’t trust McCain to keep his nose out of wars. It’s not spin to say that his temper is a little on the short side. Ick. It certainly wouldn’t be Sauron-with-a-Ring, but it’d be – at best – moving only SLIGHTLY backwards.
Posted by Ames | August 23, 2008, 1:48 amOh, and I don’t think anyone will move to Canada, but Natalie of this site fame may not come back from Italy.
Posted by Ames | August 23, 2008, 1:50 ampc … ames might be passionate in predicting blunt-force trauma at the hands of a mega-conservative supreme court … but don’t imply republicans aren’t hyperventilating at the thought of packing the court even more than it already is …
there are many, many more decisions the court makes … for instance, regarding corporate/employer rights that might not have the in-your-face effect of an abortion-rights case, but that — over time and when added up — can amount to a similarly nefarious trampling on individual rights.
the canada thing is a little joke … perhaps too little … though, i would think progressive conservatives like you would be more than happy to show air-headed, emotional liberals (like me) the door.
Posted by didionsmommy | August 23, 2008, 6:58 amMy first initial reaction is to think it would be overreacting. But also I never in my life thought we’d be in a position to be debating torture, secret prisons, and wiretapping either. If Republicans hadn’t validated my fears on a number of issues, I would think Ames arguments wouldn’t be possible either. I wouldn’t think the things that have happened, would ever be allowed to happen, but alas.
And to keep it fair, the chicken liberal syndrom isn’t a liberal thing…i mean listen to the Obama attacks. Or gay marriage arguments.
Posted by Oneiroi | August 23, 2008, 10:41 am…though, i would think progressive conservatives like you would be more than happy to show air-headed, emotional liberals (like me) the door.
That comment makes me sad.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 23, 2008, 1:02 pmfor heaven’s sake! (and you know it’s serious if i’m invoking heaven.)
i think i have the un-comedy flu … my jokes have been dying all day over here, too (my poor husband) … can you hear the crickets chirping?
Posted by didionsmommy | August 23, 2008, 4:57 pmI’m glad you were joking. I’d hate to lose you before we get a chance to have mint juleps together at Churchill Downs.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 23, 2008, 5:32 pmIf Republicans hadn’t validated my fears on a number of issues
oh, oneiroi, so true … so god-blessedly true …
***
pc, i’m all for mint juleps … maybe after three or four of them, i’d be able to tolerate your pro-life arguments …
(again, A JOKE!)
Posted by didionsmommy | August 24, 2008, 1:09 am