The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. ...my relatives [who voted for Bush] are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)
Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states. slate
That's the way to win the election the next time around, call everyone who voted for your opponent idiotic, ignorant, and bloody savages. The red states are murderers who are willfully ignorant. I must say this is offensive, but not very surprising. It's also a little gratifying to know that your hunch is right--the left, or at least those represented by Jane Smiley, have fully closed their minds to reality--confirming the death of liberalism.
The red forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on a Sunday morning and slaughtered them in front of their wives and children. The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. slate
Yes, we Red folks are a bloodthirsty lot. Ready to kill Democrats at a moments notice. What I find most disturbing about this period of 'self-examination' by the left is that they are not doing any self-examination. It's all about what's wrong with the right and all those who were persuaded to vote for them. I find this disturbing because it speaks of a deeply seated arrogance that cannot even question, for even a moment, whether or not their prejudices are actually factual.
They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they want to? The Republicans have sold their souls for power. Must everyone? slate
I find it amusing that in 2000 the Democrats claimed George Bush was an 'illegitimate President' and therefore had to govern as if Gore had won. Now that Bush is apparently 'legitimately' elected, he doesn't have 'a mandate' and so should govern this deeply divided nation by not enacting any conservative agenda. Somehow I think that if Kerry had won by the same margin it would have been considered a mandate and the left woud not be talking about moderation and healing the divide.
Could it be that the real reason we will not see any bipartisan coming together, bridging the divide, or healing the division is that when democrats call for such they mean that Republicans must compromise? I suspect that Democrats never think supporting some actual cuts in spending programs might go a long way toward creating a bipartisan atmosphere rather than putting out press releases about Republicans starving children and killing seniors for suggesting smaller increases.
In the end I think Paul Krugman outlined what the actual Democratic strategy will be: increase the partisanship and increase the opposition. Judging by Jane and Paul, I don't think it will take too long before we are back to Bush is a Nazi.
President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is.
...thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.
...But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated... by their opposition to abortion and gay rights ....All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.
...Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.
In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won.
What they need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year.
Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will. nytimes
From my perspective George Bush has already allowed the spending to continue on autopilot for far too long. Let's not forget that budget increases are programmed into every years budget automagically so that any proposed reduction in the increase can be fought as a cut.
I don't have any hope that there will be any bipartisanship in our near future. Democrats are too bitter and too wrapped up in their own 'fantasy world of spin' to be able to bend on any issue that matters to them-- that is to say, every issue matters to them equally, so that no matter what the Republicans plan to do it will be fought as any ignorant Red State desire to kill and destroy should be fought.