Features
> November 5, 2004
The Liberal
Waterloo
(Or,
finally some good news from Washington!)
By
Slavoj Zizek
The first reaction of
progressives to Bush’s second victory was that of despair, even fear: The
last four years were not just a bad dream. The nightmarish coalition of big
business and fundamentalist populism will roll on, as Bush pursues his agenda
with new gusto, nominating conservative judges to the Supreme Court, invading
the next country after Iraq, and pushing liberalism in the United States one
step closer to extinction. However, this emotional reaction is precisely what
we should resist—it only bears witness to the extent liberals have succeeded
in imposing their worldview upon us. If we keep a cool head and calmly
analyze the results, the 2004 election appears in
a totally different light. Many Europeans wonder how Bush
could have won, with the intellectual and pop-cultural elite against him.
They must now finally confront the underrated
mobilizing power of American Christian fundamentalism. Because of its
self-evident imbecility, it is a much more paradoxical, properly postmodern
phenomenon than it appears. Take the literary bestsellers
of U.S. Christian fundamentalism, Tim F. LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins’s “Left
Behind” series of 12 novels on the upcoming end of the world that have sold
more than 60 million copies. The Left Behind story begins with the sudden,
inexplicable disappearance of millions of people—the saved souls whom God
calls to himself in order to spare them the horrors of Armageddon. The
Anti-Christ then appears, a young, slick and charismatic Romanian politician
named Nicolae Carpathia, who, after being elected general secretary of the
United Nations, moves U.N. headquarters to Babylon where he imposes an
anti-American world government that disarms all nation-states. This
ridiculous plot unfolds until the final battle when all non-Christians—Jews,
Muslims, et al—are consumed in a cataclysmic fire. Imagine the outcry in the
Western liberal media if a similar story written
from the Muslim standpoint had become a bestseller in the Arab countries! It
is not the poverty and primitivism of these novels that is breathtaking, but
rather the strange overlap between the “serious” religious message and the trashiest conventions of pop culture commercialism. My next reflection concerns the basic paradox of democracy as revealed in The
History of the VKP(b)—the Stalinist bible.
Stalin (who ghost-wrote the book) describes the vote at a party congress in
the late ’20s: “With a large majority, the delegates unanimously approved the
resolution proposed by the Central Committee.” If the vote was unanimous,
where then did the minority disappear? Far from betraying some perverse
“totalitarian” twist, this paradox is built into the very structure of
democracy. Democracy is based on a short-circuit between the majority and the
“All.” In it, the winner takes all and the majority counts as All, obtaining
all the power, even if this majority is merely a
couple hundred votes among millions. “Democracy” is not merely the
“power of, by and for the people.” It is not enough to claim that in a
democracy the majority’s will and interests (the two do not automatically
coincide) determine state decisions. Today, democracy is above all about
formal legalism—the unconditional adherence to a set of formal rules that
guarantee society’s antagonisms are fully absorbed into the political arena.
“Democracy” means that whatever electoral manipulation takes place all
politicians will unconditionally respect the results. In this sense, the 2000
U.S. presidential election was effectively “democratic”: In spite of obvious
electoral manipulations and the patent meaninglessness of the fact that
several hundred votes in Florida decided who would be president of the entire
nation, the Democratic candidate accepted his defeat. In the weeks of
uncertainty after the election, Bill Clinton made an appropriate acerbic
comment: “The American people have spoken; we just don’t know what they
said.” This comment should be taken more seriously than it was meant. To this
day, we still don’t know what they said—perhaps because there was no
“message” behind the result at all. Those old enough still
remember the boring attempts of “democratic socialists” to oppose the miserable
“really-existing socialism” by holding up the vision of authentic socialism.
To such attempts, the standard Hegelian answer provides the sufficient
response: The failure of reality to live up to its notion bears witness to
the inherent weakness of the notion itself. Why shouldn’t the same hold for
democracy? Isn’t it too simple to oppose the
“really-existing” liberal capitalist-democracy to
a more true radical democracy? This is not to imply that
Bush’s victory was an accidental mistake, a result of fraud or manipulation.
Hegel wrote apropos Napoleon that he had to lose two times: Only after Waterloo did it become clear to him that his defeat was
not a military accident but the expression of a deeper historical shift. The same goes for Bush: He had to win two times in order
for liberals to perceive that we are all entering a new era. On September 11, 2001, the
Twin Towers were hit. Twelve years earlier, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin
Wall fell. November 9 announced the “happy ‘90s,” the Francis Fukuyama dream
of the “end of history,” the belief that liberal
democracy had, in principle, won, and that the only obstacles to this
ultra-Hollywood happy ending were merely local pockets of resistance where
the leaders did not yet grasp that their time was over. In contrast, 9/11
symbolizes the end of the Clintonite happy ‘90s, heralding an era of new
walls—between Israel and the West Bank, around the European Union, on the U.S.-Mexico border. In their recent The War Over Iraq, William Kristol and
Lawrence F. Kaplan wrote, “The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end
there … We stand at the cusp of a new historical era … This is a decisive
moment … It is so clearly about more than Iraq. It is about more even than
the future of the Middle East and the war on terror. It is about what sort of
role the United States intends to play in the twenty-first century.” One
cannot but agree with them. It is effectively the future of the international
community that is at stake now—the new rules that will regulate it, what the new world order will be. A new vision of the New World
Order is thus emerging as the effective framework of recent U.S. politics:
After September 11, America basically wrote off the rest of the world as a
reliable partner. The ultimate goal was no longer the Fukuyama utopia of
expanding universal liberal democracy, but the
transformation of the United States into “Fortress America,” a lone
superpower isolated from the rest of the world, protecting its vital economic
interests and securing its safety through its new military power. This new
military not only includes forces for rapid deployment anywhere on the globe,
but also the development of space weapons that enable the Pentagon to control
the global surface from above. This strategy throws a new light on the recent
conflicts between the United States and Europe: It is not Europe that is
“betraying” the United States. The United States no longer needs to rely on
its exclusive partnership with Europe. In short, Bush’s America pretends to
be a new global empire but it is not. Rather, it remains a nation-state
ruthlessly pursuing its interests. It is as if U.S. politics is now being
guided by a weird reversal of the ecologists’
well-known motto: Act globally, think locally. Within these coordinates,
every progressive who thinks should be glad for Bush’s victory. It is
good for the entire world because the contours of the confrontations to come
will now be drawn in a much starker way. A Kerry victory would have been a
kind of historical anomaly, blurring the true lines of division. After all,
Kerry did not have a global vision that would present a feasible alternative
to Bush’s politics. Further, Bush’s victory is paradoxically better for both the European and Latin American economies: In order to
get trade union backing, Kerry promised to support protectionist measures. However, the main advantage
involves international politics. If Kerry had won, it would have forced
liberals to face the consequences of the Iraq war, allowing the Bush camp to
blame Democrats for the results of their own
catastrophic decisions. In her famous 1979 Commentary essay,
“Dictators and Double Standards,” Jeanne Kirkpatrick elaborated on the
distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes in order to
justify the U.S. policy of collaborating with Rightist dictators, while
actively subverting Communist regimes. Authoritarian dictators are pragmatic
rulers concerned with power and wealth and indifferent towards ideological
issues, even if they pay lip service to some big cause. In contrast,
totalitarian leaders are selfless, ideology driven fanatics who put
everything at stake for their ideals. So while one can deal with
authoritarian rulers who react rationally and predictably to material and
military threats, totalitarian leaders are more dangerous and must be
directly confronted. The irony is that this distinction encapsulates
perfectly what went wrong with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Saddam was a
corrupt authoritarian dictator striving for power and guided by brutal
pragmatic considerations (which led him to collaborate with the United States
throughout the ’80s). But in removing him, the U.S. intervention has led to the creation of a “fundamentalist” opposition that
precludes any pragmatic compromises. Bush’s victory will dispel the
illusions about the solidarity of interests among the developed Western
countries. It will give a new impetus to the painful but necessary process of
strengthening new alliances like the European Union or Mercosur in Latin
America. It is a journalistic cliché to praise the “postmodern” dynamic of
U.S. capitalism against the “old Europe” stuck in its regulatory Welfare
State illusions. However, in the domain of political organization, Europe is
now going much further than the United States has
toward constituting itself as an unprecedented, properly “post-modern,”
trans-state collective able to provide a place for anyone, independent of
geography or culture. No reason to despair, then.
The prospects may be dark today, but remember one of the great Bushisms: “The future will be better tomorrow.” permalink
email
to a friend printer
friendly subscribe Reader Comments I dont think that theory can be posible for several reasons. Bush
has no knowledge that is his own. So to call it Bushism doesn’t work. Roveism
maybe, Cheneyism maybe. But why don’t we just call it what it really is
Corperate greed, war profiteering, or by the name that was given it in the
early 1920s, Neo-Nazism. Thank You. Posted by Stephen Holbert on
November 5, 2004 at 9:37 AM Lets see. Christians who voted for Bush are imbeciles (um, maybe
they are anti-abortion?)? This nut thinks that we would be upset if Muslims had a “left
behind” like book published. Um, hate to break the news, but in the Muslim
world no freedom of speech exists, women have no rights, etc. Hell, if they
could spend their efforts writing dumb books instead of stoning people to
death (for such heineous crimes as adultry) i think we as a nation would be
fine with that! One really ought to examine the facts of the middle east. Why are
Iraqis killing other Iraqis? Is it because they are nationistic and feel
invaded (to some degree, yes). Is it because of meglomaniacs who blatently
want to grab as much power as they can (a resounding YES with al Sadr as the
poster boy). Should we have allowed the Iraqis to continue to suffer under
sanctions, while their “leader” lived in luxury? I dount this can be answered
either yes or no - it is just a choice that had to be made. Now if only a choice could be made about Darfar. Anyone in Europe
willing to help a few million people live another year or so? I did not think
so. Posted by sooo on November 5,
2004 at 9:41 AM The logic of ‘sooo’ is beautiful. Place a country under sanctions and
then invade that country because of the suffering it causes. Brilliant. Posted by what on November 5,
2004 at 10:20 AM What I don’t understand is why the people who voted solely on the
abortion issue don’t understand that electing Bush will not overturn Roe v.
Wade. He cannot eliminate abortion in this country. Voting for emotional
reasons is not going to give you the best candidate. It is a disservice to
your country. And now, because people voted on this irreconcilable issue, we are
stuck with a war-mongering, amoral, anti-American Values man who thumps on
his bible and wraps himself in our flag while pissing on our Constitution.
Elected by people who seek to pervert our American Values by repeating the
lie that the founders wanted a Christian nation. They wanted a FREE nation
and were well aware that the clergy always had and always would try to
subvert democracy to its will and causes. “What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments
had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones
of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of
the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty
have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted
to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.” - James Madison Posted by
ConstitutionIsMyBible on November 5, 2004 at 10:31 AM http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041122&s=editors
The Nation posts a tough statement about fighting for what we
believe. In These Times posts a driveling article (and yes Slavoj, we can all
see that you can use a thesaurus) that somehow claims Bush winning is “good”
for liberals? Note to the editors: get a freaking clue. And then get a spine. Posted by Tomak on November 5,
2004 at 10:39 AM In the spirit of this article, I think everyone needs to take a deep
breath and relax. The emergence of one-party governance in a (more-or-less)
evenly divided state is a powder-keg just itching for that inevitable spark.
As soon as Republicans/Christian wackos/etc. do something that truly reflects
the expansive power they’ve steadily accumulated over ther past 40 years,
this will all come to a head. Banning abortion is the perfect example… almost comically overt and
galling, it would force even those raised on the most brain-rotting elements
of American pop culture to realize what they have handed over to the
messianic psychos of the right. I don’t know what happens next, propbably
some sort of uber-jihad… Posted by dirtylogic on
November 5, 2004 at 10:47 AM We are all going to die. Posted by Ryan Conover on
November 5, 2004 at 10:52 AM Yes, Ryan, we will all eventually die. And while we yet live, we choose liberty, tolerance, pluralism and
secular government. It’s our legacy as promised by our Founding Fathers. We
have only to claim it. This isn’t a culture war. It’s a political war, a fight to preserve
our Constitutional freedoms. They want to rewrite American Values into
something religious. They are the antithesis of Patriots and Bush is The
Anti-Patriot. Posted by
ConstitutionIsMyBible on November 5, 2004 at 11:11 AM Couldn’t agree with Dirtylogic more, if nothing else we can look
forward to 1)Tom Delay will either have to resign or be indicted, or beaten in
an election or something for his illegal redistricting, and bribery dealing a
serious blow to republican leadership Things will get better from here Posted by Matt on November 5,
2004 at 11:14 AM The “one party” government will be unwound before it even gets
started, when the mid-terms are held. It will be back to split government once again, and due to the usual
suspects who will now regret casting their votes based on the “war” instead
of their own self-interest. Those suspects are SENIORS. It took only ONE DAY for George Bush to once again overlook the
polls, and step right on the political “third rail”. All the polls after the debates showed that any mention of
“privatization” of Social Security was a loser. Whether you agree or disagree with this Administration’s approach is
IRRELEVANT. This issue has fried better politicians than this cast of inept
characters. Posted by Liberal but Proud on
November 5, 2004 at 11:26 AM No reason to just wait around! You guys should all just come up here
to Canada and groove on decriminalized weed, get gay-married and avail
yourself of free, universal healthcare until things blow up back in
jesusland. We need more pithy yanks around here, so long as they’re the type
who oppose crusading, yahoo militarism. Posted by dirtylogic on
November 5, 2004 at 11:33 AM A Canadian freind with weed, is a freind indeed. Groove on
dirtylogic. The moral majority is stunned. Posted by woodpile on November
5, 2004 at 12:58 PM I hope the Democrats don’t trip over themselves rushing to prove
themselves chameleons with no convictions. The Democrats do not and should
not pander to evangelicals. That’s precisely what the Republicans want them
to do! Instead, what they need to do a better job of is to DEFINE values -
true American Values as espoused by the Founding Fathers. The neocons deride
those values - turn the camera on that! Make the connection that their
‘values’ are precisely what our Founding Fathers warned future generations
against and what they worked so hard to protect us against. Show their ‘values’
to be deficient American Values. Make the connection that the neocons are
waging the same war against our American Values as are the extremist muslims.
The Neocon Society = sharia law with the bible substituting for the koran. Control the message! Define American Values in ways that the average
American can relate to and embrace. Right now the neocons are getting away
with hijacking and perverting our American Values. Posted by
ConstitutionIsMyBible on November 5, 2004 at 1:54 PM Just sing the post-election blues song: ARMAGEDDON HARRIED IN THE
MOURNING. Posted by Phil Klein on
November 5, 2004 at 1:58 PM I coudln’t impose on you, Canada. And, besides, the economic
sanctions bush has placed against the lower class prevents me from even
having enough money to move there--though I wish I could. People get hungry enough, have too many friends or relatives killed
overseas, pay $3 for gas, see their living wage deteriorate, their very
lifestyle reduced to poverty, the revolution will begin. I’m all for tarring an feathering that piece of shit who calls
himself president. Posted by Neil on November 5,
2004 at 2:05 PM I love all this talk about dissent. It is extremely
healthy. The chatter needs to increase and be spread to the mainstream
sheeople. The progressive movement could be so strong if only there was
a unifying mission statement. Someone has got to come up with something
KarlRovian to grab hold. A quick sound byte or quip that reaches to the
heart of rational thought. Allright, rational thought may be just too
much to ask. Keep fighting the good fight. Posted by BluemaninaRedstate
on November 5, 2004 at 2:27 PM I can see some logic to your argument, but it’s risky to think that
way. Unwise folks said the same thing about Hitler in 1933. It did makes
lines clear, but also caused quite a lot of terminations with extreme
prejudice. To the guy inviting us to Canada: I’m ready!! Find me a teaching
job and I’ll get ready to go. I’m fed up with the ignorant, mean-spirited
majority and would love to move North. This election was the last straw. Posted by Mim Jackson on
November 5, 2004 at 2:28 PM ConstitutionIsMyBible - you know, abortion is not really a
constitutional right. Maybe you (or anyone here) can find it in either the
constitution or the amendments; if so, feel free to post it. Now GWB is going to appoint some Supremes, maybe as many as 4. You
have to figure abortion might not be around for our children and
grandchildre. What a bummer. So much for poor thinking by the evangelicals! (Aside: i presonally think abortion is wrong. I also think that
restricting it can lead to bad outcomes. Let’s just say i have no axe to
grind in this arena. But the Christians who very deeply hold it is murder
really had no choice but to vote for GWB. Obviously.) Posted by sooo on November 5,
2004 at 2:31 PM “what” is confused by our recent history. Why would the big bad US
first sanction (the UN actually) Iraq and than attack it? For no reason at
all? Or was it that that country, led by a murderous madman (you have to love
a guy who *literally* shreds his opposition!), was invading other countries
(hence the sanctions) and not cooperating with the UN inspectors? Not to
mention building palaces while his people suffered horribly! In a way, you
have to see the humor in it all. Saddam fooled *everyone*! (But note that he was trying valiantly to maintain his ability to
develop weapons, and had scientists test poisons for tastelessness and sprays
for lethality. He was not a safe member of the global community and we should
all rejoice he is finally gone!) Posted by sooo on November 5,
2004 at 2:37 PM sooo - you know, I didn’t post that abortion is a constitutional
right. Maybe you (or anyone here) can find where I stated it was; if so, feel
free to post it. I apologize for the sarcasm, but I loathe distorted inferences.
Maybe you didn’t intend to infer that I made an assertion I didn’t make, but
that’s how I read your post. Again, the people who are opposed to abortion cast their vote for a
man who can do nothing to deny women the right to make that choice.
Obviously, that point was lost on them. When Rehnquist goes, Bush’s appointment will be a wash since
Rehnquist is a conservative. No net gain there. The other Justices, I am
confident, will hang in there until this great national crisis known as the
Bush Presidency is over. God save the Justices! Posted by
ConstitutionIsMyBible on November 5, 2004 at 2:40 PM I am looking forward to 2008, just so the crazies will stop
comparing Bush to Hitler. Of course, if their guy loses again, i suppose the
winner will be the next “Hitler”. Maybe the Canuuk is right. You guys need to smoke more weed (or
maybe you have smoked waaaay tooooo much already!!!). Posted by goodNews on November
5, 2004 at 2:42 PM “Again, the people who are opposed to abortion cast their vote for a
man who can do nothing to deny women the right to make that choice.
Obviously, that point was lost on them.” Maybe, maybe not. But there is a significant chance that GWB will
appoint more than one Supreme. And if you are anti-abortion, and it was you
only issue, who would you want to make the choice - Kerry or Bush? I rest my
case. (BTW - thanks for being so civil. I appreciate it. I also hope
for the health of the Supremes, but just out of general principles.) Posted by sooo on November 5,
2004 at 2:47 PM One thing seems clear, the liberals will not learn from this. The
christian right is strong and very focued on there agenda> because they
don’t accept abortion there numbers are also growing. Get used to the
result. Maybe move to Europe! Posted by Shauna Mitchelle on
November 5, 2004 at 2:48 PM This article and most of the replies are a prime example of the
elitism and narrow-mindedness the far left. Bush won the first popular
vote majority since Reagan, both Houses of Congress increased their majority,
but the left still refuses to accept the possibility that voters may have had
valid reasons for rejecting the Democrats’ program. Instead you
liberals insist that only Christian fundamentalists could be misguided (or
hateful) enough to vote for Bush, lumping all his supporters in with the Left
Behind kooks. Posted by Randolph on November
5, 2004 at 2:52 PM Randolph makes an excellent point. Really. You all would do very
well to listen. Posted by veryAsture on
November 5, 2004 at 3:26 PM Dear Randolph, Sooooo and the rest of you right-wing conservative
fundamentalist know-nothings. Please bend over and grab your ankles quickly now, because YOU are
also going to be well and truly hoisted on your own petards by your
constipated little world view. I just resent your dragging the United States down into hell with
you. Feh Posted by Mary,Mother of God
on November 5, 2004 at 3:33 PM You’re right, Randolph, it IS simplistic to lump all Bush fans in
with the Christian crackpot crowd. Let’s all acknowledge the wide rainbow of
supporters for Bush/Cheney 2004! - Those courageous souls fighting for the perpetuation of white
privilege and safety from “those people” (whoever they might be); - Captains of industry, who protect us from the crazy socialists
spreading vicious lies about cigarettes and oil spills; - The wealthy, both Old Money AND nouveau riche; - And let’s not forget Alabama! Didn’t they just vote down a tax
increase (from the lowest levels in the country!) in favour of forcing
schools to move to 4-day weeks? Truly, this Bush is a man of ALL the people! Posted by dirtylogic on
November 5, 2004 at 3:39 PM dirtylogic - your facts are all about the same fidelity. And no, AL
did not vote down a tax increase and no the schools remain on a 5 day week. (I might add that in a very close vote, Amendment 2 is still be
decided. Undoubtedly this is what you are “thinking” of. It contains two
separate things. 1) it would remove some racist language from the AL
constitution. 2) It may (or may not) affect whether students in AL have a
*right* to public education. This latter clause was the controversial one
(and the one you were apparently refering to). I voted for it, personally.) Posted by alabama on November
5, 2004 at 3:54 PM Not that it matters to you who love to stereotype, but i am not a
right-wing conservative fundamentalist know-nothing. I am: 1) well traveled (both domestic and abroad) That said, i am almost positive that this will not affect anyone’s
preconceptions here. Sigh. Posted by sooo on November 5,
2004 at 4:00 PM Why is it that so many of the respondents in these matters suffer
from grammar and spelling deficiencies? Are we really suffering a dyslexia
pandemic? American education continues to falter. Bad grammar and bad
spelling are highly correlated with bad thinking. Posted by wildebeest on
November 5, 2004 at 4:09 PM Right on, wildebeest! While sooo may like dropping educational
credentials, his admonitions over “Darfar” and “such heineous crimes as
adultry” don’t exactly improve this humble hoser’s view of US education. Oh, and apologies to Alabama. It’s nothing as bad as drastically
underfunding schools-- they’re only bringing into question the right of
students to public education! Heck, I may just move down there now. Posted by dirtylogic on
November 5, 2004 at 4:28 PM You are mistaken if you think prayers do not work. It is common
misconception, however. They clearly do work, in a variety of ways. For those
who believe in only the physical world, they have the following attributes:
a) they provide a means for expressing concern for others; b) they serve as a
type of meditation for oneself or groups; c) they provide a template for
teaching children what values to hold. For those who believe in a spiritual
world, they are even more. But this latter concept is deeply personal, and
really a matter of faith. (As far as religious thugs beating one into
submission, i think you must be thinking of Islam. See Saudi Arabia or
Taliban.) And yes, those of us who type fast and make typos are indeed less
than perfect. Sure we could spell check to catch these things, but frankly i
doubt it is worth the time and effort. Either the ideas come across or not -
spelling really does not matter for conceptual matters. Just my $0.02. Posted by yepThatsIt on
November 5, 2004 at 4:37 PM dirtylogic - so you freely spout incorrect facts & rumours and
make no bones about it? Hey, for that matter, does *your* state constitution
guarantee a right to public education? Or have you ever even read it? For
that matter, can you guess why this measure was controversial? If you wanted
to learn something, i would be willing to tell you, but in your case, you
would have to ask, nicely. But my bet is that you have already concocted a
story and have no need for the facts (damn, this board is making me
cynical!). One point that i will concede (since i do like accuracy!). Alabama
does have the longest and worst constitution (maybe the oldest, i don’t know,
but it dates back to ~1905). I signed a petition to have a new one drawn up
while i was at the polls. Posted by alabama on November
5, 2004 at 4:46 PM All right, yepThatsIt, I’ll concede point a), and maybe even b),
although I have doubts concerning the actual efficacy of some of those loopy
“power of meditation” ideas. No insult intended to the well-meaning (if, in
my opinion, misguided) theists out there who refrain from gunslinging
dogmatism. But no dice on the spelling/grammar issue! I can’t wait to trot out
that “spelling really does not matter for conceptual matters” line with my
dissertation committee! Posted by dirtylogic on
November 5, 2004 at 4:55 PM “dirtylogic - so you freely spout incorrect facts & rumours and
make no bones about it?” alabama, your problem seems to be with something I picked up from
YOUR post. Remember? That Alabama amendment might “affect whether students in
AL have a *right* to public education.” I’m actually Canadian, so I don’t have a state constitution per se,
but our Charter of Rights and Freedoms does indeed guarantee a right to
education. In fact, it goes further: “Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving
primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have
the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school
instruction in the same language.” Posted by dirtylogic on
November 5, 2004 at 5:06 PM Mary, Mother of God and Dirtylogic: Thanks for proving my point. Your contempt for anyone who
disagrees with you is plain as day. I love hearing this kind of stuff
from liberals who congratulate themselves for being tolerant in the same
breath. Mary, Mother of God accuses me of having “constipated little
world view” but betrays his own when he calls me “right-wing conservative
fundamentalist know-nothing” based entirely on the fact that I may have voted
for Bush. Which I did. This kind of small-mindedness and
intolerance is what keeps people like the two of you from learning
anything. You can’t even have a civilized argument. Posted by Randolph on November
5, 2004 at 5:16 PM Dirtylogic, for you to accuse anybody of “gunslinging dogmatism” is
the height of hypocrisy. Posted by Randolph on November
5, 2004 at 5:20 PM Oh Randolph, I don’t simple-mindedly loathe everyone with whom I
disagree. What sounds to you like hypocritical closed-mindedness on my part
is just a natural response to people who say, “I’m for Bush!” but fail to
provide ANY reasons for doing so beyond the crazy logic you yourself rightly
attribute to “Christian fundamentalists… [and] Left Behind kooks.” OK, you’ve stated that you and your ilk had good reasons for voting
for Bush. What are they? You want more civilized debate, give me some points
to argue! Posted by dirtylogic on
November 5, 2004 at 5:32 PM Dirtylogic, I’m not going to lay my whole case out for you because
your earlier posts make it clear that you’re not big on the exchange of
ideas. But here’s the main reason: national security. We got hit
with one terrorist attack after another under Clinton because he treated it
as a law enforcement problem. Hindsight being what it is, Bush changed
all that after 9/11. Now Al Qaeda’s been gutted, the Taliban is gone,
and we haven’t been attacked on U.S. ground since 9/11. I believe
(based on his words and twenty-year Senate record) that John Kerry would have
reverted to letting law enforcement deal with terrorists, which didn’t work
under Clinton. I could cite plenty of reasons for my choice but I don’t
have time to explain myself to an elitist Canadian masquerading as an expert
on another country’s politics. Posted by Randolph on November
5, 2004 at 6:15 PM How is Bush helping to protect us from terrorism by shipping off our
National Guardsmen without proper equipment and inspiring the hate of the
rest of the world? To me, young and immature non-voting child that I am, that seems to
be working towards the opposite. Posted by De on November 5,
2004 at 6:29 |
