I've had other things in the works for a while now, but some commentary on the election results seems only appropriate. Today, I want to talk about how we should respond to the results of an election, and contrast that to the responses that we have seen. To this end, I think nothing could be more appropriate than to share with you the reaction I was prepared to post had Kerry won.
So let's assume that Kerry had won. Let's assume that the provisional ballots were counted, and by some miracle of God, Kerry won the 82% to 100% of them that he would have needed to win the state. And that, having won Ohio's votes, John Kerry had won the election and been named the next President of the United States.
If Kerry had won, I would support his presidency. Seriously, I would. I would be sad, no doubt. And I would definitely think that America had made a made bad choice. Nonetheless, had Kerry won, I, as an American and a believer in American democracy, would support his presidency. End of story. It wouldn't be a happy day for me, but as an American I submit my own will to the will of the whole, as determined by democratic elections. Because it's not a government of Josh, for Josh, by Josh. Any other reaction undermines democracy. If Kerry were democratically elected, failure to support his presidency would be un-American.
But there's another reason for which I would support Kerry's presidency, had he been democratically elected. I believe that America deserves whichever president it elects. Let me be clear: I think that John Kerry would have been very bad for America; conversely, I think that George W. Bush is very good for America, and I firmly believe that in time, history will agree with me. But if America had elected Kerry, they would have deserved him. How can I wish ill on America? It's simple. If liberals are so convinced that John Kerry is best for America, then they deserve the harm they invite on themselves. But what about Bush supporters? Do they deserve to suffer under Kerry? If he gets elected, then that's exactly what they deserve. If conservatives had failed to get out in number and actively re-elect George W. Bush, then they could have blamed no one but themselves for allowing Kerry to win the White House. As such, they, too, would have deserved four years of John Kerry. So whichever president is elected, both those who turned out to vote for him, and those who failed to turn out to vote for his opponent, are responsible for the result. As such, everyone involved deserves what they get. That's the beauty of American democracy: America deserves whoever it elects, across the board and without exception.
In light of all this, how could I not support John Kerry's presidency, had he been elected? How could I ascribe to the process of democracy but not support the result? I could not, for the two are incompatible. Anyone who ascribes to the democratic process must support the result; and anyone who refuses to support the result of democratic elections does not truly ascribe to the democratic process. And how can I be upset? America will always get what it deserves, and how could I object to that? It is only fair.
Now, let's look a little at the varying reactions on either side of the political argument. In Eugene, liberals protested the results of the election. I still see bumper stickers and t-shirts that read "Not MY President," or some variation thereon. The liberal media actually dared to attack the popular and electoral majorities that re-elected George W. Bush to the presidency, calling them stupid in every way they could think of, simply because we, the people, don't agree with them, the elite liberal media. How arrogant! Essentially, they're saying, "I'm intelligent, and because you don't agree with me, you're all stupid idiots!" How completely arrogant. But beyond that, this reaction shows their true colors. It reveals a mindset of intimidation, intolerance, and bigotry. This attitude with which they viciously attack every opinion that does not agree with their own reminds me of many things, and none of them are good. It reminds me of a dictatorship, where even a rumor of voiced opposition to the ruling authority is enough to get a person thrown in prison, tortured, or even killed. It reminds me of the deep South of generations past, where whites oppressed blacks by means of fear, intimidation, and physical violence. True, liberals aren't imprisoning conservatives, the way Napoleon did to anyone suspected of supporting Louis XVI. Nor are they burning and hanging conservatives, the way the KKK did blacks in the South. But the mindset is not all that different. An attitude that rejects the democratically expressed opinion of the majority and attacks those who think differently than they do is simply a more civilized version of the same intolerant, arrogant, and supremacist mindset.
Let's look at what would have happened in the event of a Kerry victory, as compared to what has happened with the Bush victory. There can be no doubt that, had Kerry won, I, as a republican, would never have heard the end of it. Since the elections, I often feel like liberals are cringing as I approach. The reason for this is simple: they think I'm going to rub it in, because that's what they would do to me if Kerry had won. But I haven't talked about the election to a single Kerry supporter who hasn't first brought it up with me. It's simple Golden Rule stuff. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. I know how I would feel if Kerry had won, and I know how much I would appreciate some liberal rubbing my nose in it. So I don't do it to them, because I wouldn't want them to do it to me. And maybe if such a concept ever crossed their minds, even once, they'd think twice before screaming in my face, virtually climbing on my car as they protest in the streets, sending obscenities and obscene gestures my way, and vandalizing my property. But they don't ever think of how they would like it if someone did the same to them.
Now, some would argue that there are extremes on both sides. And they would be right. And in all fairness, extremists on either side should just be discounted and not even considered, because it's not fair to the vast majority to judge them by the very few extremists that so often characterize the group they identify with. But general characterizations can also be made of both sides, even excluding the extremes. When was the last time you saw a group of republicans out protesting on the streets, screaming at passing cars, getting as up close and in your face as they can at stop signs and street lights? I can't remember the last time I saw such a thing. I have rarely even heard of republicans protesting or picketing at all, but even in those very rare instances, it is peaceful, passive protest. It's holding up signs in the background, not yelling and screaming and getting in people's faces. When was the last time you heard of conservatives stealing and vandalizing liberals' yard signs? But I personally know of several people to whom this has happened several times, and it has happened to our family several times, and there have been constant reports of these things throughout this election season. I have never mocked, ridiculed, or verbally attacked someone who was minding their own business just because they wore a Kerry/Edwards sticker; nor have any of my republican friends; nor have I ever seen a republican do such a thing to a liberal. But it happens several times a week to me. If these people are the very small minority extremists, then they sure are busy. But they're not the extremists, they're not the vast minority. They're all over the place, and it happens way to often to be a small but vocal minority. And that is my problem with liberalism; it all too often comes coupled with a mindset that completely betrays the American, democratic spirit.
Let me end with a question for the liberals among you. (Do any liberals read my blog? I do realize I'm quite conservative and often speak out very strongly against liberals, so I wouldn't be surprised if none of them ever wanted to come back to this page.) Here it is:
If John Kerry had won Ohio, would you support his presidency? If he had made a comeback in Ohio and won the state, and therefore the elections, would you support his presidency?
It's an important question, and here's why: George W. Bush won the popular vote by three and a half million votes. Had Kerry won Ohio, he still would have lost the popular vote by anything between 3,250,000 to 3,400,000 votes. Yet, he would have won in the electoral college. And I guarantee you that democrats would have supported Kerry's presidency. Guaranteed. With victory in Ohio, Kerry supporters would be dancing in the streets, celebrating victory, rejoicing over the election of their candidate. And you know what? Had he won Ohio, I would have supported his presidency, too. Absolutely and unequivocally. But if you protested Bush's election despite losing the popular vote in 2000, you ought to take a good, hard look at yourself. And ask yourself if you would be willing to protest a Kerry electoral victory if he lost the popular vote. Because if you would have supported Kerry nonetheless, then you're guilty of partisan hypocrisy. If you have a "Not MY President" bumper sticker or t-shirt, this is you.