Faith in America
Faith in America
Updated 10:06pm (Mla time) Jan 18, 2005
By Michael Tan
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A13 of the January 19, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
PEOPLE have asked why I didn't write a column mourning the reelection of George W. Bush last November. Surprisingly, most of the ones who asked were Americans, some of whom joked that they wanted to migrate and stay permanently in the Philippines rather than live in an America governed by Bush.
Of course, the American friends I have tend to be liberals, mostly serious Democrats who campaigned actively for John Kerry. Throughout the campaign period, their e-mails to me reflected the roller coaster of emotions they were going through, at times feeling it was a losing battle and at other times hopeful optimism that they could get Bush out of the White House. As the campaign came to an end, the public opinion polls showed it was a neck-and-neck battle, so there were still hopes that Kerry would win. He lost, and on Jan. 20, we usher in another four years of Bush, with all kinds of doomsday predictions of more problems for America and the world.
Moral values
With Kerry's defeat, my friends didn't just express sadness but, more often, shame and embarrassment. They knew that throughout the world--in Europe, in Latin America, in Muslim countries--Bush was immensely unpopular, and that his victory reflects badly on the Americans. As one friend put it, "There's only one word to describe it all: stupidity."
Call me naive but I actually have more faith in America and Americans. Let me explain by focusing on the most often-cited reason why Bush won. When my American friend uttered the remark about "stupidity," she had a copy of the Inquirer with her. She pointed to the front-page headline, something about "moral values" sweeping Bush to victory. It was actually a reference to exit polls showing that 22 percent of American voters identified "moral values" as the issue that mattered most in their choice for president. Her frustration came from the widespread interpretation that Americans had reelected Bush mainly because of his conservatism, specifically, his opposition to gay marriages, to stem cell research (the use of embryonic cells to produce new treatments for certain diseases) and to abortion.
I'd be more cautious about the labels attached to American voters. I've never liked the term "moral values" because it can be so ambiguous. Even when you name specific moral values, you'll find that a person's position may not always be that clear either.
For example, the same exit polls showing American concern with "moral values" also came out with a startling statistic: 6 out of 10 of those interviewed were actually in favor of same-sex marriage or civil unions. Bush himself, although vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage, actually said in an interview on ABC News, that he was in favor of "legal arrangements that enable people to have rights," which is what civil unions are all about. With civil unions, a lesbian can arrange to have her partner as her beneficiary in insurance or inherit property.
There are other inconsistencies in this "moral values" explanation of Bush's victory. Again, the public opinion surveys show most Americans are in favor of stem cell research. Even California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a staunch Bush supporter, campaigned actively to allow such research in his state.
Incompetent versus...
No doubt, the conservatives did use this stick-all term "moral values" to mobilize many Americans not so much to support Bush as to defeat Kerry. It's the way these conservatives have been operating all these years anyway, appealing to a fear of the unknown.
This is especially clear in relation to the Iraq war, with Bush's victory interpreted as American public support for the invasion and occupation, and with fears now that Bush's global adventurism will worsen in the next four years.
Again, I'd be cautious here. The Bush camp again used scare tactics, depicting Kerry as weak and saying that this weakness would invite more terrorist attacks. It was a fear of terrorism that eventually overwhelmed Americans. It didn't matter that all the evidence now clearly shows that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaida or weapons of mass terrorism. All that mattered was that Bush was "proving" to the world that America was tough.
It certainly didn't help either that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. Like most other liberal American politicians, he did support the invasion initially. He wasn't too clear either on many other economic and social issues, while Bush was unyielding with his ultra-conservative views.
In the end, many votes for Bush (as it seems here in the Philippines for Bush's ideological bedfellow Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) were really more of votes cast for what people thought was the lesser evil. The Economist captured it all with a catchy pre-election cover showing Bush and Kerry and the caption: "The Incompetent versus The Incoherent."
Beginning of the end?
Bush and his camp just might be wrong if they interpret the "moral values" statistics in the exit polls as a mandate for all his conservative positions, including Iraq. Americans are a practical lot. Even Nancy Reagan, who is as conservative as Bush, spoke out in favor of stem cell research as her husband, former President Ronald Reagan, was slowly dying of Alzheimer's, a disease whose cure probably lies with stem cell therapy.
Bush has preached an inward-looking ideology: to hell with what the world thinks, as long as Americans get their way. That, too, appeals to American pragmatism, for now. With time, Americans will realize how dangerous this thinking is, especially if Bush gets more entangled in the Iraqi quagmire and more American soldiers return home in body bags. I actually think that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida wanted such a victory because an emboldened Bush, becoming more hard-line against Muslims, helps the terrorists to recruit more people for their cause.
Of course, Bush need not worry because like Ms Arroyo, he's not going to be eligible to run again, but if he's thinking of how history will look at him, a reckless and relentless pursuit of his existing policies may just mean the world remembering him as the president who ushered in the beginning of the end of the American empire.
I lived in the United States during the Reagan presidency, with all kinds of doomsday predictions that he would plunge America and the world into disaster. In spite of Reagan, the world in fact moved forward, many countries dismantling the right-wing dictatorships installed by the United States, often with the help of freedom-loving Americans.
We need more faith in America--not in its arms or in its tough talk, but in the ideals of freedom and democracy that many great Americans crafted and tempered into powerful weapons of morality. We need to continue to speak out in defense of those freedoms and in the end, just as the Philippines will survive Ms Arroyo, the world will survive Bush.
Updated 10:06pm (Mla time) Jan 18, 2005
By Michael Tan
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A13 of the January 19, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
PEOPLE have asked why I didn't write a column mourning the reelection of George W. Bush last November. Surprisingly, most of the ones who asked were Americans, some of whom joked that they wanted to migrate and stay permanently in the Philippines rather than live in an America governed by Bush.
Of course, the American friends I have tend to be liberals, mostly serious Democrats who campaigned actively for John Kerry. Throughout the campaign period, their e-mails to me reflected the roller coaster of emotions they were going through, at times feeling it was a losing battle and at other times hopeful optimism that they could get Bush out of the White House. As the campaign came to an end, the public opinion polls showed it was a neck-and-neck battle, so there were still hopes that Kerry would win. He lost, and on Jan. 20, we usher in another four years of Bush, with all kinds of doomsday predictions of more problems for America and the world.
Moral values
With Kerry's defeat, my friends didn't just express sadness but, more often, shame and embarrassment. They knew that throughout the world--in Europe, in Latin America, in Muslim countries--Bush was immensely unpopular, and that his victory reflects badly on the Americans. As one friend put it, "There's only one word to describe it all: stupidity."
Call me naive but I actually have more faith in America and Americans. Let me explain by focusing on the most often-cited reason why Bush won. When my American friend uttered the remark about "stupidity," she had a copy of the Inquirer with her. She pointed to the front-page headline, something about "moral values" sweeping Bush to victory. It was actually a reference to exit polls showing that 22 percent of American voters identified "moral values" as the issue that mattered most in their choice for president. Her frustration came from the widespread interpretation that Americans had reelected Bush mainly because of his conservatism, specifically, his opposition to gay marriages, to stem cell research (the use of embryonic cells to produce new treatments for certain diseases) and to abortion.
I'd be more cautious about the labels attached to American voters. I've never liked the term "moral values" because it can be so ambiguous. Even when you name specific moral values, you'll find that a person's position may not always be that clear either.
For example, the same exit polls showing American concern with "moral values" also came out with a startling statistic: 6 out of 10 of those interviewed were actually in favor of same-sex marriage or civil unions. Bush himself, although vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage, actually said in an interview on ABC News, that he was in favor of "legal arrangements that enable people to have rights," which is what civil unions are all about. With civil unions, a lesbian can arrange to have her partner as her beneficiary in insurance or inherit property.
There are other inconsistencies in this "moral values" explanation of Bush's victory. Again, the public opinion surveys show most Americans are in favor of stem cell research. Even California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a staunch Bush supporter, campaigned actively to allow such research in his state.
Incompetent versus...
No doubt, the conservatives did use this stick-all term "moral values" to mobilize many Americans not so much to support Bush as to defeat Kerry. It's the way these conservatives have been operating all these years anyway, appealing to a fear of the unknown.
This is especially clear in relation to the Iraq war, with Bush's victory interpreted as American public support for the invasion and occupation, and with fears now that Bush's global adventurism will worsen in the next four years.
Again, I'd be cautious here. The Bush camp again used scare tactics, depicting Kerry as weak and saying that this weakness would invite more terrorist attacks. It was a fear of terrorism that eventually overwhelmed Americans. It didn't matter that all the evidence now clearly shows that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaida or weapons of mass terrorism. All that mattered was that Bush was "proving" to the world that America was tough.
It certainly didn't help either that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. Like most other liberal American politicians, he did support the invasion initially. He wasn't too clear either on many other economic and social issues, while Bush was unyielding with his ultra-conservative views.
In the end, many votes for Bush (as it seems here in the Philippines for Bush's ideological bedfellow Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) were really more of votes cast for what people thought was the lesser evil. The Economist captured it all with a catchy pre-election cover showing Bush and Kerry and the caption: "The Incompetent versus The Incoherent."
Beginning of the end?
Bush and his camp just might be wrong if they interpret the "moral values" statistics in the exit polls as a mandate for all his conservative positions, including Iraq. Americans are a practical lot. Even Nancy Reagan, who is as conservative as Bush, spoke out in favor of stem cell research as her husband, former President Ronald Reagan, was slowly dying of Alzheimer's, a disease whose cure probably lies with stem cell therapy.
Bush has preached an inward-looking ideology: to hell with what the world thinks, as long as Americans get their way. That, too, appeals to American pragmatism, for now. With time, Americans will realize how dangerous this thinking is, especially if Bush gets more entangled in the Iraqi quagmire and more American soldiers return home in body bags. I actually think that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida wanted such a victory because an emboldened Bush, becoming more hard-line against Muslims, helps the terrorists to recruit more people for their cause.
Of course, Bush need not worry because like Ms Arroyo, he's not going to be eligible to run again, but if he's thinking of how history will look at him, a reckless and relentless pursuit of his existing policies may just mean the world remembering him as the president who ushered in the beginning of the end of the American empire.
I lived in the United States during the Reagan presidency, with all kinds of doomsday predictions that he would plunge America and the world into disaster. In spite of Reagan, the world in fact moved forward, many countries dismantling the right-wing dictatorships installed by the United States, often with the help of freedom-loving Americans.
We need more faith in America--not in its arms or in its tough talk, but in the ideals of freedom and democracy that many great Americans crafted and tempered into powerful weapons of morality. We need to continue to speak out in defense of those freedoms and in the end, just as the Philippines will survive Ms Arroyo, the world will survive Bush.
posted by Dante at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home