When this presidential election is over, let the record show the following:
1) Republicans were the first party to resort to mob behavior—the storming of the Miami-Dade vote-counting room that Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot today affectionately called a "bourgeois riot."
2) This bullying was quite possibly decisive. The "riot" itself—coupled with word that 1,000 Cuban-American Republicans were on their way to join the ranks—seems to have intimidated Miami-Dade's eternally dithering canvassing board into canceling its manual vote recount, converting Gore's chances of winning the election from solid to slim.
You might think that conservatives would be slightly abashed about winning a presidential election through physical intimidation. After all, for two weeks they had been paying hourly tribute to the "rule of law." But no—as ever, conservative pundits seem deaf to all irony involving themselves. In the very column in which Gigot celebrates the Miami "riot," he writes, "GOP lawyers also pointed out that the law—recall that quaint concept—required that any recount include all ballots." Quaint indeed.
There has been much comment about the asymmetrical animus of the last few weeks. While liberals watch the drama with rapt attention, conservatives watch with barely contained outrage. Commentators such as Gigot have described this contrast with quiet pride. They seem to take it as final proof that justice is on George W. Bush's side. (And they wield it, too, as a kind of threat: A Gore presidency would mean an ungovernable nation!)
But I have another explanation for the anger gap between conservatives and liberals: Conservatives are an angrier group than liberals. It's conservatives, after all, who have Rush Limbaugh. Liberals sometimes mourn the absence of a left-wing Limbaugh, as if this void signified a spiritual energy crisis. I personally think it's a sign of mental health.
Similarly, some liberals were no doubt upset by a New York Times poll shortly after the election which showed that, while virtually all Bush voters considered their man the legitimate winner, a much smaller majority of Gore voters was sure Gore had won. Again, though, I take this as a healthy sign—a sign not of some lack of Democratic commitment but of Democratic open-mindedness.
Yes, yes, I'm aware of how many Democrats are as incapable as many Republicans of seeing an opponent's point of view, of putting themselves in the shoes of The Other. The extremes of any ideology will always be a bit off-kilter. But the fact is that it is Republicans, not Democrats, who depend on a sizeable bloc of voters whose defining characteristic is heated intolerance of people different from themselves (e.g., homosexuals).
The post-election conservative outrage isn't confined to the grass roots. Throughout the take-no-prisoners chess game of the past two weeks, the Bush and Gore camps have evinced clearly different sensibilities. Bush, Baker, et al., exuding indignation if not contempt, have viewed the game as an attempted theft. Gore, Daley, et al., have viewed it as, well, as a take-no-prisoners chess game: Each team tries to use the law to its advantage, and whoever wins gets to be president.
Incidentally, that's what the rule of law is. The rule of law doesn't mean that truth and justice always prevail. It doesn't presuppose that the people who administer and interpret the law will be devoid of bias, partisan or otherwise. The "rule of law" just means that when disputes between people arise, there is an algorithm for settling them—an algorithm that, no matter how imperfect in practice, is at least peaceful. At bottom, the rule of law just means that disagreements won't be settled by violence or intimidation, as this election now arguably has been. (The Miami-Dade uprising began, according to Gigot, when "street-smart New York Rep. John Sweeney, a visiting GOP monitor, told an aide to 'Shut it down,' and semi-spontaneous combustion took over." Then, according to the New York Times, the protest "turned violent" as "several people were trampled, punched or kicked when protesters tried to rush the doors.")
Gigot seems sure that this use of intimidation was justified. He sees it as evidence that Gore's shameless post-election ploys "finally convinced enough Republicans to fight like Democrats." Um, could we please have an example of Democrats fighting in this manner? The closest Gigot comes is this reference: "True, [the Miami-Dade revolt] wasn't exactly Chicago 1968, but these are Republicans."
It's interesting that Gigot has to reach back 32 years for an example, and that his example is a terrible one (the most disruptive Chicago protestors weren't Democrats—they were trying to disrupt a Democratic convention). But it's not surprising. Though Democrats do a lot of peaceful protesting, examples of them behaving like the Republicans did this week in Miami-Dade County are pretty rare. (Seattle, 1999? Nope. The demonstrators who got physical are no doubt Nader voters, assuming they voted at all—and good riddance to them.)
In the days after this year's election, I was in Europe, where I took a certain amount of kidding about America's electoral mess. Foreigners, of course, are especially amused that the world's famously litigious superpower has put its fate in the hands of lawyers. But I didn't feel at all embarrassed; what foreigners were seeing on television was the strength of our system: The rule of law, naturally, involves lawyers. But footage of Miami's "bourgeois riot" is something I truly am ashamed for the world to see.
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: Reaction to this article is in two different places: here and here. We at the Fray are used to election pieces producing responses which are, well, uniform, one might even say predictable. This set were neither of those things. T.Neilsen Hayden's contribution, below, (full version strongly recommended) was acclaimed by other Fray posters, though Anne commented that the people who most needed to read it would be too impatient and angry to bother. Fray secret: The other two posts had titles that always cheer us up when we see them on the index: 'A Modest Proposal' (translation: I am literate and have a weird suggestion to make, possibly not entirely seriously) and 'With all due respect…' (translation: I am going to disagree strongly and not at all respectfully).]
Manipulating anger is a chump's game. I can't believe we're falling for it like this. Anger is a cheap high. It's easily whipped up, and after that it's as easy to make an angry man angrier as it is to get a drunk to take another drink. If he gets mad enough, he may even take a swing at anyone who tries to tell him he's out of control. Useful, eh?
I'll tell you a secret. It's a basic rule of politics. Goes like this:
The fact that you're on their side doesn't mean that they're on your side.
Public officials lie, parties change their platforms, politicians cut deals, and journalists are just plain irresponsible. You're asking for grief if you stake more than you can stand to lose on any of them. Just look at the Reform Party.
Life is insecure. None of us are so powerful that that the game can't turn against us, and most of us could be traded like penny dotcom stocks if we didn't have a secure stake in something bigger than ourselves. That thing is (1) the rule of law; and (2) the principle of government by consent of the governed as expressed at the ballot box. We may not know what deals have been cut in secret, and we sure can't see the future. But we can know the law, and we can tot up the votes. That means we can keep our government answerable to us.
Nobody likes to lose an election. You honestly think your candidate is the best for the job. You agree with the campaign speeches. You take time out on Election Day to go vote. And then ... the other guy wins. It's a disappointment, no way around it. But the guy who's been elected is still your public official, answerable to you. He's still bound by all the same laws as the rest of us. You, me, both candidates, and a whole bunch of other people--we're all still part of the same system. Heaven help us, we're all in it together.
This is why I'm so disturbed by accounts of the riot in Dade County. At the time the elections were held, almost three weeks ago, the Dade County Republicans would not have made a mass assault on polling places or campaign offices. Now it appears that they organized one. Organizing a mob to terrorize a vote-counting center into stopping the count is not heroic. It isn't brave. It isn't a blow struck in defense of truth and justice. It's a crude attempt to circumvent the system, and it shows a profound disrespect for law and democracy. It's even more disturbing that they did this so openly, and that their own party hasn't disavowed their actions and done what it could to rein them in.
You'd think that George W. Bush would know better.
--T. Nielsen Hayden
(To reply, or to read a longer version of this post, click here.)
It seems to me at this point there's only one person who can restore order--not George W, not Al Gore (clearly for each, though for different reasons); not even President Clinton, whose every move is suspect if not heinous to his zealous opponents. No, the peacemaker must be an insider, a Republican, and a person in a position of authority who actually stands to gain from imposing peace and even, perhaps, backing Gore.
That person is Jeb Bush. The governor of Florida is in the key position of authority in his own state to impose order, even to the extent of calling out the national guard (which it is his authority to do) and possibly telling his dogs of war to heel. And guess what--if he throws his state's delegates to Gore, by declaring the election process in Florida flawed, he's suddenly in the cat bird seat for the 2004 Republican nomination, and a damn good bet to win the top office from the almost certain one-term presidency of Al Gore.
Sounds like a win/win situation to me. Or, in the sports analogies so ever-present among pundits these days, a slam dunk.
--Christian Kallen
(To reply, click here.)
I've also taken note of the asymmetry of animus between the Republicans and the Democrats, noted by Wright, and as a Democrat myself, it was also starting to tick me off. But reading "Mad as Hell" has actually made me wonder whether the asymmetry really exists--are liberal Democrats truly the party of rationality and political "mental health"?
You might think so, if you only consider Democrats like Wright and myself--white, well-educated and male. On the talk shows and on the streets, we do present a cool and thoughtful contrast to the red faces of the angry white Republican males. But I would advise Wright and his sympathizers to take another listen to the campaign rhetoric of NOW and NARAL, for example--is their outrage any less hysterical than that of the Christian Coalition, or any other "far-right" group? You needn't even go that far: in every circle of liberal friends, there is bound to be an ardent abortion rights fundamentalist--tell her that you've decided that late term abortions ought to be banned after all, and take a good step back.
Furthermore, the Democrats continue to rely on race-baiting, and other minority-group-baiting, to get out the grass roots vote. White Democrats may not use disruptive protests to get their causes heard, but as Wright's alma mater The New Republic continues to point out, the same cannot be said about the black leadership within the party. When the definitive history of the 2000 campaign is written, it will be clear that two of the ugliest moments came from the left: the NAACP ad essentially pinning the James Byrd murder on George Bush, and the Paul Begala MSNBC column damning the GOP-leaning "red states" as havens of bigotry.
Finally, contrary to Wright's claim, the Democrats also rely on "a sizeable bloc of voters whose defining characteristic is heated intolerance of people different than themselves." There is a hallowed tradition within the Democratic party of despising the rich, simply because they are rich. One of the most dismaying aspects of Gore's campaign was his attempt to reinvigorate this faction of the party, after eight years of relative quiescence.
--Charles M
(To reply, click here.)
(11/27)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Slate Editors Spent All Day Arguing About Cancer Screenings and Health Care Rationing
What a Meal of Beef Stomach and Duck Throats Taught Me About the New China
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
Train, Plane, or Automobile? What's the Greenest Way to Travel for Thanksgiving?
The Two Craziest Men in Hollywood Teamed Up To Make This Movie
Did Easy Rider's Predictions About America Come True?
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: Reaction to this article is in two different places: here and here. We at the Fray are used to election pieces producing responses which are, well, uniform, one might even say predictable. This set were neither of those things. T.Neilsen Hayden's contribution, below, (full version strongly recommended) was acclaimed by other Fray posters, though Anne commented that the people who most needed to read it would be too impatient and angry to bother. Fray secret: The other two posts had titles that always cheer us up when we see them on the index: 'A Modest Proposal' (translation: I am literate and have a weird suggestion to make, possibly not entirely seriously) and 'With all due respect…' (translation: I am going to disagree strongly and not at all respectfully).]
Manipulating anger is a chump's game. I can't believe we're falling for it like this. Anger is a cheap high. It's easily whipped up, and after that it's as easy to make an angry man angrier as it is to get a drunk to take another drink. If he gets mad enough, he may even take a swing at anyone who tries to tell him he's out of control. Useful, eh?
I'll tell you a secret. It's a basic rule of politics. Goes like this:
The fact that you're on their side doesn't mean that they're on your side.
Public officials lie, parties change their platforms, politicians cut deals, and journalists are just plain irresponsible. You're asking for grief if you stake more than you can stand to lose on any of them. Just look at the Reform Party.
Life is insecure. None of us are so powerful that that the game can't turn against us, and most of us could be traded like penny dotcom stocks if we didn't have a secure stake in something bigger than ourselves. That thing is (1) the rule of law; and (2) the principle of government by consent of the governed as expressed at the ballot box. We may not know what deals have been cut in secret, and we sure can't see the future. But we can know the law, and we can tot up the votes. That means we can keep our government answerable to us.
Nobody likes to lose an election. You honestly think your candidate is the best for the job. You agree with the campaign speeches. You take time out on Election Day to go vote. And then ... the other guy wins. It's a disappointment, no way around it. But the guy who's been elected is still your public official, answerable to you. He's still bound by all the same laws as the rest of us. You, me, both candidates, and a whole bunch of other people--we're all still part of the same system. Heaven help us, we're all in it together.
This is why I'm so disturbed by accounts of the riot in Dade County. At the time the elections were held, almost three weeks ago, the Dade County Republicans would not have made a mass assault on polling places or campaign offices. Now it appears that they organized one. Organizing a mob to terrorize a vote-counting center into stopping the count is not heroic. It isn't brave. It isn't a blow struck in defense of truth and justice. It's a crude attempt to circumvent the system, and it shows a profound disrespect for law and democracy. It's even more disturbing that they did this so openly, and that their own party hasn't disavowed their actions and done what it could to rein them in.
You'd think that George W. Bush would know better.
--T. Nielsen Hayden
(To reply, or to read a longer version of this post, click here.)
It seems to me at this point there's only one person who can restore order--not George W, not Al Gore (clearly for each, though for different reasons); not even President Clinton, whose every move is suspect if not heinous to his zealous opponents. No, the peacemaker must be an insider, a Republican, and a person in a position of authority who actually stands to gain from imposing peace and even, perhaps, backing Gore.
That person is Jeb Bush. The governor of Florida is in the key position of authority in his own state to impose order, even to the extent of calling out the national guard (which it is his authority to do) and possibly telling his dogs of war to heel. And guess what--if he throws his state's delegates to Gore, by declaring the election process in Florida flawed, he's suddenly in the cat bird seat for the 2004 Republican nomination, and a damn good bet to win the top office from the almost certain one-term presidency of Al Gore.
Sounds like a win/win situation to me. Or, in the sports analogies so ever-present among pundits these days, a slam dunk.
--Christian Kallen
(To reply, click here.)
I've also taken note of the asymmetry of animus between the Republicans and the Democrats, noted by Wright, and as a Democrat myself, it was also starting to tick me off. But reading "Mad as Hell" has actually made me wonder whether the asymmetry really exists--are liberal Democrats truly the party of rationality and political "mental health"?
You might think so, if you only consider Democrats like Wright and myself--white, well-educated and male. On the talk shows and on the streets, we do present a cool and thoughtful contrast to the red faces of the angry white Republican males. But I would advise Wright and his sympathizers to take another listen to the campaign rhetoric of NOW and NARAL, for example--is their outrage any less hysterical than that of the Christian Coalition, or any other "far-right" group? You needn't even go that far: in every circle of liberal friends, there is bound to be an ardent abortion rights fundamentalist--tell her that you've decided that late term abortions ought to be banned after all, and take a good step back.
Furthermore, the Democrats continue to rely on race-baiting, and other minority-group-baiting, to get out the grass roots vote. White Democrats may not use disruptive protests to get their causes heard, but as Wright's alma mater The New Republic continues to point out, the same cannot be said about the black leadership within the party. When the definitive history of the 2000 campaign is written, it will be clear that two of the ugliest moments came from the left: the NAACP ad essentially pinning the James Byrd murder on George Bush, and the Paul Begala MSNBC column damning the GOP-leaning "red states" as havens of bigotry.
Finally, contrary to Wright's claim, the Democrats also rely on "a sizeable bloc of voters whose defining characteristic is heated intolerance of people different than themselves." There is a hallowed tradition within the Democratic party of despising the rich, simply because they are rich. One of the most dismaying aspects of Gore's campaign was his attempt to reinvigorate this faction of the party, after eight years of relative quiescence.
--Charles M
(To reply, click here.)
(11/27)