Change
Posted by Stuart at 03:53 PM on November 09, 2004I've been trying to analyze last week's U.S. election and try to understand what happened and why it happened. So far, I haven't had much luck in this regard. So many things about it just don't make much sense to me.
One of the take-aways from the election is that America is still a very conservative country. It would seem that Americans don't like change very much. But I guess that is not a very big surprise. I was just spoiled by living in San Francisco for a few years. It is perhaps one of the very few true "melting pots" in America. One of the few places where diversity is celebrated.
But the realization that Americans are conservative is really not a big surprise to me. It's just usually not at the forefront of my mind. When curious Thai people want to know what life is is like in America, I almost always surprise them by saying that Americans are very conservative. Their view of America is shaped by movies and music. And certainly neither Hollywood nor the American music industry have ever been accused of being conservative!
But this is the take-away: America is conservative and resistant to change. But perhaps a more accurate assessment is that people are conservative. Perhaps it is human nature. Perhaps it is an innate disposition.
There are many examples that seem to prove this point. In the "IT Management" class I teach, we talk about how technology is revolutionizing the workplace, but people are usually reluctant to change their own work habits. I saw it happen many times with our clients at the Internet consulting firm in San Francisco. If you give people the choice between Method A that they have been following for years or Method B where they can do twice the work in half the time but requires them to learn a new technology, they will always prefer Method A, regardless of the efficiencies of Method B.
Same goes for education. Technology has the potential to revolutionize learning, but teachers and administrators are too afraid to embrace the changes. The system they have now works. It is a known quantity. It might not be the best, but making a change is too risky. Staring into the unknown is frightning.
I'm amazed that the vote in 2004 was almost exactly the same as 2000. America and the rest of the world has changed, but Americans themselves didn't. The US went from a record surplus to a record deficit. We woke up on September 12, 2001 united with the world with our sadness and outrage but now we are scorned by the world community and seen as an arrogant power-abuser. But neither of these things changed very many minds.
One analysis I read this week said that in order to make a change, two things are needed. First of all, you need for the current situation to be bad. But more importantly, you need to be convinced that the change will be for the better. It seems to be that perhaps in many people's mind, we had the former requirement, but not the latter.
Speaking of change (or not changing) click on the interesting graphic I posted to get a bigger size. It compares a map of the vote distribution with a map showing where slavery was legal 150 years ago. You can draw your own conclusions. (Thanks to Doug for that pic.)
I have thought more about American politics in the last couple of weeks than I have in the 2 years of being in Thailand. I have a lot more I could say about all of this, but I will hold it for now.
Finally, last week I posted a link to an article that predicted a Kerry victory because the pollsters don't call cell phones. So, as an update, I'll link to this week's article about why it didn't turn out the way the author expected. It's called Bob Don't Know Diddy: Post-Election Reflections on Polls and Other Stuff
I - yes as a southerner - feel that that link to that history is unfair, because there are many African-Americans who still live in this part of the country .... not to mention the addition of the Hispanic and Latin population. To say that the south is still as backwards and "hick" as they were 150 years ago is just as closed minded as southern conservatives saying that the "metropolitan" liberals are trying to run this country into the ground.
Please keep in mind that Memphis, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Cincinati, Kansas City, St. Louis, San Antonio, and New Orleans, list some of the highly diverse metropolitan areas in the states who voted for the more conservative of the two candidates.
It is difficult to figure, isn't it? News reports suggest that George Bush won re-election in part because at least a couple of million conservative Christians (who had not voted last time) turned out to vote for Bush because of concern about 'morality'.
I find this astonishing.
Did they not consider the dubious morality of militaristic solutions to problems of war and peace?
Did they not consider the immorality of massive damage to the world's natural environment, especially through stubborn refusal to restrict greenhouse gases?
Did they not consider the immorality of rising unemployment in their own land, except in those industries boosted by military procurement?
Did they not consider the immorality of unequal access to health services and education?
And did they not consider the immorality of the denial of human equality to many classes of people including those in same-sex relationships? (I suspect that 'morality' simply became code for 'sex'. Is it possible that John Kerry was defeated in his race for the White House because some American people were revolted by the possibility that a small number of their fellow citizens may wish to live together in same-sex couples -- a matter concerning which the President has almost no powers or authority?)
Was it moral for either candidate to prey upon the fear of the American people with regard to the world-wide terrorism that has finally landed in this country? Terrorism that would not likely to have had such an explosive impact directly upon the US had America not been built by those fleeing persecution, those seeking greater gain, independence, a better life, and a sense of equality? Has the US led itself to this state because of its openess to others as a haven of refuge?
Beth, I'll respond to your first post about the "unfair link to history". The topic of the original post was "Change". I was saying that change comes very slowly. How many years passed between the emancipation of the slaves and the date where the government enforced their right to vote? Slavery ended in the mid-1860s. African-Americans right to vote wasn't enforced until Lyndon Johnson's Right to Vote Act in 1968. Can you believe that it took 100 years to accomplish that?
The point I was trying to make is that change happens very slowly. The issues might be different now (slave freedom vs gay marriage) but the fact remains that divisions in the country 150 years ago still exist today.
- Stuart
To Beth and Brian,
First of all, I have to admit that my first reaction was similar to Brian's. Exit polls say that people voted for Bush because of his "morality". I don't see what is moral about invading a country and killing thousands of civilians just so we can set up a government that likes us and that we can control.
But to Beth, I also agree that it is not moral for either candidate to use Iraq as a scare tactic for votes. I am appalled that they acted that way, in fact. Why didn't the candidates focus on other issues? Seems like social security and tax code revision would have been two excellent topics to debate. Same goes for the environment and unemployment. But no, the only thing they could talk about (at least judging from the news reports I got over here) was IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ. Yes, Iraq is important, but it is not the only issue.
Finally, Beth, no I do not think that Muslim fundamentalists like Osama Ben Ladin hate America because we have a (somewhat) diverse society. It started from the fact that they are very opposed to our foreign policy in the Middle East (blind support of Israel).
Well, those are my thoughts... take em or leave em :)
- Stuart
To Joe: I have heard a lot of people say that they want to move out of America because they don't like the direction the country is going. I read an article last week that said the website for Canadian Immigration has been overwhelmed with hits since the election.
I support anyone who wants to live in a foreign country for a while. It is by far the best thing I have ever done in my life and I highly recommend it. But what will happen if people who voted Democrat leave the US en-masse? That's right, just a bigger margin of victory for the Rebublicans next time.
Food for thought...
- Stuart
with the diversity issue I was bringing up, is that the "freedom" of the US being open to all - or practically all - who want to come to this country to live and work, allowed the further generation and added extra strength to the training of terrorists. That was my only point there - I apologize if it came across differently. :-)
very true about division and the slow evolution of change in this country - I do agree. Unfortunately, there will always be division on issues, and there will always be people who are discriminated against, and there will always be those who have an unfair advantage on a myriad of life situations. How boring it would be if we all thought alike, believed in the same thing, and acted the same way ... yucko!
Stuart,
I think this is one of the most even-handed blogger's pages I've seen lately. Congratulations to you all!
I, too, am planning on leaving the country. To be specific, to Thailand. It is a decision that I was leaning toward before the election, but now it is in concrete. I'm studying Thai at LanguageDoor Institute in Irvine, CA. I will complete my TESOL in July. I plan on moving to somewhere in the Phuket, Koh Samui, Hua Hin, Petchaburi or Bangkok areas, depending on job offers.
I know that the argument about all Democrats leaving is a valid one, but one point has been missed here. I feel strongly that the world is a more dangerous place since we invaded Iraq. I also know that the Muslims of the world are not going to just let it go. Frankly, I will be extraordinarily surprised if we don't suffer a much more severe scenario than 9/11 within the next 4 years. Now, of course, I don't want to get blown up, but I think the bottom line here really is...if you survive, how will this administration react? I think they will start shutting down freedoms such as the 1st Ammendment, repress freedom to assemble, etc. I think that what we are seeing now is the beginnings of a very virulent fascism in our country.
I lived in Germany for 2 years as a college student (I'm 47 now) and have studied much of 20th century German history. The parallels are absolutely frightening. Go to http://www.oldamericancentury.org and read about the "14 Points of Fascism". Tell me which one of those is NOT going on right now in the USA. I don't know that we'll end up with a 3rd Reich scenario (that one certainly being the worst case), but another round of hateful McCarthyism seems certain.
And one more thing, you can always vote by absentee ballot, which I surely will do.
Margaret
[Ed Note: The link to 14 Points of Facism that Margaret mentioned is http://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm - stuart]
I must sadly agree. Those maps draw quite the link, I've seen many maps showing the results and how most of Kerry's votes came from University town, major cities, the entire Northeast. I talked a little about the election results on my Xanga and a few people made comments that a civil war between the "hick" conservatives and the "metropolitan" liberals is inevitable. I'm leaning more toward moving out of the US as soon as financially possible. My b/f isn't convinced life is any better in Thailand because he can't take the heat (how ironic) and we've been keeping up on the Muslim issues in SoThai. We'll see.