Has it really been almost a year already?
Here's a post that I still believe
From Mark Kleinman:
I think this is right. I've argued, to much derision from several friends, that those who voted for President Bush were either intellectually or morally bankrupt. That is, there was no way to be both knowledgeable and good while voting for Bush. This is certainly elitist both intellectually and ethically, but I don't see any other way of putting it.
The commitment of a small-d democrat is to respect the authority of the majority, not to pretend to respect its wisdom or virtue.
If, for example, you think that the Bush regime has made the United States both a user of torture and an active accomplice in the use of torture by others, and if you think that is wrong, an electoral defeat shouldn't change those opinions.
And if you think that, then what are you supposed to feel about the majority that either (1) didn't believe the facts; (2) didn't think that torture is wrong; or (3) didn't think it was important enough to vote on? I'd think "scorn" a relatively mild word to use.
If you don't think gays should have the same marriage rights as straight, then you're a bigot. If you think that Bush has competently administered his office, you're an idiot. If you voted for Bush because he's a good man, I think scorn is the perfect sentiment for you.
Surely this isn't sound political strategy as long as we need to kowtow to median voters in a democratically-deficient system, but that doesn't mean my anger and disappointment isn't justified both by reality and morality.
-Ziggy Stardust 17:35 EST |