I took the most comfort today from this post by the great David Corn o­n his WEBLOG. Corn says, “Bush will not be able to hand off his own wreckage–Iraq and the gargantuan deficit–to a new man.” Given that Bush now has to sit in his wreckage as opposed to an impossible job Kerry would have had to clean it up, maybe his victory will turn out to be the best thing that could have happened for us all.

This is Corn's piece: 

…It's a sad morning in America.

The electorate almost engaged in a much-needed political correction. It almost undid the asterisk of 2000. Instead, voters legitimized the fellow who gained the White House against the will of the majority and who then pretended he had a mandate and subsequently pushed tax cuts for the well-to-do and launched a war predicated o­n untrue assertions. So there will be no good-bye to reckless preemptive war, an economic policy based o­n tax breaks tilted toward the wealthy, a war o­n environmental regulations, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, excessive secrecy in government, unilateral machismo, the neocon theology of hubris and arrogance, a ban o­n effective stem cell research, no-bid Halliburton contracts, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, and much more. Did I mention Dick Cheney?

Bush lied his way into office and lied his way through his presidency. His reelection campaign was based o­n derision and disingenuousness; he mischaracterized Kerry and his positions and touted successes that did not exist. And now, it seems, he got away with it. He was not punished for leading the country into a war that was not necessary. He was not booted for having overstated the WMD threat from Iraq. He paid no price for failing to plan adequately for the post-invasion period. Iraq remains his mess. And the United States and the world remains at the mercy of a gang that, no doubt, will feel even more emboldened to pursue their misguided policies.

The good news: America is a divided nation. Despite the pundit hand-wringing over this fact, it is a positive thing. Nearly–nearly–half of the electorate rejected Bush's leadership, his agenda, his priorities, his falsehoods. From Eminem to the chairman of Bank of America to 48 Nobel laureates to gangbangers who joined anti-Bush get-out-the-vote efforts in swing states. Nearly half of the voting public concluded that Bush had caused the deaths of over 1,100 American GIs and literally countless Iraqis (maybe 100,000) for no compelling reason. Nearly half saw the emperor buck naked and butt ugly. Nearly half said no to his rash actions and dishonest justifications. Nearly half realized that Bush had misrepresented the war in Iraq as a crucial part of the effort against al Qaeda and Islamic jihadism. Nearly half desired better and more honest leadership. Nearly half knew that Bush has led the country astray.

Other good news: Second-term presidents often hit the skids. The last three second- terms were marked by scandal (Watergate, Iran-contra, Monicagate). And as top officials sprint through the revolving door to snag high-paying jobs (while their contacts are fresh), the job of running the government during the second administration often falls to the B Team. In the post-9/11 world, this is not all that reassuring. But the historical trend does suggest that Bush will have trouble enacting his various schemes. Yet–let's be realistic–the Senate results indicate that the GOP will expand its majority in the Senate, which means Bush will have more allies for his wrongheaded missions.

More good news: Bush will not be able to hand off his own wreckage–Iraq and the gargantuan deficit–to a new man. But this does not mean he will accept responsibility and deal with it. Bush has the ability to deny and defy reality. And if he cannot see that the trash has piled up, he will not be hauling it to the curb.

Okay, no more good news. I can't stand all this good news. Bush has bamboozled and frightened just enough Americans to gain the opportunity to flimflam them for another four years. And the rest of the country–and the globe–will be along for the dangerous ride.

As for John Kerry, he and his advisers looked like geniuses early o­n Election Day, when exit polls showed him ahead in the critical states There will be time–plenty of time–to critique Kerry and his crew and second-guess their various decisions. Had he swatted down the Swift Vets earlier would that have saved him just the right number of votes? Had he voted against granting Bush the authorization to launch an elective war against Iraq anytime Bush damn well pleased, perhaps Kerry would have presented a clearer picture for the electorate and inoculated himself from the trumped-up flip-flop charge. Perhaps. He, too, will have years to ponder all of this.

Kerry was no top-gun campaigner. His rhetoric often meandered. More than o­nce he shot himself in the foot with inartful language. But he did vigorously criticize Bush for misleading the country into war and for screwing up (big time!) the planning for the post-invasion period. He called for expanding health care coverage and for dramatic investments in alternative energy. He slammed Bush for ignoring the middle class crisis. He advocated raising the minimum wage and vowed to take o­n such special interests as the prescription drugs lobby. He excoriated Bush's assault o­n environmental safeguards and defended abortion rights. And he effectively used the three debates to counter the Bush camp's claim that he was a finger-in-the-wind pol and a weak-kneed opportunist with no convictions. Those encounters hurt Bush. Of those voters who say they decided in the past month, Kerry led 60 to 37 percent. All of this–it almost worked.

There was a clear difference between the two candidates. They disagreed o­n many basic issues. But–perhaps more importantly–they represented vastly different ways of engaging the world. o­ne has adopted an ask-no-questions, nevermind-the-nuances, don't-look-back, tough-guy style of leadership. The other promised to consider and reach out before leaping. o­ne said–practically boasted–that he read no newspapers. The other came across as a man who absorbed much information before rendering a decision. The voters chose the wrong man.

But not all is lost. The Red-Blue battle–a war of culture, ideology, politics and psychology–will not end with the final tally in Ohio. The forces of Bushism appear to have triumphed this day. But life–if we are lucky–is long, and history never ends. Let the great divide in America continue.

When I read the Comments posted about this entry, I used o­ne of them as the basis to write o­ne of my own: 

Posted by: B.S. at November 3, 2004 04:11 PM

“I have officially lost faith in the Democrats. Too much orthodoxy, too much timidity, too little truth-telling, too much spin. Too much tactics, and not enough heart. None of which is necessary. When is someone in this country finally going to form the Progressive party? Or at least a party whose platform would elevate Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But the Truth as the number o­ne principle? I'm itching to join such an organization, and I have a feeling at least a few million Americans would as well.“

I suggest that this is THE comment.

People who are miserable about the election talk of strategies to maneuver into power by being more appealing to those who are o­n the wrong track, but how about being mesmerizing to what would be the right track? How about the courageous Kerry, who wiggled into being more like Bush? Why oh why didn't he stand tall about being against war? Would he have lost worse? Maybe. Look what happened to Kucinich, who couldn't even get o­n the map. But that's the stand that's the true American way.

In order for action to be advocated, there needs to be some force that carries the ball. With no leader in the Democratic Party and no sense the Party has of a mission to organize around, I'm repeating the end of a recent post of mine, Cautionary Tales. I picture a convening of shapers-of-thought that could become a force for the good — not by fighting with an oppositional side, as in Democrats versus Republicans, but because its mission would be to create what could serve humanity.

Here are two cooperative efforts amongst the intelligentsia that were hugely productive:

1. THE MACY CONFERENCES

“…50 years ago, the Macy Conferences. Over ten years time, a unique group of thinkers from diverse fields birthed the field of cybernetics and system’ s thinking. The Macy Conferences were central to the pioneering years of cybernetics and resulted in an impressive series of concrete achievements. The surprise is that the Macy Conferences were annual conversations among friends who recognized possible connections and implications beyond their individual specialties. They committed to be in a conversation that explored the connections and transcended the boundaries, searching for a shared theory that could support their individual work.”

Ten Events from 1946 through 1953

“The coalescence of cybernetics in the 1940's was a historical process that involved many interactions among a variety of thoughtful and inquisitive people.

“These people, all eminent in their many respective fields, would go o­n to disseminate their individual impressions of and elaborations upon 'cybernetics' for decades thereafter. This made for a new field whose many facets make it easy to treat as a significant intellectual innovation but difficult to delineate as a coherent whole. The historical records for the field's birth have never been readily accessible, owing to an almost total lack of documentation for the first 5 conferences and the obscure status of the last 5 events' proceedings. This resulted in a reliance o­n personal recollections and anecdotal evidence in exploring how that process occurred. In other words, the process' product (cybernetics itself) is many things to many people, and the process' narrative is either a mystery or a matter of hearsay. It is therefore no surprise that the coalescence of cybernetics has been mythologized by both its adherents and its critics.”

2. THE TWILIGHT CLUB

This is an encyclopedia listing: “The Twilight Club is an organization founded in the late 19th century, with the intention to counter the moral decline by bolstering up the spiritual and ethical awareness of the society. Illustrious members were Ralph Waldo Emerson, Herbert Spencer, Walt Whitman, Andrew Carnegie, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Mark Twain. The name of the club refers to their meetings at the twilight of the day, but also to the evening twilight of the 19th century and the dawn of the 20th century. From this club, service clubs such as the Rotary Club and the Lions evolved at a later stage.”

There were other impressive things that the Twilight Club gave rise to. Here's a history. http://www.twilightclub.org/history1.html

Follow