My good friend J.R, in response to my "Divided? So What?" post, says the following:
I can't beleive you are actually saying that Bush has not responsibility to placate the people who didn't vote for him. He is the President of the United States of America, not just the part who voted for him. He has just as much a repsonsibility (maybe even more) to those who didn't vote for him than for those that did. Here's why. "One nation under God" soudn vaguely familiar. Does that mean he needs to rethink his position on fetal stem cell research or gay marriage? No, not really. But he is obligated to listen to dissenting viewpoints and consider the thoughts of people who disagree with him. ALL, not some, ALL the great advances in this society came from either third party issues that became part of the mainstream or from compromise among dissenting views. The Electoral college? Compromise. Balanced Budget amendment? Third Party issue (remember Perot and his charts) Abolition of slavery? Third party issue. Please rethink your stance on this.
Third, Federal Marriage Amendment? By that I suppose you mean saying that marriage can only be between and man and a woman. Well there you seem to be with the majority. But again, the majority of the weren't against slavery. The majority of the people were against women's suffrage. The majority is not always right on thing and they clearly aren't this one either. Let me quote again, "We hold the truths to be self evident...that all men are created equal" Hmmm unless of course that man as a consenting adult want to devote his life to another man who is also a consenting adult. Here's the deal. Marriage is, always has beenm and should always remain a religious issue. The government shouldn't be involved in the issue at all. That's right you heard me. No more marriage certificates. No more blood tests. Leave it up to the churches. If your church doesn't want to sanction gay marriage, that's fine but the government doesn't shouldn't have any say in the matter. I say the government gets out of the sanctioning of marriage all together.
Where to start? Well, first I'll give full disclosure that J.R. and I have had more than our share of animated political discussions. In fact, I still owe him a case of beer from a political bet that's almost 3 years old now. (We both insist that the bet be paid and consumed in person, which is proving to be problematic.) Politically speaking, I don't agree with him very often, but I respect his opinions and I always like to hear what he has to say.
With that out of the way, I suppose I should begin with a little clarification on my earlier post. I'm fully aware that the President presides over the entire country, not just those that elected him. I'm fully aware that he's just as responsible for the well being of his opponents as he is for his supporters. And I'm fully aware that a wise president considers all views, especially dissenting ones, before making decisions and before formulating policy.
None of that has any bearing on the point I was trying to make. My point is this:
After four years, everybody knows where George Bush stands on just about any subject. At this stage, you have to figure that he has heard all the various viewpoints on any number of issues. He's done his due diligence and he has decided where he stands. And he has made his positions very clear to the public. Now… the people of this country, knowing George Bush's policies fully well, just re-elected him to a second term quite decisively. A clear majority in this country, both in the electoral college and the popular vote, has said "we approve of the way you're doing things."
At the same time, the minority (with 30-something fewer electoral votes and 3.5 million fewer popular votes) is screaming that it is now George Bush's responsibility to "heal the nation" by doing what THEY want him to do. Ummm… wait a minute. How does that work? The anti-war liberals lost, so now we're supposed to pull out of Iraq or something to make them happy? If not Iraq, then what? George Bush was re-elected for (in order of importance) his stance on:
1.Terrorism
2. Moral values such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research
3. Tax cuts and monetary policy
So…which principle should George Bush toss over the side of the boat to placate the losing side?
That's my point. He need not, and MUST not abandon any of those principles… in the interest of "healing" or anything else. It is the LOSING side who must come to grips with the results of this election, not the winning side. It is the LOSING side that must come to grips with the fact that they are currently in the MINORITY in the United States of America, and that the minority does not rule. It is the LOSING side who bears more (but not all) of the responsibility for healing and conciliation. The people elected Bush to fight terrorism, oppose gay marriage and keep their taxes low. He now has an obligation to DO IT.
Should the other side still be treated with respect, and have a regular forum for their views with the President? Of course. Should he still take their opinions into account when making decisions? Of course. But should Bush let down the people who elected him in the interest of pacifying the people who hate him? No way, buddy.
Look at it this way. Let's imagine that:
1. John Kerry had just won 286 electoral votes and 51 percent of the popular vote; and
2. The Democrats had picked up 4 Senate seats and several House seats; and
3. Amendments banning gay marriage had been soundly defeated in 13 states
If that were the case, what chance would there be that the people now screaming for a voice would be worried about a "divided country" or preoccupied with "healing a nation"? If John Kerry had won decisively, would he not have an obligation to implement the platform on which he ran? Of course he would, and the people who elected him would be demanding it. If that were the case, it would make me sick to my stomach that the majority of the country thought that way. But I would have to accept the results, and wait for the next election.
Let me be clear that I don't expect Bush to now be immune from criticism… from the left or anywhere else. I fully expect his opponents to be as critical as they've always been. That's part of the game. But a decisive re-election trumps complaints and criticisms from the losing side... at least for now. It is time to get on with the business of moving this country in the direction that it has voted to be moved.
No comments:
Post a Comment