|
Originally Posted by BobbieDog
There is an aspect of the debate and its evaluation, that has very much to do with democracy.
Kerry won in the "non-democratic" aspect. He was more erudite, more intelligent, more connected with fact and reality. Some have referred to this by saying he was the better "speaker".
Yet he may well not have won in a crucial democratic aspect. None of what he was able to bring to bear through these qualities, may have seen him engage with a crucial constituency, amounting to about half of the voting electorate of the USA.
What are the mechanics behind this? What which sees him connect with reality and truth, as seen by one constituency: precludes him from connecting, at all, with another constituency? How are we to understand such division?
How do you cope with globalisation? That to me is the touchstone of what distinguishes the two constituencies?
I think Kerry says: see it, understand it, engage with it; master it through embracing and leading it? He, and perhaps those who might vote for him, manifest the characteristics and personal qualities which might allow this.
I think Bush says: contain this emerging globalisation, more or less as an extension of America; make it American, make it submit to America. Bush, and perhaps those who vote for him, exemplify the characteristics and qualities which might see America set out to bring this about.
Kerry and his people require a refined intelligence: Bush and his people require a robust conviction. Kerry says international: Bush says American patriotism.
Crudely put, you have intelligence meeting patriotism: Kerry's intelligence simply might not reach and touch those regulated by patriotism; what you require to be a good American patriot, even within a bubble of foreign expedition, while having its own skill set, does not require the Kerry intelligence.
This feeds into and resolves the flip-flop claim. Kerry does not change his position: rather, the refinement of his position, when viewed from differing points of view, offers different aspect and prospect. The position remains the same: but the position is extensive, complex and subtle; when it is viewed from different points of the compass which it covers, it appears variantly.
You take one Mustang. You view it from the front, from the rear, from the sides, under the bonnet (hood), from below, in the trunk. microscopically, macroscopically, mechanically, environmentally, physically, electrochemically, in terms of fundamental particle physics, financially, as a product, as a possession, as an icon, whatever. You always have the one unified item, one Mustang. But the reality of this one Mustang, through the lines of its creation, production and usage: is rich and complex.
The ideas we need to comprehend and take part in global reality are no different: they are complex, extensive, multi-facetted, subtle.
What Bush spinning does, is simply take what are several aspects of one unified Kerry conception: and say look, this aspect is not the same as this aspect; the Kerry vision of the front of the Mustang, is different of the Kerry vision of the rear of the Mustang. They then say Kerry flip-flops on the Mustang: do not let him take charge of the Mustang; follow Bush who only ever gives you the single view of the Mustang, say from the front.
The democratic fact we must face: is that some people do not want to know that the Mustang has many sides. From Texas the Mustang is always seen from the front: some people just do not want to get into having to consider that a Mustang can be viewed from different angles; that is just absurdly too demanding.
Bush is the politician who appeals to those who want to believe that the reality of the world, is confined and exhausted by what they can see from where they occur, period. That Bush appeals to people who in fact stand in many different occurrences, does not preclude this. He coheres and carries a political consensus, which allows half of voting America, to see that consensus as reflecting their immediate and personal occurrence.
The intelligence of Kerry, while inseparable from the constituency who might vote for him: simply has no function or resonance in the occurrences of those who might vote for Bush.
The differences between these constituencies, are just far more fundamental and deep, than often recognised: and manifests and constitutes a crisis of American democracy; the division of American society into two camps, with very little relation and interchange between the two.
Bush and Kerry, while struggling for partisan advantage within this electoral exigency, have not understood or mastered it.
It will be essential, before another Presidential election, to develop a politics, and a couple of the partisan, which does better understand and master this exigency. It is crucial to America that its politicians regain the capacity to speak to more of the electorate, hopefully all of the electorate.
|