Worst Birthday Ever, Part 2

It's the ultimate white elephant gift (forgive the pun): four more years of George W. Bush. I'm about as delighted about it as you might imagine, but for once I'm going to try to make a case for myself.

First and foremost, I must lay the increasingly poisonous atmosphere towards gays at lesbians at the feet of Republican party members. As I've said before, they have drawn on people's worst fears and instincts for political gain. If you don't believe me, Google for Sen. Ken Blackwell's comments on gay marriage in Ohio - let's just say the term "barnyard" appears more than once. And ultimately, I must therefore lay the blame on President Bush. Is it fair to hold him responsible for the actions of his party? Well, yes: he is its leader, and like the leader of any organization, bears ultimate responsibility for the organization he leads.

I do not believe it's a coincidence that most of the state amendments (not to mention the federal one) have occurred since Bush took office. His rhetoric condones and encourages them. And they're getting worse. Several of the ones passed yesterday could (depending on court interpretation) ban everything from gay marriage to civil unions to domestic partner benefits to hospital visitation rights to joint ownership to mutual wills; all of these constitute legal agreements between same-sex couples. There exist those who won't be happy until every last faggot is in a concentration camp somewhere; and they have the ear of the White House.

But I do have other political concerns. Read, if you haven't, Bush's victory speech. In particular, this passage caught my attention: "Reaching these goals will require the broad support of Americans. So today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent: To make this nation stronger and better I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust. A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation."

Let me start by asking a deliberately naive question: why, exactly, does Bush need the support of a large majority of Americans, or even of the other party? He's not up for re-election; his party has a majority in both houses; and the Republicans have demonstrated twice now that they're perfectly capable of getting elected and getting business done with a slim-to-no majority. (As have the Democrats in other decades, to be fair.) Why shouldn't the Republican party simply do what it plans to do, with or without their opponents' support? It'd hardly be a political novelty.

But I don't have to be so cynical; I can take the man at his word. How, exactly, does he plan to do this? A hint: "Because we have done the hard work, we are entering a season of hope. We'll continue our economic progress. We'll reform our outdated tax code. We'll strengthen the Social Security for the next generation. We'll make public schools all they can be. And we will uphold our deepest values of family and faith."

More worries here, in my eyes. One of the things I concluded from this election is that the candidates didn't differ so very much in their plans; it was more question of priorities that sent people one way or the other. The above are apparently Bush's priorities, but a necessary step to truly courting the other half of the country will be to reshuffle those a bit, to pull some up the list and push others down. Is he willing to do so? I truly wish I knew.

I hear quite a lot that Bush's presidency has been the most divisive in recent memory; certainly it's true in my memory. I think the reason why is quite clear: he truly is confident and stubborn to the point of near arrogance. I really do admire that quality in some, but my political leaders are not among them. It's difficult to imagine a man modulating his position one iota when he routinely invokes divine providence to support them. If religiosity remains the strongest deciding factor in our elections, we're in deep shit for a long time.

Yes, I usually vote for the Democratic party, but not out of any particular alliance. The best explanation I can give is that I'm economically conservative but socially liberal. It'd be nice if I could find similar people to represent me, but they are a rare hybrid. When they do pop up, it simply seems to be more often in the Democratic party. I can't think of the last such Republican politician I've seen; maybe John McCain on his better days.

They say that an election is always a referendum on the incumbent. Did I approve of the last four years? No. All political rhetoric aside, I truly don't expect the next four years to be significantly different from the last. No one on either side of the aisle has given me reason to believe so. The best I really hope for is not to be wearing a pink triangle by that time, but we'll see.