SubscribeWe are accustomed to think of ourselves as an emancipated people; we say we are democratic, liberty-loving, free of prejudice and hatred. This is the melting pot, the seal of a great human experiment. Beautiful words, full of noble, idealistic sentiment. Actually we are a vulgar, pushing mob whose passions are easily mobilized by demagogues, newspaper men, religious quacks, agitators and such like. To call this a society of free peoples is blasphemous. What have we to offer the world beside the superabundant loot which we recklessly plunder from the earth under the maniacal delusion that this insane activity represents progress and enlightenment? The land of opportunity has become the land of senseless sweat and struggle. The goal of all of our striving has long been forgotten. We no longer wish to succor the oppressed and homeless; there is no room in this great, empty land for those who, like our forefathers before us, now seek a place of refuge. Millions of men and women are, or were until very recently, on relief, condemned like guinea pigs to a life of forced idleness. The world meanwhile looks to us with a desperation such as it has never known before. Where is the democratic spirit? Where are the leaders?
To conduct a great human experiment we must first of all have men. Behind the conception MAN there must be grandeur. No political party is capable of ushering in the Kingdom of Man. The workers of the world may one day, if they ever cease listening to their bigoted leaders, organize a brotherhood of man. But men cannot be brothers without first becoming peers, that is, equals in a kingly sense. What prevents men from uniting as brothers is their own base inadequacy. Slaves cannot unite; cowards cannot unite; the ignorant cannot unite. It is only by obeying our highest impulses that we can unite. The urge to surpass oneself has to be instinctive, not theoretical or believable merely. Unless we make the effort to realize the truths which are in us we shall fail again and again. As Democrats, Republicans, Fascists, Communists, we are all on one level. That is one of the reasons why we wage war so beautifully. We defend with our lives the petty principles which divide us. The common principle, which is the establishment of the empire of man on earth, we never lift a finger to defend. We are frightened of any urge which would lift us out of the muck. We fight only for the status quo, our particular status quo. We battle with heads down and eyes closed. Actually there never is status quo, except in the minds of political imbeciles. All is flux. Those who are on the defensive are fighting phantoms.
What is the greatest treason? To question what it is one may be fighting for. Here insanity and treason join hands. War is a form of insanity-the noblest or the basest, according to your point of view. Because it is a mass insanity the wise are powerless to prevail against it. Above any other single factor that may be adduced in explanation of war is confusion. When all other weapons fail one resorts to force. But there may be nothing wrong with the weapons which we so easily and readily discard. They may need to be sharpened, or we may need to improve our skill, or both. To fight is to admit that one is confused; it is an act of desperation, not of strength. A rat can fight magnificently when cornered. Are we to emulate the rat?
***
These wars teach us nothing, not even how to conquer our fears. We are still cave men. Democratic cave men, perhaps, but that is small comfort. Our fight is to get out of the cave. If we were to make the least effort in that direction we would inspire the whole world.
If we are going to play the role of Vulcan let us forge dazzling new weapons which will unshackle the chains which bind us. Let us not love the earth in a perverse way. Let us stop playing the role of recidivist. Let us stop murdering one another. The earth is not a lair, neither is it a prison. The earth is Paradise, the only we will ever know. We will realize it the moment we open our eyes. We don't have to make it a Paradise-it is one. We have only to make ourselves fit to inhabit it. The man with the gun, the man with murder in his heart, cannot possibly recognize Paradise even when he is shown it,
***
Some people think that a declaration of war changes everything. If only it were true! If only we could look forward to a radical, sweeping change from top to bottom! The changes brought about by war are nothing, however, compared to the discoveries and inventions of Edison. Yet, for good or ill, war can bring about a change in the spirit of a people. And that is what I am vitally interested in-a change of heart, a conversion.
We have a condition now which is called "a national emergency." Though the legislators and politicians may rant at will, though the newspaper tribe may rave and spread hysteria, though the military clique may bluster, threaten, and clamp down on everything which is not to their liking, the private citizen, for whom and by whom the war is being fought, is supposed to hold his tongue. Since I have not the least respect for this attitude, since it does nothing to advance the cause of freedom, I have left unaltered those statements which are apt to cause annoyance and irritation even in times of peace. I believe with John Stuart Mill that "a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished." I would rather my opinions and appraisals were proved wrong-by the emergence of a new and vital spirit. If it takes a calamity such as war to awaken and transform us, well and good, so be it. Let us now see if the unemployed will be put to work and the poor properly clothed, housed and fed; let us see if the rich will be stripped of their booty and made to endure the privations and sufferings of the ordinary citizen; let us see if all the workers of America, regardless of class, ability or usefulness, can be persuaded to accept a common wage; let us see if the people can voice their wishes in direct fashion, without the intercession, the distortion, and the bungling of politicians; let us see if we can create a real democracy in place of the fake one we have finally been roused to defend; let us see if we can be fair and just to our own kind, to say nothing of the enemy whom we shall doubtless conquer over.
[...] One voter in five said moral values were the most important issue driving the vote, and almost eight out of 10 backed Bush. Terrorism was almost as high in importance, and 85 percent of those voters also supported the president. Kerry found his strongest support -- more than 80 percent -- among those who named the economy and jobs and the war in Iraq as their most important concerns."Schism of 2000 More Sharply Divides Voters"
The decision to invade Iraq split the electorate almost evenly, according to the polling, although more think it is going badly than going well. Those who opposed the war and those who think it is failing went 4 to 1 for Kerry. Supporters of the Iraq policy and optimists backed Bush by equally lopsided margins.
The issue agenda varied by state. In Ohio, the economy and jobs topped the list, named by twice as many voters as singled out Iraq. But in New Hampshire, the reverse was true. And in Florida, terrorism topped Iraq and the economy.
These issue splits were overlaid on a foundation of an electoral map displaying the deep social divisions in the country. Despite some pre-election polls suggesting that Bush might double his share of the African American vote, nine out of 10 of those votes were going once again to the Democratic nominee, polls showed.
The number of blacks turning out appears to have been higher this year. If the exit poll for Pennsylvania is an accurate indication, African Americans made up about 13 percent of the electorate, almost double their share in 2000. Democrats had mounted a massive registration drive in Philadelphia, only to see it partially offset by an increased Republican vote in mid-state rural counties.
Kerry was also winning a clear majority of Latino voters, claiming more than half their votes and beating Bush by 15 percentage points, surveys showed. Bush may have run better among Hispanics than he did four years ago, but Simon B. Rosenberg, head of the New Democratic Coalition, which began a targeted media campaign in Florida and other states years ago, said the results in that state broke the pattern of complete GOP domination of the Cuban American vote.
Overall, white voters were favoring Bush by about 54 percent to 44 percent -- similar to his 2000 margin. The exit poll indicated that about 22 percent of yesterday's voters were white evangelical or born-again Christians. White House strategists had made a major effort to recruit more voters from that group, but no comparable figure for 2000 was available.
The gender gap persisted this year, but shrank a little. Bush was leading by about five percentage points among men, down from 11 points in 2000, while among women Kerry held about a nine-point advantage, two points less than Gore enjoyed four years ago.
In some key states, the gender gap closed almost entirely. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, a majority of men voted for Kerry, reversing the 2000 exit poll result. Bush also lost ground among men in Florida but still held the lead. In all three states, Kerry led among women.
Republican fears that the flow of the news would hurt Bush appeared to be confirmed by the exit polls. Those who said they decided during the final week -- about one out of nine voters -- went for Kerry by 10 points. Despite a video message from Osama bin Laden that some Democrats feared would move voters to Bush, the headlines about kidnappings, slayings and bloodshed in Iraq seemed to have had a stronger effect in the other direction.
Another notable feature of the election was the Kerry edge among voters younger than 30. Their ranks grew as much as those of older voters, who usually are much more reliable in showing up at the polls. And those between 18 and 29 -- one-sixth of the electorate -- were going for Kerry by 13 points last night. [...]
We are accustomed to think of ourselves as an emancipated people; we say we are democratic, liberty-loving, free of prejudice and hatred. This is the melting pot, the seal of a great human experiment. Beautiful words, full of noble, idealistic sentiment. Actually we are a vulgar, pushing mob whose passions are easily mobilized by demagogues, newspaper men, religious quacks, agitators and such like. To call this a society of free peoples is blasphemous. What have we to offer the world beside the superabundant loot which we recklessly plunder from the earth under the maniacal delusion that this insane activity represents progress and enlightenment? The land of opportunity has become the land of senseless sweat and struggle. The goal of all of our striving has long been forgotten. We no longer wish to succor the oppressed and homeless; there is no room in this great, empty land for those who, like our forefathers before us, now seek a place of refuge. Millions of men and women are, or were until very recently, on relief, condemned like guinea pigs to a life of forced idleness. The world meanwhile looks to us with a desperation such as it has never known before. Where is the democratic spirit? Where are the leaders?
Now we are in a year in which we elect a president of the United States; it is a year of debate and of argument, of political battles and personal clash. The most urgent problems of our own society, from the war in Vietnam to the smoldering discontent in our cities, will be weighed and analyzed, and solutions offered. Yet this is a year in which America must examine not only the candidates, but also the country - must ask not only who will lead us, but also where we wish to be led. We must look not only to immediate crises, but also to the nature and the direction of the civilization that we wish to build, that we wish to take part in. The great national debate must not become a contest of only particular programs. We need discussion, we need understanding of the most basic and far-reaching goals of American civilization. But we have been told by cabinet officers and commentators, by journalists and citizens, that America is deep in the malaise of spirit, and dividing Americans from one another by their age, their views, and the color of their skin. We have fought great wars, made unprecedented sacrifices at home and abroad, made prodigious efforts to achieve personal and national wealth. Yet we ourselves are uncertain of what we have achieved and whether we like what we have accomplished.
Now demonstrators shout down government officials and the government drafts protestors; anarchists threaten to burn the country down, and some have begun to try. While tanks have patrolled American cities and machine guns have been fired at American children, a poet proclaims that throat-cutting time is growing nigh and we're going to be ready while a National Guard general speaks calmly of plans to use heavy weapons in the city of New York. Our young people turn from the Peace Corps and public commitment of the early 1960s to lives of disengagement and sometimes despair, turned on with drugs and turning off from America. Truly, we seem to fulfill the vision of Yeats: "things fall apart, the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." Entangled abroad and embattled at home, America searches for answers, not just to specific programs, but to the great question, What do we stand for? Where do we want to go? Do we stand for our wealth? Is that what is important about America? Is that what is significant about the United States? Asked better perhaps, are we really so wealthy?
...
Beyond our borders, we have become the greatest force in the world. Some have even spoken of us as the new imperial power. Even if we should desire such a role, it is no longer possible, as the history of the last 20 years has so unmistakably shown. The day has passed when a country can successfully rule distant lands by force. The issue for us is whether we will live as an island in the midst of a hostile world community or whether we will be joined with other independent nations in search of common goals. We must understand this, because so much depends on what is going to happen in the future as to whether this concept is clear to us. Other countries will associate themselves with us, not because they will be forced to, but because they find in our acts and in our policies a common interest and an understanding of their own ideals and their own aspirations; an understanding of the values that they can respect and admire; an understanding of the values that they can strive to emulate; thus consideration of our wealth and our power brings us full circle to the question with which we began: What do we stand for? Nor should we be surprised, for this is the most powerful and constant lesson of all of history.
The wars and the conquests, the politics and the intrigues of state are soon covered by the years. The triumph of Athens, the empire of Rome, the march of armies, the names of governors - all these did leave some imprint, but it is the ideas and the statutes, the plays of Sophocles and the philosophy of Plato that endure most vividly shaping and enriching our lives to this very day. The mastery of transient events, our accomplishments, our victories will ultimately matter far less than what we contribute - all of us - in this country to the liberation of the human spirit. That is what we have always stood for in the past, that it is what we must stand for at the moment. That is what has given us our unique position, our unprecedented strength. That is why, in fact, we are proud to be Americans.
For two hundred years, America has meant a vision of national independence and personal freedom and justice between men. But whether it will continue to mean this will depend on the answers to difficult and complex problems. It will depend on whether we sit content in our storehouses, dieting while others starve, buying eight million new cars a year while most of the world goes without shoes. It will depend on whether we act against crime and its causes and wipe the stain of violence from this land. It will depend on whether we can halt and can reverse the tide of ever greater centralization in Washington and return the power to the American people in their local communities. It will depend on whether we can turn the private genius of industry to the service of great public ends, using comprehensive tax incentives to help industry create the jobs, train the workers and build the housing, which all of the efforts of the federal government have, so far, failed to do. It will depend on whether we still hold, as the framers proclaimed, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, or whether we will act as if no other nations existed, flaunting our power and flaunting our wealth against the judgment and desires of neutrals and allies alike.
« Older ps. i'll find my frog... | Today, Pulitzer Prize-winning ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Alabama (Secretary of State)
Alaska (Lieutenant Governor – Division of Elections)
Arizona (Secretary of State)
Arkansas (Secretary of State)
California (Secretary of State)
Colorado (Department of State)
Connecticut (Secretary of State)
Delaware (Office of the Commissioner of Elections)
District of Columbia (Board of Elections and Ethics)
Florida (Department of State Division of Elections)
Georgia (Secretary of State)
Hawaii (Office of Elections)
Idaho (Secretary of State Election Division)
Illinois (Board of Elections, decentralized, no results)
Also see Fidlar Elections Company (vote count contractor for many Illinois counties)
Indiana (Secretary of State – Election Division)
Iowa (Secretary of State)
Kansas (Secretary of State), (decentralized, no results)
Kentucky (State Board of Elections)
Louisiana(Secretary of State)
Maine (Department of the Secretary of State)
Maryland (State Board of Elections)
Massachusetts (Secretary of the Commonwealth, Elections Division)
Michigan (Secretary of State)
Minnesota (Secretary of State)
Mississippi (Secretary of State)
Missouri (Office of Secretary of State)
Montana (Secretary of State)
Nebraska (Secretary of State)
Nevada (Secretary of State – Elections Division)
New Hampshire (Department of State)
New Jersey (Department of Law and Public Safety – Division of Elections)
New Mexico (Secretary of State)
New York (State Board of Elections)
North Carolina (State Board of Elections)
North Dakota (Secretary of State)
Ohio (Secretary of State – Elections Services)
Oklahoma (Oklahoma State Election Board)
Oregon (Secretary of State – Elections Division)
Pennsylvania (Department of State – Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation)
Rhode Island (Board of Elections)
South Carolina (State Elections Commission)
South Dakota (Secretary of State)
Tennessee (Secretary of State)
Texas (Office of the Secretary of State)
Utah (Lieutenant Governor State Elections Office)
Vermont (Secretary of State – Elections & Campaign Finance Division) (decentralized, no results)
Virginia (State Board of Elections)
Washington (Secretary of State)
West Virginia (Secretary of State)
Wisconsin (State Elections Board) (decentralized, no results)
Wyoming (Secretary of State)
posted by calwatch at 3:03 PM on November 2, 2004