So its finally election day and somehow I really don't care anymore who wins. For the longest time I had this strong feeling that John Kerry winning would be a very bad thing. Not a "he'll ruin our country thing" so much as a "the democrats are gonna become a poorer party for it thing."
Then I was thinking about something the other day. I go to a unitarian universalist church in part because they tend to be very liberal (as I am) and are open to all different sorts of religions/beliefs -including my own (atheism). I was discussing the other day how everyone at my church always assumed that everyone else's political affiliation at the church is democrat, because its a "liberal church." What occurred to me was this would have been very much like church was when I was growing up.
My grandparents were baptist and so we went to many baptists churches. Given that those churches were typically in georgia and South Carolina I'd be willing to be that most people assumed that everyone else at the church were affiliated or at least sympathetic with the Democratic party.
I wonder how many churches there are out there that are still like that. Obviously Baptist as a denomination has changed substantially since then, and so has the Republican party. Many religious conservatives now favor the Republicans. That being said conservative southern democrats do still exist, Zell Miller is one of them. There are those old-guard Democrats that say "this was our party first and we are not going to be run out of it."
My point is why should I consider the Democrats the "party of the liberal" anymore than "the party of the conservative." Most leftists I do not consider to be liberal anyway. The anti-tech people, and identity politics people are certainly not "liberal" by any meaningful definition of the term. Mostly I have just wanted to see all those friends and acquaintances at church who strongly believe in the Democratic party and who are working hard to make a difference be forced to recognize that they've lost their party, that the party they are working so hard for isn't really liberal, and doesn't really represent what they want. I want them to see that they shouldn't succeed on a negative message but have to promote a positive message (something other than anybody but Bush) to win office and get the support of all those undecideds out there.
But alas I have to ask myself "what difference does it make?" Okay Kerry certainly is not the better choice for all of those soldiers and people in Iraq, and that is certainly a good reason to not want him to win. But I kind of think that my "liberal" friends should have woken up to see the party caving in a long time ago. There is no gurantee they will now, even after throwing all their support behind a bogus message of "we hate Bush, give us anybody else," and potentially seeing their believed solidarity fail miserably. Who's to say that will really sway them?
So beyond my belief that Kerry could worsen the situation in Iraq and thus expose more soldiers to increased danger I really do not care who wins. I certainly do not want to look at either candidate for the next four years, and I already cast my vote for Badnarik. The fact that all those self-proclaimed liberals joined the Democratic party is a bit of a mystery to me. Maybe its like all those Republicans trying to convince libertarians to join ranks with them in spite of the fact that we have contradictory views. Only the democrats succeeded where the republicans are mostly failing.