[I notice problems with the blog download; sorry for any annoyance.]
Hitler comparisons should generally be verboten, but a line in Downfall* struck me -- Goebbels said in response to a plea for sympathy of young target practice for the Russians that he had none -- the German people gave them the mandate, and now they were paying the price. I said it when he was re-elected and I will say it again -- in some sense, unless we truly want to make elections meaningless (and darn if some do try, arguing they are totally corrupted), the American people gave George Bush a mandate in '04. Such is the importance of the upcoming election.
Now, this "mandate" is somewhat limited. It might not be for the extent of his claims to be above the law ... a mandate by the way that we would not have the right to supply under our current constitutional system. But, yes, the people who elected him -- people who often knew his problems (what does this say about Kerry?), but voted for him anyway -- had an inkling by November 2004 what sort of leader they were voting in. Others say Ohio was rigged ... the national popular vote is even harder to explain (many who agree '00 was a fraud supply good evidence that Bush did win Ohio).
And, we are told that it was damn close (anyway, so many do not vote). This is not trivial -- the closeness of the election, though it was a bit less close the second time around, especially in Congress, suggests the division of the country. It suggests that the President really should keep in mind that his "mandate" to govern in a certain way is not as clear-cut as he claims. The attempt to "reform" Social Security (an issue simply not raised in any real sense during the election) underlined the problems with overreaching in this area.
This is true even though some would point out that he won, so he has the right to lead the way he believes appropriate. I only take that so far. The will of the people, including the strength of victory and respect for the 48% not on your side (many more on certain issues), needs to be taken into consideration. It is not all or nothing, except for greedy bastards. Still, elections do matter. A majority voting for the guy cannot be shunted aside without in some real sense cheapening our republican system of government. In some real sense, Bush by being re-elected received a "mandate" to govern in a certain fashion.
This is why those who f-ing knew he was a lousy choice but cheapened their role as voters by voting against Kerry because they did not like the guy personally (lying to themselves that he was some danger to the commonwealth even with a Republican Congress) truly angers me. You want to think that Kerry won in Ohio, or should have if things were done fairly (100k votes is a bit harder to explain than 537), fine. Why was it even close? The closeness suggests that even those wary are willing to take the risk. They too gave him a mandate for not seeing the choice as crystal clear. Some might have been "concerned," but concern is not enough. Many a despot thrived while others looked on very "concerned."
A mandate comes in various guises. These people got one, in some fashion at least. Damn us for giving it him. How many will look back -- are already looking back ala sorrowful Nader [the spell checker suggests "nadir," which is not too wrong] voters in 2004 -- and wish they acted differently? Two more things. "Mandate" in effect means giving one a "hand" -- handing over authority. Second, when I say "Bush" above, really he is but a stand-in for his entire ilk. After all, he is not only commander in chief (of the military and the militia in service), but head of state -- sad state of affairs, but c'est la vie -- as well as of the Republican Party overall.**
Now, that is a group who supplied a "mandate" -- tainting them for years to come. For now, let us celebrate the third year anniversary of "Mission Accomplished!" appropriately. [I share the sentiments of one opinion piece that this event gives too much of a "mandate" to the person in power, who gets a chance to do his "look how amusing and down to earth he is" shtick that is akin to Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. You all are joining in his game. Enough!]
Trivia Bit: During his interregnum between his two stints as justice, Charles Evan Hughes served on the World Court. Scalia's dad, while in the process of not oppressing blacks (no affirmative action needed!), was known to have been against such involvement. Meanwhile, his son is in the news today because he shook hands with a rapper. The rapper noted Scalia likes to sing and has a loud voice. Scalia warily told the gossip columnist who reported the meeting that they just said "hi." Good to see that he is meeting new people.
---
* An excellent German film (2004) recounting the last days of Hitler, largely through the eyes of his young secretary. A short clip of a real life interview of her near the end of her life at the very end made reference to Sophie Scholl ... she passed a memorial of this anti-Nazi martyr, and decided that youth did not save her from guilt.
** It is also noted that he is the de facto leader of the fundamentalists who serve as a major base ... I guess ala the King of England being Head of the Church too. Likewise, reference is made to Jimmy Carter's book Endangered Values where he discusses a certain sort of "fundamentalists" that poison both religion (he is an evangelistic Christian ... no seriously, liberals can be Christians ... really -- stop it!) but also government as well. The mind-set applies to both forms.