Election reaction

It's been a week. A few final (though not necessarily brief) thoughts on the election and then I'll be done.
I was discussing this with some friends earlier this evening and we all agreed that the most shocking aspect of the election's outcome wasn't that Bush won -- it was the realization that there is such a huge cultural disconnect in this country. It was the realization that so many people seemed to be basing their vote off of their hatred and fear of gays. Eleven of 11 states (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah) approved amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. The Constitution, whether national or state, is a document usually used to give freedom to people and to protect people's freedom. So to see so many people want to amend the documents to take away others' freedom and to make sure they can not be treated equally, was appalling to many of us. I get that some people are uncomfortable with homosexuality and that some people find it immoral from a religious standpoint. But our laws are not based on the Bible, despite what advocates for Ten Commandment monuments would have you believe. And it wasn't as if these measures passed by small amounts -- they passed by large majorities. In Mississippi, 86 percent favored banning gay marriage. It should also be noted that eight of those states also banned civil unions and giving gay couples and their children the same legal rights as married couples. The same people who vilify gays as being promiscuous, strangely, are the first to deny them the ability to enter into a committed relationship and enjoy the benefits of such. I've also never understood the argument that allowing gay marriage diminishes the value of heterosexual marriage. It makes as much sense as saying that allowing interracial marriage or allowing black people to marry each other diminishes the marriages of white people. And that's what this feels like. Racism and Jim Crow laws and segregation for our generation. We also elected a senator from South Carolina who said homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to teach in schools and a senator from Oklahoma who said that lesbianism is so rampant in southeast Oklahoma schools that teachers can only let one girl at a time go to the bathroom. He has also said: "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power. Their agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today." And yet, this guy was elected. Out of fear.
That was what was depressing to many about last week's election. It became clear: We are not a liberal nation. (Despite what many seem to think, I still do not believe "liberal" is a dirty word.) We are more conservative than many had thought ("conservative," also not a dirty word), but more surprising was the realization we as a nation are not yet willing to even entertain the idea that homosexuals are equals.
I was also disappointed in the way the campaigns were run. It seemed like each side kept trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator in people, and each side kept trying to get lower and lower. The wolf commercial run by the Bush campaign was only slightly less ridiculous than Cheney's implication that if we elected Kerry we were more likely to be attacked by terrorists. Kerry's hunting/snowboarding/workcoat-wearing photo-ops were about as pandering as you could get short of him wearing a sign that exclaimed: "LOOK! I'M A REGULAR GUY!! JUST LIKE YOU!!!" Ugh. To all future candidates for president, or most political offices: I, for one, do not want someone just like me to run for office. I want someone better than me, smarter than me, more adept at politics than me. I want someone who has spent years training how to do that job. If I wanted a regular schmoe to be president, I would elect one of my friends. I don't want a drinking buddy, I want a leader.
So here's my idea for how to run a political campaign: Run a campaign of truth. I'm so sick of seeing ads and hearing speeches that distort the truth or just plain lie. You know how after the debates or after campaign ads have run, a lot of media outlets will run "truth squads" that examine them? Wouldn't it be something if all of a candidate's ads and claims were verified as being true? Wouldn't you want to vote for that person? So why is it so hard? Stop cherry-picking facts and statistics to your advantage. Stop taking your opponent's statements and votes out of context. Point out where you stand on the issues, stay consistent and have a plan to accomplish what you say you're going to set out to do. And have a plan to pay for it, for crying out loud. How hard a concept is it that you should have a balanced budget? Defend yourself, but do it with the truth, not with lies. You can attack your opponent, but do it fairly and keep it to the issues. Visit all 50 states, at least once, and meet with the people. Do your standard stump speech that sets out your vision, but then talk with the people. And more importantly, listen to them. Hear their concerns. Care about their concerns and tell them what you can do to help. Or if you can't or are unwilling to do what they want, tell them that and explain why. Be honest with them, even if they may disagree with you; even if it means they may vote for your opponent. Don't pander.
In a time when everyone says they hate attack ads, but studies show them to be the most effective, would a strategy based on sticking to the facts and reining in the relentless negativity really work? Could a campaign of truth actually succeed?
I don't know.
But I'd sure like to find out.