Matt DiBlasi is one of approximately 60 million Americans who voted for George Bush in 2004. Like many of them, his views and opinions are not as radically conservative as Bush’s. Nevertheless, by voting for him, he assumes considerable responsibility for the policies of our President.
He says, and I’ll take his word for it, that he is not “an ignorant, homophobic fundamentalist who is against minorities and women’s rights” and that he does not believe “all homosexuals go to hell” or that “abortion is never morally acceptable.” Nevertheless, he is supporting a president who is actively using anti-gay rhetoric to draw supporters and is publicly attempting to change the Constitution in order to discriminate against homosexuals. DiBlasi is supporting a president who is actively trying to take away the rights of women (by appointing anti-choice judges) and won the 2000 election largely because of minority disfranchisement.
From what I can tell, DiBlasi does not agree with Bush on a number of issues, but is willing to overlook them for unspecified reasons.
You can say that you don’t hate homosexuals, minorities, or women, but you’re promoting a president who is trying to take away their rights. That’s a little like saying you want stricter gun control while donating money to the NRA. I know it’s impossible to find a candidate who exactly reflects your views, but choosing to vote against some of your beliefs is proof that those beliefs are subordinate to other concerns. Clearly, the beliefs you mention in your wespeak are not that important to you.
The only suggestion that I can glean from DiBlasi’s wespeak as to why he voted for Bush is because of religious reasons. I suppose if you think it’s moral to send troops to war without exhausting other options, that makes sense. If you think it’s moral to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, that makes sense. If you think it’s moral to leave 40 million Americans without healthcare, that makes sense. If you think it’s moral to renege on international agreements on nuclear weapons disarmament and environmental protections, that makes sense. If you think it’s moral to lie about your reasons for going to war, that makes sense. If you think it’s moral to restrict the civil liberties of people by denying them lawyers and trials, that makes sense. The only “moral” basis for choosing Bush that I can think of is if you believe that all abortion is murder and that there is nothing more important than limiting the number of abortions regardless of the costs. Personally, I disagree, but if that’s your most important political issue, you have a logical argument for Bush. But since DiBlasi does not believe abortion is morally reprehensible (at least in some cases), could he really believe Bush was a moral choice?
DiBlasi hopes that “the tolerant, open-minded community that we have here is able to accept that” he voted for Bush. My answer, bluntly, is no. Perhaps if DiBlasi did think the constitution should be changed to make sure that homosexuals never have equal rights or that morality consisted entirely of limiting abortions, it would be more acceptable, because at least he would be voting for someone who represented him.
By the way, as a liberal, I would like to note that not all of us believe in tolerating everything. Conservatives often have a hard time understanding this, and call us hypocritical because we often call for more tolerance from them. Allow me to explain. When liberals call for tolerance, we are often calling for an end to violence, repression, or discrimination. We are not saying that all opinions are equally valid and acceptable. This is not true. If you believe that legal rights should be based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, that is absolutely unacceptable. I support your right to express your beliefs, but I withhold my right to deem them morally reprehensible.
A final note: I do not support whoever tore down DiBlasi’s pro-Bush signs, and I do support freedom of speech. Thank you for submitting your wespeak. It has enabled me to debunk the idea that voting for Bush is acceptable just because you’re not as much of an extreme conservative as he is. You’re still responsible for the repercussions of his homophobia, racism, and sexism. Because you voted for him.
Leave a Reply