Election perspectives from The Nation

In this week’s issue of The Nation, several people wrote essays about how Bush won the election and what happens next. Though much of the material was very familiar, many of the essays made some good points.

Van Jones talked about the way the Republican message had more emotional resonance than the Democrats. Danielle Allen and Beth Shulman separately explain that Democrats should highlight their values of equality, fairness, and opportunity. Robert Coles reported that even Democratic-leaning voters viewed Bush as more likeable and accessible than Kerry.

Michael Lind argues that “American progressivism, in its present form, is as obsolete in the twenty-first century as the agrarian populists were in the twentieth.” However, the issues he lists to prove his point – urban sprawl, alternative energy, opposition to biotech – are secondary and didn’t receive much attention during the campaign.

Jorge Ramos, Steve Cobble, and Joe Velasquez make a convincing case that Democrats should pay more attention to Hispanic voters, considering that 64,000 changed votes in the Southwest would have given Kerry the Presidency.

The essays didn’t contain anything profound, but they were still worth reading. Even though I’m trying to come to terms with the elections results, they are still depressing and bewildering.