llama llama duck

If you've ever wondered about anything, questioned any answer, pondered any quandary, or been really really stressed out, then click here, and your troubles, your quagmires, and maybe even your herpes, will dissapear

Our Bubble

UPDATE: Here is this article, as it appears in the Nov. 4 Spectator The View From Inside Our Scholarly Bubble

Our Scholarly Bubble

I'm sure the same thoughts are going through everyone's heads right now: "the country is screwed for the next four years," "we've lost our global credibility," "in fours we'll be talking about that liberal Justice Rehnquist," etc. etc. And I certainly do not disagree with these thoughts. But I think that we can also use this time to reflect a bit upon ourselves, and just how sheltered we really are.

Throughout our four years at Columbia, we read "everything" from Aristotle to Kant. And we feel great about ourselves, and how diverse our knowledge is. We know that you can look at the world through Hegelian dialecticism, or Freudian desires. But we still cannot figure out why someone, in fact 59,095.510 someones, voted for Bush. We must come to the realization that we are still missing a crucial chunk of knowledge, because all that we have learned cannot explain to us why President Bush garnered 52% of the popular vote last night.

Nothing I have learned could explain to me why someone would vote for a man who said in the town hall debates that he'd been "reading the Internets." The fact that the man who can command the largest standing army in the world does not know that Internet cannot be pluralized is appalling to me. Even though I consider myself an ideological Republican, and have voted that way in past elections, I could not bring myself to cast a ballot for a man who is so out of touch with technology. But you know what? My guess is that Bush was actually told to say that, exactly that, Internets. If he had a little earpiece in, Carl Rove was definitely whispering into it "Say Internets." But why?

I think a story told by my 10th grade history teacher, Mr. Bowditch, will help to explicate this: Mr. Bowditch had just purchased some land in upstate Maine, and when he went up to purchase the lumber to build his house, he found out his check had not yet been cleared. After talking with the owner of the lumberyard, the owner gave him $30,000 of lumber because my teacher "sounded like a good guy, and had a firm handshake." This is what mattered most to this man--character. It didn't matter what school he had gone to, or what he wearing, it just mattered that he was a "good guy." If this lumberyard owner was wiling to risk $30,000 based on a man's character, I'm sure he'd vote for the President based on the same criteria.

So how does this relate to Bush and his "Internets?" When he said "Internets," I'm sure that there was a collective rolling of every Columbia students' eyes. But at that same moment, a portion of the country fell further in love with Bush. His lack of technological jargon reaffirmed people's conviction that Bush is a simple, straightforward guy--and this is what matters most to them--his conviction and plainness, just like it mattered most to the man selling my history teacher lumber.

I know that one reason many of "us" voted against Bush was because we were worried that Bush would dilute the lines between Church and State--a separation we prize in America. But a large portion of those who voted for the President were attracted by this dilution. They would love to see their children reciting the Lord's Prayer every morning in school. They love their religion, and thus, they would love to see their religion extended into everyday life. I don't think I need to point out that supporting Kerry does not make someone an agnostic, it just means that I have a place for my religion, and that place is not in the Oval Office or the Supreme Court. Regardless, any curbing of religion is seen by some Bush supporters as a sure sign of Godlessness.

I've talked to people who have met the President, and no matter where they stand politically, they cannot deny that when he looks you in the eye, and shakes your hand, its hard to not like him, at least for those few moments. And while for us, the "learned" elite, this does not translate into an effective leader, for some this is all that matters.

Last night's results, and the subsequent shock felt around campus, shows us that we are lacking something critical in our education.

So how do we go about solving this problem? How do we come down from our ivory towers? Maybe we can't, maybe it truly is an unsolvable problem. Should Columbia add "Farm Hum" to its core, where we would go spend a weekend on a farm every semester? Probably not. But next time you browse through nytimes.com to catch up on the news, and the latest op-eds, try browsing through wichetaeagle.com as well. It's easy to get caught up in our liberal campus in our liberal city, in our liberal section of the country. However, I think our complete lack of empathy for those who voted for Bush shows how thick those iron bars on 116th St truly are, and how unexposed we are to the rest of our society.

And to throw a picture in there, since I can do that now: