Inauguration ceremonies go unseen

  MARY CIECEK/Daily Bruin Senior Staff Patrons of L.A.
Fitness Center in Westwood workout and watch George W. Bush be
inaugurated as the nation’s 43rd president.

By Payam Mahram
Daily Bruin Contributor

While many in the nation watched President George W.
Bush’s inauguration Saturday morning, one group of UCLA
faculty, staff and students chose not to watch.

The group of about 30, organized by English Professor Robert
Watson and Fabian Wagmister, a film and television professor, met
in Sproul Hall to discuss their disillusionment with the outcome of
the election.

At the same time the UCLA group was meeting, Bush was sworn in
by Chief Justice William Rehnquist as the 43rd President of the
United States.

“I thank Vice President (Al) Gore for a contest conducted
with spirit and ended with grace,” Bush said in his inaugural
address.

Nevertheless, the television set remained off in Sproul
Hall’s meeting room. Participants shared discontent for the
Supreme Court ruling that lead to Bush’s presidency as well
as fears for his policies and cabinet appointments.

“Something truly outrageous and destructive had happened,
and the Bush handlers were cynically counting on everybody wanting
to forget about it,” Watson said.

“I thought it was important for people who were willing to
resist to know they weren’t alone, to improve each
other’s understanding by discussion and to figure out what
can be done to limit the damage,” he said.

Interest for the meeting was sparked by an article Watson
submitted to the Daily Bruin on Jan. 8, where he maintained Bush is
undermining the Constitution and urged anyone with similar
discontent to meet with him.

“I’m willing to organize; I’m willing to
listen and I’m easy to find,” Watson stated in the
submission.

Saturday’s meeting began as each person, including
undergraduate and graduate students, introduced themselves and said
why they thought it was important to come.

“I don’t believe in God. The Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence are narratives to me of how the world
should work, and what happened in the last election destroyed
that,” said Watson’s wife, Dana Carns-Watson, as tears
welled in her eyes.

Participants said they joined the discussion out of disdain for
Bush and what he stood for, how poorly the election was handled, or
to see what can be done to prevent mistakes from the past election
from happening again.

Third-year student Jason Espinoza said he was concerned
minorities were misrepresented during the election. He said he
believes ballots weren’t counted and people were turned away
from voting sites.

Many of those attending agreed that while they can’t
change the past, their voices should be heard during Congressional
elections and that they should work toward changing some of
Bush’s most troubling policies, including ones dealing with
the environment.

“We can’t be sure of preventing anything,”
Watson said. “It’s a big country, but we need to know
we’ve done our best.”

Participants questioned the legitimacy of Bush’s
presidency. They discussed the close outcome of the election, poor
voting methods and the “Nader factor” ““ the idea
that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader took the winning vote from
Gore ““ as possible reasons for the outcome.

Others pointed to a deeper problem inherent in America.
According to Wagmister, election problems begin with low voter
turnout. He said voting should be a mandated civil obligation as it
is in many European democracies, and children should be taught the
importance of political activism.

Carns-Watson said the media turned the election into a series of
movies, and Americans chose Bush because he was the most
entertaining and amusing actor.

Participants discussed how the media should be held more
accountable for portraying the truth. They also discussed methods
of making their ideas public, such as creating e-mail lists,
holding more meetings, writing to representatives, establishing
servers on the Internet and rallying for better voting
conditions.

Watson said he was happy with Saturday’s turnout.

“People acknowledged the limits on what they could do, but
weren’t willing to give up,” he said. “They
managed to be emotionally involved and rationally analytic at the
same time. That does a professor’s heart good.”