Election 2010

So, I realize I'm a little behind the times with this, but bear with me. The elections are still a pretty recent event, and still worth talking about. Because what we saw on that Tuesday night four weeks ago was a promising sign that, despite the best efforts of big government, American liberty isn't quite ready to roll over and be trampled.

The past two years should have been golden ones for the big government crowd. Obama's election was supposed to usher in the beginning of the "New Liberal Order," according to Time magazine. Sam Tanenhaus of the New York Times thought nothing of publishing a book titled "The Death of Conservatism." A Democratically controlled Congress, coupled with the election of Obama, was supposed to have put a permanent end to conservative ideology. The Republicans had failed; they were out, and now it was finally time to transform America into the liberal utopia those on the left had dreamed about for years.

Except, it didn't work out that way. Even as Obama took office, public opinion started shifting the opposite way. A Gallup poll conducted in July 2009- a mere six months after Obama took office- found that, by a two-to-one margin, people said they had become more conservative in recent years. The election of President Obama was not the open invitation to transform America into a liberal Mecca that so many on the left interpreted it as. Rather than eagerly gobbling up the big government agenda they were offered, Americans gagged on it. When Obama and his administration continued to force it down their throats, they choked. And, at the first opportunity they had, Americans roundly rejected that agenda and spat it back out.

The Republican party is often sneered at by the left as being the “Party of ‘No.’” But “No!” was exactly what an increasingly angry American electorate had been shouting at the Obama administration for nearly two years- “No” to the stimulus, to cap-and-trade, to seemingly out-of-control government spending, to the cumbersome and intrusive health care bill. “No” was the message Obama and his administration ignored at their peril. And “No” was the message they were roundly handed on November 2 , when the American people essentially slapped a pair of cuffs on them and screamed “Stop!” The exit polls from that day bear this out. Voters that fateful Tuesday voted for Republicans by 9-1. Fully 48% of them said that ObamaCare should be repealed. Only 1/3 of voters thought that the multi-billion dollar stimulus plan had done anything to help the economy (the other 2/3 were evenly divided between thinking that the stimulus plan made no difference and thinking that it had actually hurt the economy). Over half the voters- 56%, to be precise- said that the government is doing "too many things better left to businesses and individuals.” Only a paltry 38% thought the government should do more.

The message from the 2010 elections is clear- Americans are tired of bigger and ever more intrusive government. They want less government, less spending, more freedom. Whether the newly elected Republicans will be able to live up to those desires remains to be seen. What is refreshingly clear, though, is that, the quintessential American desire for more freedom and less government is still alive and kicking.

The Politics of Middle School- Part I

Hello, all. I realize that it's been a disgracefully long time since I posted here- so long, in fact, that I was almost ashamed to come back and show my face...errr, user pic. What can I say? My last entry was posted shortly before my son was born and babies (if you didn't already know this) are very time-consuming. I intended to keep posting, but I got so wrapped up in bottles and diapers and trying to get more than two hours of sleep a night that writing about politics sort of fell to the wayside. But no more! The child is thirteen months old now, election season is upon us, and politics waits for no blogger! Let us wade once more into the fray, and hopefully we'll be able to keep it at least semi-regular from now on.

Today, what I want to look at is not necessarily one specific issue, but rather a general, pervasive attitude I have observed from the current administration and its supporters on more than one occasion, and that bothers me a great deal. We were told that Obama was going to bring an end to the era of partisan politics. That we were going to have a "new era" of responsibility and engagement. Instead what we have seen is a "new era" of divisiveness, with ever lower levels of nastiness and pettiness being reached- most of them by Obama supporters, the Obama administration and, yes, Obama himself.

Let's start at the bottom- the supporters. From the get-go, Obama's supporters have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no interest in engaging in debate or discussion with their political opponents. Their main interest seems to lie in continuing to bash President Bush, and condescendingly mock Obama's opponents. This attitude has been apparent since day one of the Obama administration, when a large portion of the inauguration audience saw fit to loudly boo the outgoing President Bush. Now, I understand that, by the end of his second term, President Bush was unpopular. And it is understandable that the people there to support the newly-elected Obama would not be Bush's biggest fans. However, publicly booing and jeering the president of the United States is disgraceful behavior. I am not a fan of Obama, to say the least. I think his policies are terrible and will do great harm to America, both in the short and long terms. I am hard-pressed to think of a single thing he has done or said while in office that I have supported or agreed with. However, I would never dream of jeering at him in this manner. Why? Because I understand that, while our views differ drastically, he is nevertheless trying to serve his country in the manner that he sees best. And even if I could not muster even a scintilla of respect for the man himself, I still would not see fit to boo him. Whether I like it or not, he is still the duly elected president of the United States, and even if I do not like the man, that is an office that deserves respect. Apparently, however, this notion of respect for the office and common courtesy, even towards a political opponent, was completely lost on the crowd assembled on the Mall back in January.

This- well, we'll call it a "momentary lapse in judgment"- could perhaps be forgiven, though. After all, it was the inauguration, people were excited about Obama and glad to be rid of a president they had chafed under for eight years. However, booing at President Bush proved to be, not a one-time incident, but rather just the beginning of the left's new "Politics of Immaturity." This attitude of pettiness towards political opponents came out again full-force with the advent of the anti-Obama "Tea Party" movement.

Say what you will about the Tea Party- my own feelings are mixed- but they never really had a chance. Almost immediately, they were branded with the derogatory name of "Teabaggers" (a crude sexual reference) and consistently portrayed by the media as nothing more than bunch of racist bigots upset about having a black president. The Obama supporters were more than happy to jump right on the Tea-Party-hating bandwagon, condemning the protesters as extremists, racists, etc. The irony, of course, is that, while the Tea Partiers did not always behave with the height of politeness, they were doing nothing that liberal protesters had not done for eight years under Bush. Yet, the response from the left was much, much worse, in terms of rudeness, incivility, and all-around pettiness and immaturity. While similar protests under Bush were lauded as "patriotic," and seen as evidence of how unpopular Bush was and how evil his policies were, Tea Party protests under Obama were seen as the complete opposite. It simply wasn't possible that anyone could actually object to Obama's policies on any kind of logical grounds- no, the only rational explanation was racism. Or perhaps (if you felt like giving the protesters the benefit of the doubt) it was simply a lack of education- because no intelligent, well-educated person would object to Obama's policies. These people simply just didn't understand.

As if that attitude weren't condescending enough, the left soon moved from patronizing the Tea Partiers to openly mocking them, and this is where the immaturity and pettiness really began to show. Not content with simply dismissing the Tea Partiers as a bunch of ignorant racists, people on the left began to infiltrate Tea Party protests carrying fake "Tea Party" signs, covered in derisive, mocking slogans.

Now, let me stop right here to add a disclaimer. I am not against political humor. In fact, I am very much for it. I believe that humor can be a tremendously useful tool when talking about politics, and often serves to highlight a point in ways that tables, statistics, and polls could never do. However, I also believe that there is a difference between humor and mockery. One can poke fun a political opponent while not engaging in mockery, and still maintaining a level of civility and respect. These signs do not do that. Once again, they do not even consider the possibility that the Tea Partiers could have valid opinions or legitimate points of view- instead, they simply make fun of them, call them names, and submit them to childish taunting. In other words, they demonstrate that people on the left are more than willing to stoop to the same- or lower- levels of pettiness, immaturity, and name-calling that they (justifiably or not) decry in the Tea Partiers.

This is particularly interesting behavior when one takes into account the fact that no right-wing supporters did anything remotely similar during the anti-Bush protests of recent years. There was no infiltration of other people's rallies, no mocking signs, no petty name-calling. Instead, there was an understanding that, even if one did not agree with the protesters, they still had every right to their opinion, every right to express it, and every right to protest policies with which they disagreed. There was an understanding that, even if they were mistaken, the liberal protesters were simply expressing their concern about the direction in which the country was headed- as they had every right to do. Bush supporters might have privately rolled their eyes, or made a few choice comments to one another, but there was no public mockery or name-calling. Instead, there was respectful disagreement, and an understanding that the fact that people disagree didn't mean that they were stupid or uneducated or bigots. But rather than adopt a similar attitude, and allow the Tea Partiers to express their opinions and hold their protests in peace, the left instead saw fit to make fun of them, and resort to mockery, derision, and juvenile name-calling.

And then there were the t-shirts. Some...enterprising...leftie has put together a collection of "Tea Party" shirts. In the interest of not giving these people more business, I will not link to the site here, but said T-shirts are little better than the fake protest signs. Coming in a variety of colors, they are emblazoned with slogans such as "Obama won't teach my kids that the Earth is flat. That's why I'm voting Tea Party;" "Obama wants to let gays vote. That's why I'm voting Tea Party;" "Obama won't force Muslims to worship Jesus. That's why I'm voting Tea Party;" "Obama won't let my company harvest the organs of immigrants. That's why I'm voting Tea Party," and on and on and on, ad nauseam. You get the idea. Once again, the possibility that these people could have valid opinions or legitimate grievances is not even entertained. The possibility of respectful disagreement goes right out the window. There's no desire to be civil or engage in dialogue or debate- just the same rush to label all non-Obama supporters as ignorant bigots and make fun of them. Of course, it's just as easy to find anti-Obama t-shirts. The difference is, however, that most anti-Obama t-shirts I've seen simply express the wearer's personal dislike of Obama (they read "Nobama" or "Nope," with an Obama "O," or "You keep the change, I'll keep my guns and my money"). What they seldom do is stoop to the level of mocking those people who do support Obama. And therein lies the difference. The anti-Obama crowd, by and large, simply expresses their opinion; the Obama supporters feel the need, not just to express their opinion, but to mock and deride those who don't share it.

Nice bit of change there, guys.