I Hope You're Happy

Religion was very interesting in this election cycle, and it gets more interesting every campaign year. Obama had Reverend Wright, McCain had ultra-conservatives that were intolerant bastards. Mitt Romney had the unquantifiable Mormon thing. All of this was an issue because their religion wasn’t acceptable to a voter demographic. The candidate wasn’t one of “them”, whoever the “them” happened to be. And don’t even try to get into politics if you’re an atheist. You obviously have no morals. So here’s my topic, and it is an open debate. Is religion becoming such a polarizing force that it is now a liability? Would it be better to not disclose your beliefs and let voters decide based on track record alone whether you uphold their principles?

Let’s look at some basic points of history. Religion has always been important to the American voter. No way around that. In the past, we were also much more conservative than we are now. And yet, the religious backgrounds of our previous presidents have been varied within the Christian spectrum. I think Jefferson was atheist or agnostic, but that was also back in a period of high public acceptance of atheism. The anti-atheist movement hadn’t kicked in yet, though there were certainly similarly conservative forces at work. The smear campaigns were also much more bitter, directed at the morals of a candidate. But at the same time, having a Christian affiliation essentially qualified a person for being, well, Christian. There were some reservations between the sects, but at the national level, some brand of Chrsitianity was good enough for most people.

Now things are different. Christians are divided on what the right brand of Christianity is, and the most vocal at the moment, the conservative sects, are very intolerant of any interpretation of the divine that isn’t their own.

So here’s the question: how much is faith now dividing voters, and how much is it now a liability to a candidate?

Continue reading

Don’t hold this against him, he was just doing his part to get the economy moving…..

I’ve been reading some of the comments by Blagojevich, being somebody who lives in his state and all, and I have to say a few words.

First, it hardly surprises me that he has this in his character.He has always been slimey, though I’m not sure we knew this on such a scale in his first term. In his first term, he looked mostly harmless at best. In his second term, he pulled some moves that made most of the state scream in agony.

Take for example, the stalemate over CTA funding. After strikes and budget debates ad nauseum, it looked like the state finally had the right funding worked out and agreed on, when he suddenly threw in a provision to make public transportation free for seniors. A noble idea for sure, but we all know his idea was just meant to anger just about everyone.

Second, Contrary to what Michelle Malkin might say, Liberals are wagging their finger and being gleeful about this. Blagojevich had a 4% approval rating a few weeks back, and I think that it was still falling. 4% basically means his friends, family, neighbors, mailman and interior decorator liked him. Really, having listened to stories covering his actions as Governor for years, nobody in politics really liked him. Nobody. Blagojevich is to Democrats what Nixon is to Republicans.

Third, looking at his State Senate picture on wikipedia, he has a striking resemblance to Richard Nixon, son’t you think?

Fourth, and this one’s the kicker, I know a lot of people that are still happy that they voted for him instead of his opponent, Judy Baar-Topinka. I agree. We got the lesser of two evils in that election. The last cycle was proof that we need a slot on the ballot to get two new candidates, we want neither. We would have knowingly elected George W. Bush over either of them, and, I’m convinced, have had better, more fair governance.

Fifth, my favorite quotes from him via the State Journal Register, a Springfield paper: I don’t care whether you tape me privately or publicly. I can tell you that whatever I say is always lawful.”

and

“This is America, you know, and I’d appreciate if you want to tape my conversations, give me a heads-up and let me know.”

There are questions as to whether these statements are taken out of context, or constitute a crime. This is ignoring what is in many ways a bigger issue, since Blagojevich isn’t resigning, who would work with him after this, who would stand by him on any legislation? In short, how can he possibly do his job?

Lastly, the only thing that I can say that hasn’t already is that weeding out corruption in Illinois is kind of like the Cubs winning the series. We always wait for next year, and we’re used to disappointment.

Note to Republicans:

Could you please stop comparing Obama to Hitler? Georgia Republican Representative Paul Broun apologized on Nov. 12th for his comparison of Obama and Hitler. One talk show host Michael Savage is interviewing a former member of the Hitler Youth to make comparisons to Obama. I think my listeners and readers can think their way through this on their own, but if there are any out there who live in a Red mind, let me lay it out for you. The comparison fits about as well as George Bush at a Moveon.org board meeting, but more significantly, it greatly cheapens the horror Hitler caused to this world, and diminishes the experience of our WWII vets, and the Jewish survivors of the regime.

I don’t know why you are so obsessed with Hitler. He was an intolerant racial purist, a book burning, gay hating, fear mongering murderer. His philosophy that military action could solve the world’s problems by the creation of a pure empire state led to years of genoicide that could only be stopped by the combined actions of most of the powers of the rest of the world. He would ban anything he found immoral, he hated anything he thought was different, he would…never mind. I think I get the fascination. He’s just like you. The obsession you’re giving this Hitler angle borders on perverse idolization. It isn’t healthy.

And note: If you turn to page 14 in Johnny’s manual on political discourse, it is stated quite clearly that the first person to make a comparison to Nazis loses.

I get the feeling that this comparison comes more from the Libertarian wing of the party, who feels that any perceived challenge to a civil liberty in any way should result in a revolution. These are the same people who refer to Democrats as Big Brother, Communists, Socialists, and those are when they’re on the record.

The kind of cognitive dissonance that it takes to make a comparison between Barack Obama and Hitler with a straight face is somewhat indicative of the dissonance I see within the Republican party. If you don’t know what the concept of cognitive dissonance is, it is the ability to simultaneously hold two opposite views in your head and still believe both. Another example of cognitive dissonance from election 2008 was Sarah Palin, who didn’t believe in fossils, but believed in fossil fuels. That particular gem was so dissonant to the rest of us it had to be pointed out by a Canadian journalist.

There’s been a lot of discussion of who is the real Republican party, the Libertarian branch or the Religious conservative branch. Let me remind you that the Republican party started just before Abraham Lincoln, and holds as it’s core philosophy a limited role of government in the citizen’s life. The emergence of this party coincided with the decline of the Whig party, which I’ll return to by the end of this essay.

But times and the party have changed. What was once a progressive party on the issue of race could hardly find any diversity at its own convention, and then showed its racist nature as the election reached its final days. We venerate Lincoln as the emancipator of the slaves, and probably the most troubled President ever. Georgie boy’s difficulties are nothing compared to the issues Lincoln faced.
On a side note, while it is worthwhile to note that the Bradley effect does not exist, and may not have ever existed, nobody has mentioned how bad it must have felt for Bradley to finally realize that people just didn’t like him.

The Libertarian branch of the party is the heart of the traditional Republican message, in truth. They want as little governmental interference in personal lives and financial markets. In the extremity it has reached, it now takes only the slightest hint or lie that a civil liberty might be tread on to completely close off the Republican Libertarian’s mind to a candidate. If somebody told them McCain wanted to take away their guns instead of Obama, Obama would have won this branch of the party. While the extreme libertarian point of view is increasingly dubious to me as I look at the nation as we now know it especially as it applies to market regulation, it has its own merit in the civil rights arena. I think these libertarians are a different breed than the staunch supporters of the Libertarian party, and we should draw a strong line between the two. The Libertarian Party is made up of the Trekkies of the political sphere, idealists who believe that all people are good and altruistic. Republican Libertarians hold a much more rugged Marlboro man kind of idea of individual liberty. They’re more in the they can have my liberty when they pry it from my cold dead hands camp. They’ll call Democrats Communists, and believe lies about gun control as they rush to the gun store to buy up Communist designed AK47’s to defend their rights which don’t appear to be threatened. If they want to really shake hands with Big Brother, they should look a seat over at one of those Republican pep rallies at the guy with the cross around his neck.

This man represents the religious conservative side of the Republican party. If given the chance, they would set out to banning whatever they feel immoral. If we look at some of the things that they have crusaded against, this would include particular books, television content, video games, Dungeons and Dragons, Harry Potter, Heavy Metal music, pornography, alcohol, homosexuality, different skin colors, religions other than Christianity, science that contradicts the bible, and eventually lead to restricting our freedom of speech and demonstration. We’d lose our rights to make our own choices over life and death, both in cases of abortion, and in the removal of life support. Eventually we’d end up with a single national voice that sounds quite a bit like fascism.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. How could anybody think this would have gone on forever besides Karl Rove? This union is as fragile as an Palestinian-Israeli cease-fire, and only self-delusion kept it together as long as it has been. I’m surprised they didn’t have separate but equal seating sections at their political rallies. If you set these two up on a blind date, they’d throw their first drink in each other’s faces.

So which is it Republicans? Limited government, or limited individual freedom government? You can’t have it both ways. The two sides are, in fact, in irreconcilable opposition on a core philosophy. This is the cognitive dissonance of the Republican party, and part of the reason for the melt down of the party post-election. Both sides are pointing blame at the other for the losses, calling themselves true Republicans. It looks like the party is heading for a great divide, which I have to say, I’m very pleased with. Maybe it will get the party to return to reality.

In reality, we saw the religious side of the party interfering too much in personal lives, and we saw the Libertarian side of the party free up markets too much. What we wound up with was a complete system failure, and America was left with a choice, follow a leader that looks at solutions to problems rather than dogmas to enforce on others, a leader who seeks to unify rather than divide, and party that is looking for cooperation with the world rather than confrontation. Is it any wonder why the nation voted as it did?

In the end, it may be wise to look back at the Whigs, and let the multitude of voices in the Congress have more power than any one person in the Presidency. Had Georgie Porgie wound up being more competent, or more Dick Cheney-like, we’d be in a dictatorship, and the executive branch would be at the pinnacle of its historic power, rather than in the lamest duck term ever. The president has to be answerable to somebody, and the system of balances has been impotent in pursuing Bush’s administration due to his policy of executive privilege, and Nancy Pelosi’s unwillingness to pursue impeachment.

A party that could hold these two extremes of the political spectrum within its own house has a cultural dissonance that can only lead to division, anger, and infighting. This can hardly surprise anyone, since it has been the Republican political strategy since at least Nixon.

You don’t want to vote for him, he isn’t like us. Imagine the psychological tactic of this simple statement, he isn’t like us. In word choice alone, it preys on the natural human tendency to want to belong to the group, rather than exist in isolation. Humans want to be part of the “us”, and not part of him. It carries the same effect when you use “they”, modified only in separating a group. That person is Un-American, not us. They are different, not us. And in this manner, we have the rise to that strong nationalism that Republicans call patriotism, and the rest of us see as dangerously close to the rise of well…Hitler, but you said it first.

I’d like to congratulate the great state of California on their approval of Proposition 8. In these dire economic times, they took one for the team, doing their part to stimulate the economy. Now that Connecticut has same sex marriage with no restrictions of residency, California has helped to create a whole new economy of same sex marriage tourism. I’d like to commend California on their realization that there is already plenty of love, equality and tolerance in this world. There is more than enough to cover all of us without extending the same to those people. I’d like to salute your independent spirit. Never before has millions of Mormon dollars from outside state borders made such a difference in state level politics. The campaign against promiscuity in our personal lives has never won such a victory as this proposition which bans two people from having a legal monogamous relationship. Your wisdom and common sense shall lead us all, though where exactly it is taking us is another matter. You make me sick. Congratulations. I hope you’re happy.