Whereas previous generations of Americans laid down their lives for our freedoms, this generation willingly gave theirs up at the voting booth last night. Americans gave up real rights, such as the right to religious liberty, and very likely our second amendment rights, in exchange for services masquerading as rights, such as the "right" to "free" birth control. In fact, exit polls suggest that Obama was successful in making abortion an issue this election, handily winning the single woman vote by huge margins, even though abortion was never part of Romney's platform or even on his to-do list.
Clearly, Romney failed in his run for president, though in truth, the deck was stacked against him by a media employing bias like never before. And while this Wednesday morning quarterback has a few criticisms of the campaign: too safe, too willing to let attacks on his person lie unanswered, too soft in the second and third debates, my main criticism is for the American people. Because at the end of the day, Romney ran a pretty good campaign despite the challenges he was up against. Romney may have had his flaws, the media may have had their bias, but it was the American people who failed last night.
Some folks have expressed their condolences to me for my candidate losing. Right back at 'em; I express my condolences to the country as a whole for the country losing. Because the country lost last night. The thoughtful were overtaken by the rank. The makers were overtaken by the takers. American politics has now fulfilled Alexis De Touqueville's prediction that freedom ceases to exist when the electorate figures out that they can vote themselves an ever growing share of others' income. Make no mistake, the country has exceeded it's tipping point and will never be the same again.
What's sad about this is that if the facts were laid bare, my gut says Americans would not have voted the way they did. Earlier, I mentioned how prior generations of Americans had made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. Compare that to today's Americans, who couldn't be bothered to understand the facts before they voted. This generation of Americans gave up their freedoms because they couldn't be bothered to read past the headlines, or take the time to understand the issues or the impacts of the current policy. Media bias only works when the audience doesn't care to dig deeper or question the information presented. How else to explain the fact that Joe Biden's performance in the VP debate rewarded him with a second term? How else to explain Obama winning re-election despite being the most polarizing figure in terms of race and class to ever inhabit the White House? Or despite our current unemployment and GDP levels? Or despite the fiasco in Benghazi.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
If it makes you feel any better, the electorate also decided to keep the Republican Congress in place to block that abandonment of founding principles. And given the fact that second terms are typically less effective than first ones, we may see little change if any in our laws. There will be the implementation of "Obamacare" - there's no stopping that now. But it's a collection of policies, any of which can be modified. There will be the Great Budget Compromise of 2013, and who knows what that's going to look like. But anything more? Not legislatively, I'd bet.
2 - Frivolous D
1. "gave up... the right to religious liberty" - Really? Where? How? Specifically what right did religious liberty enjoy 4 years ago that they no longer enjoy!
2. "and very likely our second amendment rights" - Again, really? Obama signed bills allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak. He broke his promise to pushed for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban and he has made no effort to close the gun-show loophole.
3. "the "right" to "free" birth control." - Covered by insurance is not the same as free. Covered by insurance means that reproductive rights is also a health-care issue.
4. "Obama was successful in making abortion an issue... even though abortion was never part of Romney's platform" - Is this a laugh-line? Romney (10/17): “I’ve said time and time again, I’m a pro-life candidate,” Why would Democrats take up the issue? They already have Roe v Wade. Sorry but Republicans brought this to the table.
3 - Frivolous D
I think Baronius is correct in saying that we won't see any grand-legislation in the next four years out of the administration. And, yes, he will keep Obamacare safe for four more years.
I would add, though, that there's a good chance that he'll have the opportunity to appoint to the Supreme Court. No need to tell you what that could mean.
4 - Baronius
Friv - Probably not much of a difference for the Court. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are all under 65, and I can't picture Scalia retiring during an Obama presidency. The others who are in their 70's are all pretty reliably on the left. So as with the rest of this election, it's more of a Republican opportunity wasted than a Democratic gain.
5 - Dr Dreadful
Obnox, you really need to get a grip on the idea that rational people can have a perfectly good grasp of the facts and come to a different conclusion about them than you.
The idea that they must all be brainwashed or ignorant because they voted Democrat just won't wash.
6 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
The trend in recent elections has been to re-elect incumbent presidents, as was done with
Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush the II. President Obama latched onto that proclivity of
the American people to vote for stability in governance. In addition, President Obama has gotten
us out of two big wars and the electorate did not want to take a chance in starting any new
and costly wars. Staying out of big wars is the real key to reducing the deficit - not cutting
taxes.
7 - Frivolous D
Baronius, again, I may have to admit your right. As for Scalia, I think his bumper sticker reads, "They will take my gavel from me when they pry it from my cold, dead hands."
8 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
Whereas previous generations of Americans laid down their lives for our freedoms, this generation willingly gave theirs up at the voting booth last night.
Really? For the life of me, I can't think of a single bill that was passed where people gave up ANY liberties in this election, but there were several bills that passed where people GAINED liberty...such as with gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization. But don't let that ruin your illusion, now.
Americans gave up real rights, such as the right to religious liberty, and very likely our second amendment rights, in exchange for services masquerading as rights, such as the "right" to "free" birth control.
Where and how did we give up ANY religious liberty? What happened, OA, was that we elected a president who believes in the separation of church and state...which ideal the Republicans gave up back in the 1980's when they decided that it was okay if they could use the government to push their religious beliefs on others. And when it comes to Second Amendment rights, would you care to point out ANY anti-gun legislation Obama signed into law? Actions speak louder than words, OA...but don't let that little fact ruin your illusion, now.
exit polls suggest that Obama was successful in making abortion an issue this election, handily winning the single woman vote by huge margins, even though abortion was never part of Romney's platform or even on his to-do list.
Never mind that criminalizing abortion in all cases (including in cases of rape and incest) except to protect the life of the mother is part of the official Republican platform. Really, OA, you should learn to pay attention as to WHY we voted the way we do...but don't let the facts ruin your illusion, now.
Clearly, Romney failed in his run for president, though in truth, the deck was stacked against him by a media employing bias like never before.
Yeah, that eeeeeevil MSM, since they didn't attack Obama for really being born in Kenya, and since they didn't expose that global warming conspiracy, and since they weren't as far-right as Faux News - and since they didn't predict a Romney landslide like some Faux News leading lights did - well, THAT means they're part of that vast left-wing conspiracy, huh?
Here's a clue, OA - most of us REAL lefties consider the MSM to be right of center...with at least as much cause as you've got to call them 'left of center'. But don't let the facts ruin your illusion, now.
Media bias only works when the audience doesn't care to dig deeper or question the information presented. How else to explain the fact that Joe Biden's performance in the VP debate rewarded him with a second term? How else to explain Obama winning re-election despite being the most polarizing figure in terms of race and class to ever inhabit the White House? Or despite our current unemployment and GDP levels? Or despite the fiasco in Benghazi.
1. Biden WON the debate - not because of his demeanor, but because he kept pointing out Paul Ryan's outright 'malarkey'.
2. Obama was the most polarizing figure...how? If he'd been Republican, you would have been hailing him as the second coming of Reagan! Why? Because our individual federal tax burdens are lower than at any point since the early 1950's, our corporate tax rate is lower than at any point since 1972, the rate of growth of government spending is lower than at any point since Eisenhower, AND he has LOWERED the deficit 8% since 2009. In other words, OA, Obama is the most fiscally CONSERVATIVE president since Eisenhower, more so than Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, or Bush 43.
You castigate him for the DREAM act...never mind that Reagan's amnesty was MUCH bigger. You decry Obamacare...never mind that Obamacare is almost a carbon copy of Romneycare and is largely drawn DIRECTLY from what the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich supported in the 1990's. One-third of his oh-so-terrible stimulus was TAX CUTS, and when it comes to government stimulus packages, he merely followed an example set by Reagan and Bush 43. He's passed fewer regulations than either Clinton or Bush 43 did in their first terms. AND he's deported RECORD numbers of illegal immigrants, got bin Laden and most of al Qaeda, and ended a major war!
C'mon, OA - if we judge Obama by his actions, he's a moderate REPUBLICAN! YES, Obama was divisive...but it wasn't because of anything he did. It was ONLY because he didn't have an (R) behind his name. But don't let little things like facts ruin your illusion, now.
9 - Christopher Rose
Nice skewering of this BS article, Glenn.
10 - Igor
Obnox refuses to face the failings of his party, his candidate and beliefs and insists that it's the fault of the press (as usual) and, finally, the American people. Looks pretty cowardly to me.
11 - Clavos
Demographers have proclaimed for some time now that the country was moving toward a population in which no one ethnic group will be the majority; many have mentioned 2035 as the date this process would culminate.
I think we saw the process gather velocity with this election, which boiled down to the people of color forming a coalition under the Democratic banner (although with a fairly good-sized contingent of whites joining them), while the Republicans, almost 100% lily white, formed the opposition. I take away from the result of this election that white folks have finally lost their position (as a group -- individuals will prevail for a few more years) of power, authority and privilege in the USA. I believe that never again will whites dominate the rest of American society to the degree they have until now. Yes, there will be seeming returns to the old structure; white presidents will still get elected (but less and less frequently and they will face Congresses of increasing non-white membership), but the overall trend will be fewer and fewer whites in positions of power in the coming years.
Since most of the non-whites are and will be Latino (they already outnumber the African Americans for example) If you don't already speak Spanish, learn it. From this event on, this process will only accelerate; as the news circulates in Latin America, ever larger groups of immigrants will begin to arrive, swelling the ranks of the Latinos to a point where much of the country will mirror Miami and South Florida, where almost every position of power and authority, from politics, to business to law enforcement is already held by a Latino/a these days.
12 - Igor
@11-Clavos: the usual lamentation of racists. Did you ever think that MAYBE your ideas and policies are corrupt and it's not just a racist plot against you?
13 - Doug Hunter
#11
Mostly true, no velocity change though. The percentage of white vote drops 3 points every four years and has for a long time. We may be reaching a tipping point where a divided white population can no longer compete with unified minority ones. That'll change though once they realize we aren't the boogeymen they thought we were, they'll split into their own factions. Our policies are headed to those of western Europe, our demographics to those of Brazil (Have you seen the women there?)
My prescription: Drop abortion and gay marriage as issues immediately along with any other social issues. Focus on limited government, liberty, classic liberalism. Force the christian coalition back to the democrats where they belong with their conservative black and hispanic demographics. Then wait a decade or so. Coastal whites, the educated of all races, and the 'cool' kids will come back home to the right and we can move forward.
Not gonna happen though.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
I take away from the result of this election that white folks have finally lost their position (as a group -- individuals will prevail for a few more years) of power, authority and privilege in the USA.
Both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly just admitted much the same thing.
Since most of the non-whites are and will be Latino (they already outnumber the African Americans for example) If you don't already speak Spanish, learn it. From this event on, this process will only accelerate; as the news circulates in Latin America, ever larger groups of immigrants will begin to arrive, swelling the ranks of the Latinos to a point where much of the country will mirror Miami and South Florida, where almost every position of power and authority, from politics, to business to law enforcement is already held by a Latino/a these days.
Well said, and quite true...and all those who might be offended at the eventuality should remember the Serenity Prayer i.e. if you really can't do anything about it, then don't worry about it. An oak tree is much stronger than a blade of grass...but when the winds blow, generally speaking, it's not the blade of grass that has to worry.
That's why I told my sons I want them to learn two things - to be happy, and to adapt. Change is indeed the only true constant.
15 - Clavos
Igor:
Snap!
I'm Mexican born and raised and a Mexican citizen with dual citizenship. I identify myself as Mexican, and if I have any racism in me, it's against arrogant, condescending gringos like you; gringos who think you're better than everyone else, and have pissed off people all over the world with your attitude throughout your history. I live in Miami because it is a Latino city, and I look forward to the day when we outnumber you -- and we will, bet on it.
16 - Doug Hunter
#11
Also, there are alot of benefits to what you describe. Immigrant groups self select so the more motivated and ambitious end up making it. Also, declining birthrates among european stock means new blood needs to be brought in... that is if you want to have someone there to change your diaper in the old folks home!
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Doug -
That'll change though once they realize we aren't the boogeymen they thought we were, they'll split into their own factions.
Actually, it's we whites who need to learn that the non-whites are not the boogeymen we thought they were. We and not they are the ones who need to learn to adapt. But then, conservatism and social adaptation are all too often mutually exclusive.
Our policies are headed to those of western Europe, our demographics to those of Brazil (Have you seen the women there?)
Cool on both counts!
My prescription: Drop abortion and gay marriage as issues immediately along with any other social issues.
Nope - ain't gonna happen. Y'all sold your political souls to the Religious Right, and now they are the ones who have been setting the social agenda for the GOP for some time now.
Focus on limited government, liberty, classic liberalism.
Sounds good from a conservative standpoint...but liberals like myself know that's a path we're not going to travel willingly, thank goodness!
Force the christian coalition back to the democrats where they belong with their conservative black and hispanic demographics.
Oh, no, you got the political cooties called the Religious Right and we don't want them!
Then wait a decade or so. Coastal whites, the educated of all races, and the 'cool' kids will come back home to the right and we can move forward.
Um, Doug - it's as you said - it ain't gonna happen. Besides, we've got coolness and to spare - watch Obama's slow-jam with Jimmy Fallon some time. He was really only following the footsteps of Clinton playing the sax on the Arsenio Hall Show way back when! And besides, the Boss is on our side, whereas you've got Ted Nugent and the Oak Ridge Boys. Coolness? Please!
But to give you some hope, I suspect that this election is the beginning of a sea change, the beginning of the decline of the Religious Right. If and only if (1) conservative punditry can muster the courage to reject the Religious Right, and if (2) conservative punditry can go cold-turkey on race-baiting, then the GOP might, just might be able to start back on the path to become a big-tent party once more. You see, even though they don't set policy, conservative pundits are the ones who are setting the tone for the GOP - ask any of several former Republican politicians who dared to speak out against Rush Limbaugh!
#1 I think is doable and might even be starting now - and the GOP policymakers are not stupid. They can see as well as anyone the price they're beginning to pay for selling their political souls to the Religious Right. But #2 is not so easy. Why? Here's a story for you: a good friend of mine is a black woman. Back in the early 1960's, she was talking to a Mormon missionary. She was just a child at the time and asked, "Do blacks go to heaven?" The Mormon missionary replied, "Why yes, they go to dog-and-cat heaven." You see, for generations it was Mormon doctrine that black skin was the Mark of Cain and so they weren't even allowed to be Mormon clergy until something like 1977. You see, it wasn't just because of Obama that blacks stayed away from Romney in droves.
The GOP is going to have to get rid of the Religious Right first before they can hope to diminish the general perception (whether or not it is based on reality) that the GOP is more than a little influenced by racism.
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
I'm Mexican born and raised and a Mexican citizen with dual citizenship. I identify myself as Mexican, and if I have any racism in me, it's against arrogant, condescending gringos like you; gringos who think you're better than everyone else, and have pissed off people all over the world with your attitude throughout your history. I live in Miami because it is a Latino city, and I look forward to the day when we outnumber you -- and we will, bet on it.
And I can't gainsay a single word you said here. It's just funny to me that - at least on BC - you are so much more critical of the big-tent party than you are of the lily-white party.
19 - Clavos
Doug,
Thanks. The reason i think there will be a velocity change is because I see the influx of Latino immigrants accelerating as the world observes the results of this election, which presumably will be favorable for non-whites; but you could be right. In any case I think we agree there's a certain inevitability to the trend, whatever the velocity.
As to the future possibility of the Latinos splitting into factions: you're dead on the money there; in fact, one of the irritants is the tendency of non-Latinos to lump all of us together as a single group, when there are substantial differences between Mexicans, say, and Argentines, etc. That alone is enough to cause the splitting.
You ask if I've seen Brazilian women. I worked for ten years for Varig Brazilian airlines and traveled frequently to and through Brazil. They are gorgeous, and I have a theory as to why: as you probably know, Brazil is the only LatAm country to have imported Africans as slaves in significant numbers. They also freed theirs at about the same time the US did; Emperor Dom Pedro II abolished slavery (freely -- not under duress) in the early 1860s.
Following abolition, there was a tremendous volume of intermarriage between the races, to the point that today there are few pure bloods of either race. I think it was the ubiquitous intermarriage that produced those beautiful people. I say people because the men in Brazil are very striking as well. As a group, the Brazilians are the best looking group of people I've ever seen anywhere, and during 30 years of working in the airline business, I got to do a lot of traveling.
20 - Clavos
Glenn,
First, thanks for your #14.
A quick answer to your question about my embracing of the lily-white party instead of the big tent party: while my social attitudes are closely allied to those of you Democrats (most of my personal friends are liberals, and that's the major reason why).
However, I remain a political conservative, by which I mean I support small government (as you know) have a strong aversion to debt (either my own or the government's), and because of what I've seen happen in the world almost incessantly my entire life, I vigorously support a strong military and an agressive attitude in protecting the country from the predators of the world. This idea also gives rise to differences between my thoughts as to who are predators vis-a-vis who your party considers to be. One example, I think Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs are snakes and it bothers me that Obama is trying to establish a "friendly" relationship with Ahmadinejad; I would much rather blow him (and his puppet masters) to hell .
There are other differences, but those are some of the highlights.
21 - Doug Hunter
#10 Re: Brazil
No doubt, I didn't just throw the first Spanish (or Portuguese in this case) speaking country I could think of out there, it seems like that same mix may be the future here as we have a black population. My long time best friend and business partner is from there. His wife, mother, and three sisters are all fit and beautiful as many there seem to be. My wife is Puerto Rican which has some of the same mix, our kids will fit right into the new America. I say bring it on!
22 - Doug Hunter
Clavos, speaking of aversion to debt. Do you think it's possible the world is in the midst of a long cycle sovereign debt bubble among western powers? It's something I've occasionally got a sinking feeling about... that one day every government's debt may become junk at the same time and really there is then no backstop as they become essentially powerless to do anything about it except firing up the press and hyperinflation. It seems the solution to Greek bonds is EU bonds and US funding is borrowing from China... it's bonds on bonds on bonds. At some point it seems the music could stop and the whole Keynesian experiment could go nuclear dwarfing the housing bubble, (whose answer of course was debt funded stimulus). The mother of all bubbles I'd call it.
Is that ignorant conspiracy talk or is there some fundamental reason it couldn't happen? The biggest bubbles seemed to be backed by the biggest truisms... the stock market always goes up, house prices always go up, you can alway borrow a bit more money our government always pays you back.
23 - Clavos
Doug, I'm no economist, though I did take a full year of economics in college; one semester of micro, followed by one of macro. Anyway, I do believe it's possible for developed nations' debt to accumulate to a point when the "bubble" bursts, if for no other reason than it can and does happen in other commodities. While money isn't strictly speaking a commodity, it does have some important similarities, the most important of which, of course is confidence in its value. The thing is, the dollar is the developed world's standard currency (really the whole world's) and our rate of borrowing has accelerated to an alarming point in my opinion. If the world should lose confidence in the dollar, it seems to me that loss could trigger a a failure that would generate a worldwide panic and subsequent frantic scrambling by each affected nation to protect their wealth, including, as you said, firing up the presses. Your point about all the US paper held by China brings to mind a scenario wherein China, being seriously crippled by a sudden sharp devaluation of the dollar (because of holding all that paper), and at that point wouldn't be able to turn to the US to demand payment because we wouldn't have it either. That situation would undoubtedly create a domino effect that would spread worldwide.
Because of the very fundamentalism of international inter-nation borrowing, I think that if anything breaks, yes, it will go viral.
24 - roger nowosielski
Igor is off his rocker to see your #11 as a lamentation of a racist. Either that, or he simply responds to you on a strictly antagonistic basis, regardless of content.
So yes, an arrogant and condescending gringo is the proper description, to which I would only add: a grumpy old man.
25 - El Bicho
not sure how Clavos talking about the country's changing demos is considered racist. Igor makes himself look like the Boy who Cried 'Wolf'.