A Center-Right Country?

If you have been listening to the aftermath of the 2008 election, and the ensuing GOP identity crisis; you've no doubt heard this line peddled by practically the entire right wing punditocracy. "This is still a center-right country" they continually say even as they lose the presidency, see their numbers continue to drop in both houses of congress, and see an overall blue shift in statehouses countrywide. This is some pretty twisted logic indeed. It doesn't surprise me that these are also the same people who believe wholeheartedly in some of the most transparently false ramblings of religious dogma ever invented. I'll try to restrain myself from making this a diatribe on religion, and save that for another posting. Suffice to say, just on its face this is a highly delusional belief, and isn't supported by any real evidence. Elections are the ultimate indication of where the country is politically, and I'm afraid that it is not looking too swell for my friends on the right.

People who follow presidential elections have no doubt heard the tired line about whoever is running against a conservative is the "most liberal" person ever. The formula is no secret, here's how it works. "(Insert candidate) is the most liberal (insert his/her current job description) in America. (Insert candidate) is to the left of (insert well known left wing lighting rod)." This year, Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in the whole senate, four years ago it was John Kerry, catching on yet? Apparently all you have to do to win the Democratic nomination is to be the most left wing you can be at your job and you are assured to win. It isn't just used against Democrats. Ironically, conservatives used this same attack on John McCain in the 2008 GOP primary, then had to do some serious backpeddling after he became their party's nominee.

So lets put together this logic from a conservative pundit's point of view. We just supposedly elected the most left wing person in the entire senate as our president. This "radical" left winger won with greater electoral vote, and popular vote margin than George W. Bush did either time. He won in states that Bush won in 2004 by double digits, including Indiana which Bush carried by a 21% margin. But this is somehow evidence that the United States is fundamentally conservative? If the Bush victory in 2004 was a vindication of conservatism, how is the Obama victory the same thing? Maybe after you figure this out, you can explain "Joe the plumber" mania.

The future doesn't look too bright for the Republican Party, and its not too difficult to see why. The GOP is quickly becoming exclusively the party of rural white men. A powerful voting bloc for sure, but not enough for a party wishing to effectively govern on a national scale. The GOP is being marginalized into a politically irrelevant southern, mountain-west party. This is largely their own fault, but could be easily remedied with a little political courage. The simple answer is to jettison the religious right. This immediately brings the party as a whole far closer to the center and gives them far greater national appeal. They can focus more on economics and national defense, by far their greatest strengths. Their candidates won't have to waste time paying lip-service to crackpot preachers, and religious zealots that seriously undermine their appeal to moderates. The majority of Americans support abortion rights, and keeping religion out of government, another strike against this "center right" nonsense.

I'll be clear, I don't think the United States is a seriously left wing country by any means. I would argue that if elections are any indication, the country altering its conservative course and moving back towards the center, which now clearly means a move to the left. Barack Obama was elected largely on a moderate-left platform; pro-choice, universal health care, ending the war in Iraq, middle-class tax cut, etc. You can expect him to work towards delivering on the promises that got him elected by not just by the traditional Democratic causes, but an expanding group of independents and moderates.

Elections have consequences

Nothing was more self-evident when George W. Bush uttered these words just four short years ago. Indeed elections do have consequences, but you won't hear Barack Obama so boastfully proclaiming it. Unlike George W. Bush in 2004, president-elect Obama isn't so quick to rub his newly received political capital in the faces of his former adversaries. The one thing we've learned from the former editor of the Harvard Law Review is that he is immensely intelligent and diplomatic. Make no mistake; Mr. Obama knows elections have consequences, and that he now has an extraordinary ability to affect change. Political capital can be used on something as simple as rhetoric. You won't hear Obama wasting his, proclaiming the obvious. This speaks greatly about the character of the man the voters elected by a margin far greater than George W. Bush won either time.

The day after the election, I took great pleasure in hearing, in his signature Texas twang, the words "Barack Obama" come out of George W's mouth during his congratulatory speech. It almost sounded as if it was the first time he'd ever spoke the man's name. I'm sure I wasn't the only one that felt a little awkward hearing it.

I also think its worth noting that Mr. Obama was elected on a very centrist platform. For all the charges that he is the “most liberal senator” he ran a remarkably centrist campaign. For those of you thinking that he will enact some wildly left agenda, I think you’re going to be in for a disappointment. The group that will probably be most disappointed by the Obama presidency is the far left. Mr. Obama has always been a fence mender, someone who seeks common ground with his adversaries. You don’t win states like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina running as a wild leftist. He has absolutely nothing to gain from governing as an extreme liberal, and everything to gain governing as a centrist. He likely won’t sacrifice his principles, but if history is any indication, his default position will be to seek common ground giving the opposition far more than they expect.

I'll make no bones about it; I believe the election of Barack Obama is deliverance. We were spared the horrible fate of electing a man exhibiting the signs of borderline senility, and his bible pounding ignoramus sidekick. The fact that John McCain, a 72 year-old with a history of cancer, would pick someone so horribly unqualified was a horrible judgment on him. No matter what you think about Obama and his policies, I believe electing him was the only responsible choice. Issues aside, I will always chose competence over ideology. Luckily in this case, I personally got most of what I wanted.

Trying to hold back my excitement

Coming in March of 2009, A debate film between author Christopher Hitchens and theologian Douglas Wilson. Complete with Hitch flying around in a helicopter, it's almost as if they made this trailer with me in mind.

In the begining...

After almost two years of confining my writing to emails and business related websites, I have returned. You might call this a blogging manifesto, a list of what I hope to accomplish here.

For starters, I wish to be informative, insightful, and entertaining. Lofty goals no doubt, but at a minimum I should at least hope to entertain myself.

Second, I want to create a public platform for expressing my ideas and opinions (a blog). There are a great many things that are right with, and wrong with these United States and I hope to present my take on current events and issues of the day.

Third, I need a place to rant. My friends hear me get on my soapbox on a regular basis, now there will be a written record of it.

Fourth, It will provide a venue for people to ask questions of me, and engage in meaningful, thoughtful debate.

All for now, more very soon.