emiofbrie: (Default)
[personal profile] emiofbrie
I haven't waxed politic in a long time, but I needed to say this.

There's various reasons for what happened Tuesday night. Voters, especially "minorities" (I hate using that word nowadays, since no race is in the majority anymore) showed up to vote in record numbers, for the 2nd presidential race in a row. The right-wing pundits could only stare in shock (and in many cases, have nothing short of apoplectic fits) as everything they thought they knew about the election crumbled to dust. Even electoral-vote.com, which amalgamted numerous polls to predict the race, and were right on the dot in 2008, underestimated Obama's margin of victory by 29 electoral votes (they called FL for Romney on Monday).

So how did this amazing victory for the Democrats happen?

1) Mitt Romney was the face of evil. I don't mean just personally, I mean across the majority of the country. He was the smirking bastard who fired you, instead of Obama's inspiring pep-talking coach. As far as the public was concerned, both candidates weren't really running so much on their performance over the last few years, as they were running on their first impressions. It was really 2008 Obama (with more "balls" to fight back, as it were) vs. 1990s Romney for most people. No contest.

2) The right-wing media honestly thought they had a chance. No, they honestly thought they'd have a LANDSLIDE! With all the poll data, it seems strange to think they'd think that, but in reality, they were kept in a bubble created by their own kind. They only paid attention to sources like Fox News, Rasmussen, UnskewedPolls.com (which is SO mistakenly named it's ridiculous), Conservative Talk Radio, Dick Morris, Donald Trump…and even those sources were only getting their news from each other! They said the "mainstream" polls were "skewed" Democrat (despite being correct almost 100% of the time in the past, and actually, they likely UNDERsampled Democrats this year). The right-winged media was sealed tighter than a Scientologist's home from outside information. This is why they panicked so hard this year, unlike any reaction we ever saw from them in 1992, 1996, 2006 (when Dems took both houses for 4 years), or 2008. The numbers Obama got for electoral vote, they had predicted for Romney. Basically, there was reality, and then there was right-winged media.

3) And this goes back to (1): Because Romney was so perceived as he was, people came out from the left in record numbers to vote. That effect was even seen here right in the apartment I live in (which was a polling place). Tak and I noticed numerous people-- some who came as immigrants, some who had lived here from the start and gone without voting their entire lives-- come out to vote for the first time simply because ROMNEY NEEDED TO BE STOPPED! However, the perception of "big money" Romney was only part of the issue, as yes, the Republicans have an image problem of not caring about the "lower" clases of people, and that leads to…

4) The Republicans' BIG problem. It's not their money. It's not their success. It's not even really their conservativism per se. It's their officially-sanctioned BIGOTRY. Deep-seated, brain-piercing, dyed-in-the-wool party BIGOTRY! The Republicans' official party platform states that being gay (like me) shouldn't be a protected class like race and shouldn't be allowed to marry. The Republicans' official party platform says no to all abortion, but then also says no to any form of birth control, because they think sex should only be for procreation. The Republicans' official party platform then also proceeds to say they're for smaller government. Sorry, telling me who I should love, telling me who I should marry, telling me when I should have sex and for why… that's not smaller government. It's not even *really* conservative. Not really. conservativism is leaving well enough alone: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. conservativism is only allocating those resources that are fundamentally needed. Granted, I do have issues with the way some of that is applied (like privatizing medical care, police, fire, etc), but that's still what *true* conservativism is. Allocating resources toward making sure people don't do actions that don't affect anyone else negatively (like all the money spent on MN's "Vote YES" campaign) is NOT conservative.

Their bigotry was most defined by yesterday's Rush Limbaugh show. In one segment, he lamented that ethnic voters didn't like the ethnic politicians on the Republican ticket. He basically ranted in this segment, talking about Condi Rice, and Mia Love, and Suzanne Martinez, and Marco Rubio. All I got from Rush's rant is that he was basically saying "we have minorities now! Why don't you love us?" The fact that he actually thought the mere presence of ethnic people on the ticket would make that demographic love the Republicans shows just how out of touch he, and by likely extension the Republican Party itself, are. That's a stark example of the deep-rooted bigotry that will continue to plague the Republicans for years to come.

The kind of neo-"conservativism" the Republicans currently represent is in actuality religious in nature. They don't like gays because their religion thinks it's icky. They don't like pre-marital sex because they think it's a sin. In fact, the official Republican party platform also says… they want to enshrine "Christian values" into law.

In this country, religion is supposed to stay out of politics by Constitutional edict. Religious statements shouldn't be in *any* party platform in this country, and that's where the bigotry comes from. And because among most Republicans, their faith is everything to them, it's not likely to change anytime soon. As time passes, and the Internet makes communication with many different types of people easier, this bigotry will fade more among the populace, and the number of people that support the current Republican platform will dwindle more and more with each passing year. It's simply social physics, and there is no stopping it short of a global EMP to kill the Internet.

You want to vote conservative? Vote Libertarian. Seriously. Conservativism in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Liberalism in and of itself isn't always a good thing either (see the recent fiasco surrounding Buckyballs for an example of hyper-liberalism), and it's the Libertarians who are only as far right as the Democrats are left. The actual polar opposite of the current Republican party right now… is the Green Party.

So how can the Republicans keep from fading into eventual obscurity? They have to let go of religion. Full stop. They have to take it out of their party platforms, and everything that stems from that. Stop hating on gays. Stop hating on sex. Stop trying to ban abortion. Stop hating on drugs. Rush Limbaugh was wondering also on yesterday's show if the Republican Party needs to just accept these and change their stance. My reply in a word: YES! They've done it before on other issues in the last 150+ years, and it needs to be done again.

Basically, Republicans need to TRULY start being conservative. Yes, they'd lose the Tea Party base, but they NEED to right now. In return, they'd gain the Libertarians, and then maybe we can REALLY start getting some reform done.

Okay, I think this rant is over.

Long time no rant!

Date: 2012-11-09 01:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shachihoko.livejournal.com
Wow, haven't seen one of these posts from you in a long while ... good to know you're still alive and around, and active on LiveJournal. (Actually maybe it hasn't been THAT long, but I tend to gloss over the DJ Particle music stuff ^^;;)

I'm not convinced that the Republican Party is capable of dragging itself back towards the center at this point, short of the tea party contingent being split off entirely. (... which is more or less what you said, except maybe for reversing the cause/effect pairing.) It may well be that the Republican Party as a whole needs to break apart and a new second party organize in its stead, or that a current "third party" rises to fill the incipient organizational vacuum for conservatives. Granted, it's as possible for me to be wrong as it is for anyone else.

One slight quibble re: "religion is supposed to stay out of politics by Constitutional edict" ...

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's not that religion is supposed to stay out of politics; the Founding Fathers were heavily Christian themselves (even if they hewed to some beliefs that we find repugnant today - like slavery). But there can be no officially-sanctioned state religion. Neither can they ban any faith, or the practice thereof, from American soil.

That said, a lot of Republican/conservative posturing does attempt to enshrine supposedly-Christian values as the law of the land - but even then they're wrong, at least to the extent that they're espousing a spectacularly closed-minded set of values which (many) other Christians take exception to. I believe that the theory of evolution is correct as opposed to the theory of creationism; I believe that two people who are devoted to each other should be able to marry and obtain the benefits of marriage regardless of color or gender - and this does not conflict with my own Christian religious beliefs, nor those of my parents.

There's more I'd like to say, but I have to pry myself offline and head to work. However, I was curious what Rush Limbaka had to say about the election, and I'm grateful that you were bold enough to find out and relay it - no way I was going to go spelunking in the depths of Bull**** Mountain (thank you, Jon Stewart :D) to find out for myself.

Re: Long time no rant!

Date: 2012-11-09 05:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] emiofbrie.livejournal.com
First of all, the Founders were mostly deists, not necessarily Christians. In fact, Jefferson was most likely atheist (or at least agnostic).

The point I was making is, once religion becomes a party platform, then it basically *is* similar to trying to hold one religion above all others as "official", which is against the Constitution. I'm not saying the candidates themselves can't profess their religion, just that a party platform shouldn't be doing it.

Re: Long time no rant!

Date: 2012-11-10 02:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shachihoko.livejournal.com
A little belatedly - can't really argue with THAT point, particularly as a lot of the colonists had been fleeing from religious persecution in Europe. Which is why we have the First Amendment in the first place.

Re: Long time no rant!

Date: 2012-11-09 09:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] emiofbrie.livejournal.com
good to know you're still alive and around, and active on LiveJournal

Also, I'm not as active on LJ as I used to be. I save my LJ for longer posts now. Most of my activity, and my more impulsive short posts, are on my Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/djparticle), and most of my DJ Particle stuff is on my music Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/djparticlecom) :) Also, my longer posts here are also mirrored in the "Notes" section of my main FB, and my show's playlists are in the "Notes" section of my music FB.

Basically, most of my old LJ friends have abandoned LJ for FB, so I moved with them and frankly, I like FB's format for short impulsive posts better. :)
Edited Date: 2012-11-09 09:45 pm (UTC)

Re: Long time no rant!

Date: 2012-11-09 10:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shachihoko.livejournal.com
I spent some time considering whether to get a Facebook account or not, finally came down hard against it, so. ^^;; Yeah, not budging from LJ any time soon unless it gets really horrible.


emiofbrie: (Default)
DJ Particle - RIAAcidal Lesbian Parodist

November 2013


Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 06:11 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios