Looking Glass Politics

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can’t be bothered.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Thus spoke Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler’s propaganda minister. “Propaganda” is defined as “information, idea, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.” Going strictly by this definition, propaganda is not necessarily false, and not necessarily a bad thing. It has, however, come to have a negative connotation because of all the ways it has been used for harm, or used to manipulate opinion for the purposes of gaining power.

The extreme liberals in the Democrat party have become masters of the big lie. Example: aided and abetted by the media, which has been happy to just repeat the accusations without any actual attempt to do any critical journalism, they have managed to make large numbers of Americans believe that George Bush lied and manipulated intelligence reports in order to go to war in Iraq. Never mind that there isn’t a shred of evidence to support that charge. (If there was, we would have seen impeachment hearings years ago.) Never mind that the Democrats in Congress who were pushing the big lie had direct access to the same intelligence reports. (Some even sat on Congressional intelligence committees.) Never mind that many of them were on record, as far back as the Clinton administration, talking about what a danger Saddam Hussein was. Never mind that the national intelligence agencies of all of our allies – even some who weren’t willing to go to war – all agreed on the issue of WMDs. The story line was, “Bush lied,” and now hundreds of thousands of Americans believe it.

But you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. After January 20, you are going to see a parade of legislation that will make you think you’ve gone through the looking glass with Alice:

• Organized labor will expect Congress to pass a bill that was blocked in the Senate in 2007. This bill would eliminate the right of employees to cast a secret ballot in an election to determine whether to certify unionization of their workplace. Instead, the union would automatically be certified as soon as it collected a majority of signed authorization cards. Employee decisions on unionization would be made publicly in front of union organizers and fellow workers as they decided whether or not to sign an authorization card. This bill is called the “Employee Free Choice Act.”
• Democrats will attempt to destroy conservative talk radio through legislation that would require a radio station to give equal air time to opposing points of view, rather than allowing the free market to determine what people want to listen to. So, for every three hours of, say, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, a station would have to broadcast three hours of someone like Al Franken, who was such a commercial failure on talk radio that he decided to run for Congress instead. It’s a given that any radio station that attempted to follow that format would go broke, because as we’ve already seen with the dismal failure of Air America, liberal talk radio simply isn’t commercially viable. So the theory is that radio stations would shift in mass back to news or music rather than continue in a talk show format. But that’s OK with the Democrats, because it would get Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity off the air, and that’s their main objective. This legislation is known as “The Fairness Doctrine.”

Hopefully, the remaining Republicans in the Senate will stand firm against this kind of deception. If not, we have only ourselves to blame. In my experience, when all the votes have been counted, the American public pretty much gets the government it deserves.

Thanks for listening.

P.S.: If you're concerned about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, you can add your name on an on-line petition drive at: http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?u=13257&RID=16271511

While I'm On the Subject...

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can’t be bothered.

Yesterday’s post had to do with the reaction of many gay activists to the passage of California’s Proposition 8. As long as I’m dealing with the subject, I may as well go way out on a limb and state my own view of the issue.

Here is the central question as I see it, all moral and religious arguments aside: Does a society have the right to grant special status to social structures that are in that society’s best interests? I believe that it does, and it appears that a majority of Americans agree with me.

What does that have to do with gay marriage? Simply this: Many studies have concluded that the best of all possible environments for raising a child is a traditional family, with both a father and a mother who actively participate in loving and raising the child. Are there obvious exceptions? Of course there are. Some heterosexual couples are terrible parents, and it wouldn’t be difficult to come up with an example of a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple where the same-sex couple would be the better parents. In addition, some marriages break up (as do some civil unions), and children are harmed in the process and/or end up in a single-parent household. But in general, the best environment for raising a child is a traditional family.

Clearly, there are few (if any) things more vital to the future of any society than the well-being of that society’s children. So it follows that it is in society’s best interests to encourage the family structure that has proven to be the best environment for healthy child-development. Hence the special status granted to traditional marriage.

Gay activists want society’s blessing on the concept that same-sex relationships are in every way equivalent to heterosexual relationships. But they aren't. There is one thing that a same-sex relationship cannot do, and that is provide a mother/father bonded pair for the raising of children. And that is why, personally, while I support the concept that same-sex couples – or any “civil union” partnership, for that matter, including, say, one between elderly siblings – should have the same rights in regard to dependent coverage on health insurance policies, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc., I also believe that there is something special about a traditional marriage that sets it apart from any other kind of partnership and makes it worthy of special recognition.

So far, the majority of our society appears to agree with this position, judging from the fact that every time the issue has ever been subjected to a vote of the people, traditional marriage has won. If society as a whole changes its mind on the issue, and expresses that change at the ballot box, so be it. In the meantime, society should continue to have the right to encourage the social structures it believes to be in its best interests.

Thanks for listening.

Who Are the Real Haters Here?

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can’t be bothered.

In this morning’s paper, the following article headline in the Everett Herald caught my eye: “Gay activists plan boycott of skiing, festivals in Utah.” The article opened with the following sentence: “Utah’s growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California’s ban on gay marriage.” John Aravosis, who is described as a “blogger and gay rights activist,” is quoted as saying, “At this point, honestly, we’re going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state.”

(Note to John Aravosis: There are a lot of non-Mormons in Utah. In 2004, roughly 62% of the population consisted of church members, although, according to Professor Tim Heaton of BYU, between one-third and one-half of those people are not active in the faith. That would imply that the majority of Utahns are not active members of the LDS Church.)

Now the facts are that, according to polling data, the majority of whites in California voted against Proposition 8. On the other hand, African-Americans, who turned out in record numbers to vote for Barak Obama, overwhelmingly favored Proposition 8 (69% Yes). Arguably, had that not been the case, the measure would have failed. So why go after the Mormons? Could it be because they actually had the audacity to publicly oppose gay marriage on moral grounds?

Here is the real story of Proposition 8, according to an exit poll done by Edison Media Research:

• 64% of Catholics voted yes (without regard to race)
• 65% of Protestants voted yes
• 84% of weekly churchgoers voted yes
• 54% of occasional churchgoers voted no
• 83% of people who have never been to church voted no
• 90% of non-religious voted no

Seems pretty obvious to me that there is a high correlation between people of faith and people who want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, even in the State of California. I think it’s fair to conclude that it’s a moral issue with most of them. And if there’s one thing that liberals in general, and gays in particular, cannot stand, it’s people who make moral judgments about behavior. It is axiomatic with them that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong.

But the LDS Church, which considers the sanctity of the traditional family unit to be a cornerstone of its faith, urged its members to support Proposition 8, and its members responded. By their own statistics, LDS Church members make up approximately 2% of the population of the State of California. (Bear in mind that’s what the church membership records show, although, just as in Utah, it’s likely that some portion of that number are not active in the faith.) Their financial contributions to the campaign, however, were disproportionately higher – a lot higher – than their population. Now it must be stressed that these contributions came from church members individually, not from the church itself, and that they have every right to do whatever they want to do with their money, within the constraints of whatever election laws may apply. But by so doing, they made themselves an easy target.

In the days before the election, the opponents of Proposition 8 ran one of the most despicable television ads I have ever seen, and I’ve seen some pretty disgusting ones. If you’re curious, you can probably still find it on YouTube. It shows two young men, who are obviously intended to portray Mormon missionaries, knocking at the door of a married lesbian couple's home. When they answer the door, one young man says, “Hi, we’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” His partner adds, “We’re here to take away your rights.” The two then force their way into the home, take the wedding bands from the women’s fingers, and go through the place, rummaging through drawers and personal effects until they find their marriage license, which they then tear in half. The text overlay as the two are leaving the house, congratulating one another on how easy it was and wondering what they should ban next, says, “Say NO to a Church taking over your government.”

Two days after the election, more than a thousand protesters (according to an LA Times article) gathered at the LDS Temple in Westwood, CA. Carrying signs that said things like “End Hate,” they screamed epithets at the half-dozen or so men who were visible through the gates. Apparently they couldn't see the irony of their actions.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will state for the record that I am not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but I am proud to claim many of them as my close friends, and I’ve been married to one for 23 years. Like any group of human beings, they are imperfect. If you look hard enough, you will find those whose lives are not consistent with their stated beliefs. This is a trait they share with most of mankind. But I can state unequivocally that they are not “haters,” unless by “hater” you mean “people who believe there is an absolute standard of right and wrong, are not willing to concede that all systems of belief are morally equal, and are willing to put their money where their faith is.”

Apparently, for many gay activists, that is their definition of “hater,” and “haters” must be destroyed – along with the entire State of Utah. Which begs the obvious question: Who are the real haters here?

Thanks for listening.

P.S.: To my LDS friends: “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” – Matthew 5:11 & 12.

The Times They Are A-Changing

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can’t be bothered.

“I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.” Thus wrote President-elect Barak Obama in Audacity of Hope.

Two days ago, we witnessed the truth of the first sentence, as people of “vastly different political stripes” came together to elect the most liberal, least experienced, and least known President in the history of the nation. Over the next four years, we will discover how true the second sentence is.

The post-mortem of this election will go on for months, if not years. Volumes will be written about why Obama won and why McCain lost – which voting blocs went which way and why, what campaign mistakes were made by the losing side, and what brilliant strategies contributed to the win. There is no question that Obama ran a brilliant campaign. He is, without a doubt, the most charismatic speaker to hit the political scene in a very long time. He can talk about “hope,” and “change,” and “yes, we can,” and “we can get there,” and create an enormous amount of enthusiasm in his audience without ever specifying exactly what we’re hoping for, what we’re going to change and how, what it is that we can do, and where it is that we’re going.

In this year of the perfect political storm, with the economic meltdown being the final, insurmountable wave that sank the Republican ship, a sufficiently large number of people simply didn’t care about those questions. It was enough that he was handsome, articulate, and charismatic. It was enough that he was different from anyone else in the race. They were like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland who sometimes believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Of course he could attend Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church for twenty years, but not know about his radical anti-American views. Of course he can lower taxes on all but the wealthiest 5%, introduce billions in new government programs, and reduce the federal deficit at the same time. Of course we can achieve energy independence without increasing our own domestic oil production. "Yes, we can!"

None of it mattered in the end. The press was all too happy to let him skate on the inherent contradictions of his message, and those who had already made an emotional decision to support the young, handsome, charismatic, articulate Senator who made them feel good when he spoke simply weren’t interested in digging out the facts for themselves. They rejected the known quantity of John McCain for the "blank screen" of Barak Obama on which they could project their desire that he would somehow magically make things all better. Talk about an audacity of hope!

So now, we will find out the hard way just what kind of President he will be. I've often said that once the ballots are all counted, the American people pretty much get the government they deserve. Thankfully, it looks like the Democrats will not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so there will still be a need for compromise in the Obama administration. If Obama is smart enough to surround himself with smart, experienced people – people who will explain to him that America must be governed from the center, not from either political extreme – and if he listens to them, he may have a successful presidency. I hope he is successful, because, for better or for worse, he’s now my President, and for the sake of the country I have to wish him success – because an unsuccessful presidency could cause enormous damage that could take a generation or more to undo.

Thanks for listening.

Nice Guys Finish Last

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can’t be bothered.

It’s the day before the big election, and I’ve reluctantly concluded that Barak Obama will win tomorrow’s election. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am. Big money and big media have succeeded in selling the American electorate on the most liberal candidate to run for the Presidency in my lifetime. However, I do not believe that the Democrats will achieve a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which means that Obama’s agenda will not be totally unchecked.

Incredibly, I don’t think that most people who are voting for Obama really understand what he stands for. And it isn’t because he didn’t tell us – it’s that it wasn’t widely reported by the media, and because people didn’t want to hear it. I predict that buyer’s remorse will set in fairly quickly when people see what his agenda really is, and that he will not be elected to a second term.

Still, unless the Senate’s Republican minority finds the cojones to stand up for their values, great damage can be done in the next four years, particularly in the nation’s judiciary, and especially in the two (at least) Supreme Court positions that Obama will get to fill in the next four years. Therein lies the greatest danger to our freedoms.

The most tragic thing to us conservatives is that John McCain could have won this, but he chose not to go after Obama where he was most vulnerable until it was too late. Certainly his campaign advisors have to bear a large portion of the blame, but ultimately the blame has to fall on McCain himself. Personally, I believe that McCain was too much of a nice guy to win this election.

John McCain still adheres to the “old school” of Senate behavior: the one where personal honor is important, and personal attacks are beneath you. Where respect is shown to your opponent, no matter who your opponent is or how radical his views. I believe that he would rather lose an election than violate those principles of behavior he believes in…and I believe that, given what he’s been through in his life, he doesn’t view a lost election as the worst thing that could happen to him.

The Democrats, on the other hand, care about power, and don’t care what they have to do to achieve and retain it. They will maintain that black is white and up is down, if that’s what it takes to get back in power. They would rather lose in Iraq and see that country in chaos than see George W. Bush get credit for anything. We’ve seen that pattern of behavior time and time again over the last few years from Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, and the other usual suspects.

I happen to agree with Bill O’Reilly when he said that McCain should have said, “Look, I’m going to appoint Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General, and Mitt Romney as Treasury Secretary, if they’ll accept the positions, and I’m going to go after every CEO and every government official that was responsible for this economic chaos. If you elect me, I will go after the people that caused this, and I will hold them accountable for their actions.” Had he done that, he probably would have won. Had he gone after Obama’s judgment for his relationships with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres, Tony Rezko, and others, much earlier on in the campaign, it could have made a difference.

There are so many things that McCain could have done, but didn’t do, that could have made the difference in the election. It’s nearly inexplicable that he didn’t do any of them. I’m sure that there will be many post-mortem books written about where McCain went wrong. Perhaps there will be some lessons learned that will make a difference in 2012. But this time around, the nice guy is going to finish – well, not last…that honor will go to one of the fringe candidates that our country still allows to be on the ballot – but not first either, and that the only place that counts.

Thanks for listening.