Wednesday, November 05, 2008
With Obama’s election, we will see black voters more thoroughly engaged in this process, and more of them can believe now that they can, in fact, achieve what whites can. Furthermore, with his election, he has opportunity to show rural voters that they can trust those who look and sound different than they do. No one should have voted against Obama because of his skin color, or because his name sounded odd.
Especially since there were so many other good reasons to vote against him. Obama’s policies will certainly lead to more taxes, the further overstretching of our military overseas and the additional sprawl of our government’s labyrinthine federal government. His plans will turn the drift away from free markets, the Constitution and states’ ability to govern themselves into a sprint. All of this is to be expected from a Democrat; unfortunately, Obama shows none of the potential strengths of America’s liberal left.
Obama voted for the Patriot Act this summer. He has voted to continue funding the war in Iraq, and his rhetoric suggests he will continue antagonizing Iran, nuclear-armed Pakistan and, worst of all Russia. He has spoken in favor of brining former Soviet Republics like Georgia into the European Union and NATO. These agreements, should Russia invade Georgia again, would bind us and Europe into defending her and fighting the Russians.
This is not in American interests. Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev are no friends of America or its values, but Mikhail Saakashvili is no freedom fighter, no saint, and defending his rule is not worth one American life. Obama could have stated as much, but he lacks the courage.
People can talk about his “audacity” in this campaign, but when has Obama ever shown real courage in this votes and policy positions? This is a man who opposed the war while representing Chicago’s south side in the Illinois Senate, where such a view was quite popular. He rode that favor to victory in a blue state and then proceeded to tone down his rhetoric once he was on the national stage, at point even stating that he did not know if would have opposed the war had he been in Washington at the time.
How is this audacious? What of his policy positions ever was? Our Medicare and Social Security entitlements are still growing faster than we will ever be able to pay for them, while our troops remain stationed in more than 100 foreign countries.
America’s antiwar progressives had a candidate: Ralph Nader, who favors big government, but opposed the war in its entirety while opposing the Bush administration’s spying on our phone calls and library books. Yet, the leftwing of the Democratic Party loves a winner.
Just like fiscal conservatives backed McCain rather than someone who really would’ve supported their views: Libertarian Bob Barr. Just like social conservatives supported McCain rather than someone who truly believed like they do: the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin.
The Republican Party is down, but will be back. However, given how much they gained in the 2004 elections, they should still be playing defense in 2010. Obama’s policies will cause government to grow, which Americans think they want now. They felt the same in 1992, but just like then, two years is all it takes to change some minds.
Those who want small government, want their civil liberties protected and want America to strengthen its own defenses, and not Georgia’s, must act now. Otherwise, the right wing that returns to power one day will be the same big government, foreign interventionist and church-state unionist wing of the Republican Party will be back, if not by 2010, certainly by 2012. The Obama backlash will come, and it’s up to us to see that the seesaw doesn’t continue, and that America doesn’t continue down its reckless, unsustainable course.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]