After a brief flirtation with Barack Obama and his utopian vision, America has returned to its senses.
Short months ago, on that historic night in November 2008, liberals dared to dream that their intention to reshape the country in the image of the modern Democrat Party would soon come to fruition. While blithely surveying the very blue electoral map, they peered into the future and envisioned a two-term president gifted with long-lived majorities in both houses of Congress. Not content with their overwhelming victory, they arrogantly proclaimed the death of conservatism and joyfully danced on the grave of Ronald Wilson Reagan.
They looked forward to decades of legislative dominance with which to fulfill their goal of pushing America toward the socialist utopia of their dreams, and salivated at the chance to reshape the Supreme Court in order to keep it that way. And it would be all so easy, now that the country had finally been won over to their side.
And they dove right in with the confidence of a movement that was convinced they had won a large and lingering mandate for change. From risky stimulus packages to the nationalization of the healthcare industry; with plans to implement cap and trade and even to "slow the rising of the oceans," they came to save America from itself.
But when the light of day shone on the details of their agenda and all the wheeling and dealing behind it became apparent, support for the President and his plans came crashing down and with it, their aura of invincibility, as evidenced by the Massachusetts rebellion. So, what happened? What can account for the change in the attitudes of even Bay State voters? Who are these people?
History has struggled to identify these voters for decades; ever since the Left started making bold yet covert moves to draw our country into the socialist web woven by FDR and fomented by the radical 1960s. Nixon called them "the silent majority," but after the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter, they were dubbed "Reagan Democrats."
Yet now that the White House is occupied by a man who, rather than delivering on a new message of hope and change to the nation, instead seeks to deliver the same old socialist menu served up by his progressive predecessors, they are branded as "tea partiers." But they are what they have always been: Americans who — although sometimes led astray by one lustrous personality or another — value our personal liberty and intrinsically understand what has made this country great.
And so there was no death of Reaganism; not only did it not die, it was never really born. It has grown organically since the days when our forefathers developed the notion that man might be able to live free from government tyranny and control. If anything, it awakens when that sense of personal liberty is at risk.
What has happened then is simply that America has come back to her senses; she has no stomach for the coddling of terrorists, disdains government control of private industry and is generally suspicious of big government and the high taxes and spending that accompany it. That may sound like the agenda of conservatives, but it's really only a description of Americans from 1776 onward.
My favorite line of the Declaration of Independence is this accusation of King George: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." This country never has, and hopefully never will swallow the idea that our money should be fodder for the hungry maws of big-government bureaucrats.
It's ironic then that a major theme of President Obama's address was not saving of whales, recalling all U.S. troops or even the further bankrupting of filthy rich capitalists. No, the advertised highlight of his speech was his shameless effort to recast himself as a deficit hawk. Welcome home, America.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by DanCartwright: Who Are These People?: After a brief flirtation with Barack Obama and his utopian vision, America has returned to … http://bit.ly/aCA6nD...
Massachusetts went for Obama by 23 points in the presidential election, one of his most loyal blue states. And how many years did the Democrats have their leash attached to the collars of the honorable Senators from Massachusetts – come to think of it, how many decades? But, in the course of a year, that intense loyalty is all changed, right? Right? Plus, according to this author, Obama ran on a message of “hope and change” but instead delivered the usual socialist programs. Now hold on there Conservative pundit and Chardonnay drinker, Obama made no secret of what he was going to do before he was elected, everybody knew what his intentions were if he captured the White House, everybody knew he had to disguise his real intentions in the usual non-partisan political rhetoric to keep from scaring the Moet Chandon – 1993 vintage out of the Boston gentry and the Miller’s Light out of the Independents – and it wasn’t like he was the first ever to do that either.
So, were the Massachusetts voters hoodwinked, bamboozled, had the synthetic wool pulled over their eyes by Obama – and in record time as well? Or, did the political payoffs fall short of expectations? Massachusetts reminds me of Detroit where I grew up – on the surface it’s “help the less fortunate” but under the lake’s altruistic waters it has always been “what’s in it for me”. The share the wealth philosophy in Massachusetts was passed on to the Irish, Poles and Italian kids by Sister Mary Agnes, to the Jewish kids by every Jewish writer, both living and dead and for black kids by Jesse Jackson and other honorable apostles of Dr. King. And the key word here is “share” which means one for the poor, one for me, one for the poor, one for me, etc.
But it didn’t work out that way, economic times grew very hard at an astonishing rate, the money didn’t trickle down from the Feds, heck, it barely dribbled. And global warming, cap and trade, shut down Guantanomo, light rail systems, a generous bail out of Wall St. with taxes from the working man – what was that nonsense all about? For the first time in decades, the Democrat’s Puff the Magic Dragon song didn’t work in Mass. – the working folks never saw their expected payoffs, the rich folks with their summer palaces lining Cape Cod got bailed out as Obama’s first priority, but the average Massachusetts’ voter got leftover, boiled cod – and it was served cold at that.
So, maybe we shouldn’t get all misty eyed with gratitude Massachusetts folks have finally turned the corner; that they’ve finally figured out what the Democrats are really peddling and are ready to paint the Bay State red. And being from Chicago, Obama should have had his priorities straight but he didn’t. Although the Chicago media is fiercely protective of Obama as a favorite son, even the good folks of Illinois think he has his wires thoroughly crossed after a year. Given a chance to make amends, Obama could easily recapture Massachusetts but it looks like he actually believes in the Liberal catechism of share the wealth, which means only the Trust Fund babies will support him, all 512 of them.
Pat, I like and agree with your observations. My question is, is the electorate so stupid that they fall for the liberal garbage of something for nothing every time they are asked to do something? I hope we get real change in the November elections but my trick knee tells me that people don't want real reform. When New York, Illinois, California, and Oregon go red it will be because it is too late. I just hope that the Republicans will have the guts to run someone who is unabashedly conservative. That is what will win, no more oatmeal-mush candidates who cross the damned aisle.
Hvance:
I completely agree with your trick knee, the electorate will always place milk and cookies near the fireplace for jolly, old Liba Claus, it will forever be Christmas morning in America and there might be something under the tree for you – quick, run and check. And, quite frankly, whether it’s Obama or Lyndon Johnson, the message really hasn’t changed much over the last few decades: “See that guy over there, he’s rich, he doesn’t deserve to be better off than you, I’m going to take his money and then I’m going to give it to you, because you deserve it – but you have to vote for me, don’t forget now.”
And what an effective message it is: Simple, basic and it’s been repeated more often than the “Sound of Music” on your cable provider’s oldies station. What’s not to like about it? You’ll be measurably better off, you don’t have to do anything in return, except maybe vote for a Democrat, but even that’s not mandatory if you fit the “desperately need government assistance” profile. When it comes to those basic emotions we all share, the Democrat’s message never fails to touch every bag on its way around the bases: greed, envy, revenge, hate, self-pity – there are more strong emotions at play here than in a noon time Spanish language soap opera.
So, yes, I think the voters of Massachusetts will lapse, they’ll rush back into the arms of the Democrats, there’ll be tears, there’ll be laughter, they will kiss and make up well before the next election if not by this coming Valentine’s Day. Like my former home town, Detroit, the voters of Massachusetts have come to depend on “The Message” to fatten their wallets in so many different ways there are no realistic alternatives left.
And it’s an old story here, soon after his marriage to the voters Obama strayed, he contracted Tiger Woods’ syndrome, a rather severe case of “I’m so cool, I can’t stand it, so come and worship me”. He began seeing other needy women, he was even caught in bed with evil harlots like the bimbo bankers of Wall St. He shared hotel beds with blonde airheads like Miss Global Warming and cuddled with cocktail waitresses like the sly and voluptuous U. A. W. Bailout. Naturally, Massachusetts voters felt just like Tiger’s wife when she found out and, just like Tiger’s wife, she blew her top and decided to punish him. So, he was soundly thrashed by the voters of Massachusetts, but that doesn’t mean they don’t love him anymore and won’t take him back if he can remember his wedding vows and will buy her an expensive gift as an act of contrition.
Here’s what Obama needs to do, blame the whole ugly affair and marital lapse on Bush, that’s worked before and, no, it didn’t make sense then either, but the voters seem to enjoy seeing Bush get a verbal whipping. Keep repeating the message about taking other people’s money and giving it to deserving folks like the voters in Massachusetts and, for gosh sakes, stop seeing those bimbo bankers. She wants to believe you, she still loves you, so spend a few evenings at home paying attention to her, it’ll do wonders for your re-election campaign Tiger, er, I mean Barack.
Pat, Your reply is funny but true. At the end of your analogy you mention how obama can get out of the woodshed by blaming Bush. Yes, it will work. Here is a point for the lesson to be learned by all of us. We do not need to nominate any more luke warm conservatives like Bush. He was strong on the war on terror but on practically everything else he looked like a democrat. George might have been from Texas but his roots were from the N.E. Republican elite mentality part of the party. This part of the party has to be relegated to the back of the room or we continue as a country on a downward spiral to socialism. A conservative message wins.
Lisa,
Like you, I spend a lot of time observing American political culture, but something is missing from an article that asks “Who are these people”. What is missing is an answer to that very question. In fact, after reading through the article twice, I am a little nonplussed as to which ‘people’ the question references more – the American voters or the current bunch in power. This may be nitpicking, but I think it important to the discussion at hand and as you imply the former, yet dwell on the latter almost to the point of dismissal. Your title begs the question: ‘who are they ‘now’ that they weren’t a few short months ago; and, why the sudden change?
You took a stab at answering this suddenness question almost to the exclusion of the stated question, yet the answers you found are a little too ‘convenient’ for our side. In your defense, it is a difficult question to answer despite the seemingly obvious answer. Possibly, I can throw a little more light.
My own impression of voter acumen is: few spend time tracking government’s movements, and play catch up only in the final weeks before an election. Most go about choosing politicians the same way we might choose between employer-paid medical insurance offerings: confused and scrambling at the last second to make sense of it; only to ‘choose’ haphazardly, and inclined to vote things out that haven’t worked to our satisfaction than ‘for’ principled positions that might cost us something in the near term, but less burdensome in the long. You are correct the underlying culture is steeped in foundational values that include a distrust of power, personal freedoms, accomplishment, and a right to voice and vote our minds (however inchoate). However, ours is also a people steeped in the values of the left; which have made substantive inroads into our culture. The same guy who bloviates about government usurping his liberties, is the first to complain he can’t get along without government created entitlements; and not just the obvious ones like racial/gender quotas, but also child tax credits, mortgage subsidies, Medicare-Medicaid, mental-health programs, student-loans, &c that few people even consider entitlements. If this dualism exists even among putative ‘conservatives’, how much more pronounced must it be among unaligned, relatively indifferent Americans representing the political center who ponder how they are to be governed less than 1% of the time.
I am less assured than you the current climate represents a return to sanity so much as a recalibration of how much unaffiliated-voters are willing suffer for the kind of socialist innovations Obama favors. If these folks believed for a New-York-minute Obama could deliver on his promises without it costing them an arm-and-leg or massively burdening their kids and grandkids, they would be more accepting of it and buy into the ‘need’ for it. They would be for it despite knowing the intrusion into our personal lives will be total. They would even support it knowing its potential for suppressing dissent. That they rejected it is more an indication that our many pleadings and cautionary warnings have been heard and heeded; and it is that to which they’ve reacted.
How do I know this to be the case? First, I know it from the things said in reaction. Some of it is parroting of MSM speak. But, around the water-cooler folks talk more of the personal impacts; and that largely reflects a concern for fiscal costs. The rest is padding to self-assure our resistance is (mainly) a matter of ‘principle’. Secondly, we can read it in the polls. Rasmussen reports ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends ) that six-percent of voters who self-identified as democrats in November 2008 dropped that affiliation recently. That’s big. However, it does not mean these ‘quitters’ swung hard right because they didn’t also change party; they borderline Democrats who dropped what was never more than a weak affiliation. In the same period, the Republican membership concurrently increased a bare 1%, drawn entirely from the ranks of 2008’s independent voters. The ones who quit the Democrats are center-leftists and left-of-Obama-radicals unlikely to turn conservative – ever. The ones who [re]joined the Republicans are mostly conservatives who, right before the election, quit in disgust unlikely to ever vote Democrat. So, rather than a huge lunge from one side of the ship to the other, all we are really seeing is a shallow if broad incremental step to the center. This is less a rush to principle than a shying from excess. A real shift would have crippled the Democrat Party unmistakably.
For the rest, I doubt most (the ones who’ve stood pat) know where exactly they stand on principle (or, rather, how their much revered principles relate to leftist agendas, explaining why the con is so effective). This is because few really take the time to consider how principles of individual freedom and limited self-governance interact; even as we debate the proper objects, direction, and limits of government. Or, said, another way, our focus is always on government and how principled it is, but rarely how principled we are in support of those principled. We’re appalled when some group or interest gets ‘special treatment’ at our expense, but think nothing wrong in benefits we take as ‘our due’ (or what those also cost). The next couple of years may see some of that reawakening to principle, but only if Obama continues to ignore and batter the ‘popular will’. The longer the fight, the more it permeates the culture; and it is that which makes for a true shift.
When I lived in California, I was impressed by the cypress trees growing along the wind-swept rocky coast (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lone_Cypress_Sunset.JPG ). The wind, there, blows strong and steadily from one direction; making these trees lean heavily to the opposite side. Because of this, these particular cypresses appear stunted, warped, thick and sparse; their lighter branches stripped and discouraged by the scouring wind. What remains is seemingly impervious to shifts in wind direction. Where I live (Maryland), there is a different species of tree – the willow – that bends easily to every passing breeze. Both are resilient, but where the willow survives by bending to the occasional storm, the coast cypress thrives despite a constant battering and survives in places the willow can’t. The American people are currently more like the willow, bending away from rather than against the storm; and are easily shifted the one way as the other. Under Bush, the shift was away from conservatives because we were the source of discomfiture. Now, it is Obama &co discomfiting them; and they shift yet again and readily. The Cypress bends too, but so slowly it’s barely observable. Taking this a bit farther, a great tree has light branches that sway with the wind, but the solid trunk and roots move not at all. A great tree, then, is part cypress and part willow in character. Most of the mass is in the affixed trunk and roots, but it is only those swaying branches that give the illusion it moves. Conservatives are the solid trunk and heavy branches in we are rooted. The swaying lighter branches, twigs and leaves are our unaligned voters insisting on their right to be flexible. And liberals? Liberals are the wind blowing hard from the East. Principles are vital to any people’s survival, but are sometimes too rigid to survive the occasional blast. Yet, without strong roots, we are as tumble-weed subject to every breeze. Under long duress, a people become more like that cypress: permanently bent, stripped to essentials, and rooted deep in bedrock. But, subject to occasional storms exclusively, we sway with the blast only to return upright and ready to bend again and again.
As satisfying as this change has been and much as I’d love for you to be right, I surmise it’s a little early to crow it’s the ‘Great Conservative Awakening’.
Bob, You could said it very simply by stating that people vote with their wallets regardless of their party affiliation. The voters who are identified with the term, "independent", are indeed like the limbs in the willow tree. They have little backbone and are the types who will not make a decision before sticking their fingers in the air in order to see which way the wind is blowing. As for your "nitpicking", it is an interesting observation but when you really take a look at the situation it is neither the left nor the right, it is the independent voter.Now it is my turn to be picky, if there was a glaring error in your comment, it was to associate Bush with the word conservative.