Success in Democracy

There is something that needs to be said about the 2016 election: no matter what side you identify with the election was a huge success. America went from 8 years of one party control of the presidency to switching parties completely in one day. One day. Aside from a few violent riots this year, this is identical to how 2008 looked. And 2000. We completely changed gears in a single day and we did it peacefully.

            The rest of the world isn’t so lucky. Bashir al-Assad’s good graces with his people ran out years ago, and after repeated instances of abuse they revolted. They did not have the option to hold elections of any consequence and four years later their situation is dismal. It will take over 45 years to rebuild the infrastructure to pre-war levels. Hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced, and worse, Assad is still president, and the war is still raging.

            Iraq likely would have dumped their abusive leadership decades ago if fair elections were an option, but instead the U.S. had to oust their leader for them at great cost to ourselves and the Iraqi people, a cost that is still on-going after more than a decade of conflict and unrest.

            Libya had to revolt like Syria, although unlike Syria they ousted their leader. Kaddafi was run out of office and found a form of justice at the wrong end of a rifle, though the country still is in terrible shape years later.

            North Korea has no hope for disposing of their leader as his brutal rule keeps thousands or even hundreds of thousands starving to death in concentration camps. His grip on the throat of the country will not be loosened without extreme action of some kind, and the effects of his regime will echo for generations.

            For most of the world, these types of leadership situations are normal. Freedom House reports that 60% of the nations in the world are either “not free” or “partially” free. In the last 10 years over 100 countries have seen a net decline in their freedoms. It might be said that it is impossible for these states to see regime change in a single day, much less a peaceful one—even if another state implemented it for them.

            In January of 2017 Barack Obama will leave the White House. Donald Trump will enter office. This will all take place because of the work done by our Founders and by our officials who work to give us a government of remarkable stability. Americans will not have to take up arms to force Mr. Obama to leave. They will not need to topple the government to put Mr. Trump in office. These elected men will do it themselves in accordance with the law of the land, of their own volition, because we, the voters, simply asked them to. That’s amazing. That’s success. That’s democracy.

Write it in and throw it out: Third Party Futility

-->

            As we’re down to two candidates many people aren’t happy about their two choices. Many on the right side of the aisle are writing in votes for candidates like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. They claim it’s their right, and it is. However, they usually justify it with a statement such as, “I’m voting with my conscience and with my morals. I just can’t justify voting for Mitt Romney.” But there’s another factor to consider, and possibly an untended outcome to boot.

            Any self-respecting libertarian or conservative-minded independent despises Barack Obama. Libertarians are about less government, and less heavy-authority from DC. Barack is the epitome of both—a power-wielding figure with more executive orders than the last dozen or more presidents combined. Grab any 10 people from the right side of the spectrum and while they may disagree on a plethora of issues, the one they would all unite on is this: Obama is a bad president. And all would agree that he’s got to go.

            The truth is though that when a third-party candidate gets the vote it doesn’t further the cause of firing Barack Obama. Consider this: if you are a Johnson/Paul/other fan and/or voter, you were never in the 45-49% that will almost certainly vote for Barack Obama. Obama never had your vote, and he never will – you never counted as a possibility for him. You can’t take away from him that which he never had. Your vote, and the vote of those like you never counted towards Barack’s hope of reelection. A far more conservative candidate had your vote from the word go. Which candidate is another story, but you are in the pool of voters who are right-of-center—a pool that desperate wants to stop Barack Obama.

            But a write in/third party vote takes you out of that same pool. If 52% of the nation is willing to vote GOP/right wing/conservative, any vote for a third party is to remove oneself from that 52%. In other words, you remove your support from stopping Barack Obama at a second term. You remove yourself from the pool of voters that want to stop his agenda. Your vote becomes useless, and worthless in a practical sense. Sitting out based on conscience only serves to further the agenda of the mindset you find most offensive. It’s a statement falling on deaf ears. It is to refuse to fight against the thing your conscience hates most. Refusing to fight might as well be a nod of silent assent.

            “But Romney is just Bush III!” No, no he’s not. That’s a sweeping generalization—a logical fallacy. Mitt Romney is a very different man, from a very different background. Making the case that Romney = Obama is equally an argument from ignorance. It misses the true nature of who Obama is, what he’s done, and what he will do during a second term.

            The truth is that Romney is not The Great Fixxer—he’s more like the Great Delayer of Trouble. To my libertarian friends I say this: there is no going back. America is demographically different than it was in 1776. America is governmentally different than it was in 1776. We are not the same nation. Our borders, language, and culture are not what they were—even 65 years ago much less 200 years ago. Ronald Reagan and the Second Law of Thermodynamics essentially tell us the same thing: governmental mess cannot be unmade. The government simply cannot and will not be reformed to those ancient (and appropriate) levels. But taking a stand for nothing is not the answer. Voting third party is to lodge a complaint against Mitt Romney, but then to do nothing about it. It’s a complaint that offers no answers, and no solutions. Standing with Gary Johnson or Ron Paul is not standing against Barack Obama—it’s standing against Mitt Romney. Standing against Mitt Romney is standing for the incumbent President. You aren’t denying Obama support—you are denying him opposition.

Is that really what your conscience wants?

Much to Gain, Little to Lose: Debate Three

            Mitt Romney and Barakc Obama square off for the third time on Monday night. Sorry Monday Night Football, but there’s a bigger fight in town. The debate will air live from Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida and focus solely on foreign policy. Truth is, this one is a boon to Mitt Romney.

            The last three debates have all been interesting. This one should be no different. Mitt Romney has a golden opportunity to hammer the President on this subject, and take little damage himself. Barack Obama bungled the Arab Spring, Egypt, and now Libya. The beauty of the situation for Mitt is that he can play offense all evening long. He can attack Barack on Iran, Afghanistan, Benghazi and so on. Mitt’s offensive attacks have the potential to make Monday a devastating evening for Barack Obama’s polls numbers, which are sinking daily.
            The dirty little secret here is of course that Barack doesn’t have many offensive options. In fact, he’s only got one: Mitt Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience. The parry to this attack is simple: “Neither did you Mr. President, and you’ve made a mess. Who are you to tell the American People that I’ll be worse?” Obama can and will at least try to attack Mitt Romney, but the truth is that Mitt has next to nothing to defend—and he’s got lots of attack options. It wasn’t Mitt that blew the last 4 years of foreign policy—it was Barack Obama. Mitt doesn’t need to give an account for anything. Barack needs to give an account for everything.

            In short, this debate it Mitt’s to lose. He stumbled a little last debate on Libya, but with some good prep time and newly minted attacks he could leave the viewers marveling at the mistakes Obama has made. Mitt needs to own the counter attacks, destroy excuses, and use the verifiable truth. He also needs to be prepared to push back at the moderator should it come down to it. For Mitt, the facts and data that have been uncovered since September 11 are all the ammo he needs. If he blows this, he’ll have no one to blame but himself. If he wins it handily Barack Obama better hope for a miracle. He’ll certainly need it.

Paul Ryan - An Effortless Performance

            Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech to the RNC may be one of the best political speeches of the year—if not out of the last four years. It’s strengths were many, and it’s weaknesses few, and the delivery was impeccably good. It wasn’t entirely “safe”, but neither was it the politically risky ranting and raving that makes people uncomfortable. He was idealistic without being unrealistic, and realistic without being a doomsayer. He was funny without being a clown, heartfelt without the sappiness, and pointedly brutal without coming off as a douche. He spoke clearly, and succinctly, proving that brevity is indeed the soul of wit—wit without being an unlikeable know-it-all.

            Love him, hate him, or indifferent, there are several truths each side should recognize: first, it was a killer delivery of one hell of a speech. The crowd loved it, and perhaps the nation did too. Paul Ryan came off as a very easy guy to like and to listen to. The speech could have been ten minutes longer, and Ryan still would have had the crowd in his pocket. Second, Mitt Romney has three very tough acts to follow: Mrs. Romney, Condy, and Paul Ryan. Making it even tougher on Mitt will be Clint Eastwood’s address, and the scrutiny of the nation coming off the Olympics with a scorecard mentality. Mitt Romney survived debates, and hit singles when faced with fastballs. But the last three batters hit home runs. Mitt Romney simply surviving and "paring the course" won’t be anywhere near enough. Mitt Romney’s greatest challenge Friday night will be to end the convention with an energetic bang that motivates the base and the undecided voters of the country.

            Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the democrats after Ryan’s speech is the third truth, a cold reality for Team Obama: Joe Biden is no match for Paul Ryan. Biden tries to be likeable, but Paul Ryan is likeable. Joe Biden comes off as an arrogant jerk, Paul Ryan as a friendly intellectual. Biden is an awkward, embarrassing bull in a china closet, yet Ryan is relaxed, inspiring, and precise. Biden flounders, but Ryan delivers. For Joe Biden, Paul Ryan is a nightmare Biden cannot wake from. Whatever Paul Ryan may have done on Thursday night, one thing is for certain: Joe Biden can neither replicate nor match it.

Savior

Amongst the thronging crowds, the parades, the endless inaugural balls, the speeches, poems, and millions of spectators, I think the masses have forgotten something.
Something painfully poignant and obvious in the photograph. Something that we all know, yet it would seem fewer and fewer people actually believe it. The reality?
Barack Hussein Obama is a man. A speck of existance on a planet with 7 billion specks of existance. Nothing more. His power ends at the rule of law. It is quite possible there is nothing to be done for the economy. It is possible that again we will again be attacked by terrorists, and with greater force and magnitude than we have seen before. It is possible for fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes to rip the country with in every corner of it's borders. Calamity may come upon us, through no fault of our own.
Yet somehow, we have convinced ourselves that one man can save us from these things. It is eerie looking at these pictures and films of the inauguration. People gathered, singing, dancing, cheering, screaming, and erupting in joy and ecstasy. People lifting their hands and shouting. It looks like a pentecostal church service on a mass scale of political exuberance. Why? Because of one man's rise to power. No other reason.
Obama is a man, nothing more. What is unbelievable is the expectation placed upon him by the people of this country. People loved to hate President Bush for Katrina, Iraq, and many other events and decisions of the past, some of which were beyond his control. But what about the future? What if future disaster awaits? What if the economy cannot recover? What if we are attacked again? What if more hurricanes and other natural disasters ravage our cities and our people? Barack Hussein Obama cannot stand in the way of these things any more than President Bush or the other 42 presidents of our history could.
Looking at these pictures, seeing these films, hearing the songs, watching the audulation, praise, and and excitement it is not hard to see that the masses have elevated this man to something he is not and never will be. And if the events of the future tear at the illusion we have fostered, then will we understand? If hurricanes, riots, fires, wars, and soup lines are in our future than there is little Barack Hussein Obama can do to stop them.
When these things come about, who then will we turn to as our Savior?