A different interpretation of mid-term elections/2006 trends

Upon my return, clearly the most immediate and current public event is the ongoing avid discussion of the possible meaning (besides the obvious one of `wanting change') behind the almost complete expulsion of the Republican majority from both houses of Congress by the Democrats, albeit recognizing that the margin in the Senate remains very slim. Its all the more significant that the victors, the Democrats, are themselves quick to acknowledge what most of the pundits are pointing out, and that is this: the turnover is not a mandate for `Liberalism/Progressive' platform, for it was mostly moderate/conservative platform Democrat candidates that won. In Connecticut where the voters had a choice other than Republican or Democrat Senator running as an independent, that man, Joe Lieberman, won. This conclusion follows from the ironic fact though while it was singularly evident that the Republican Congress and especially the White House was very resistant to re-shaping plans and presenting any kind of coherent vision about getting a handle on the Iraq War and the war against Jihadism, it was equally obvious the Democrats had no counter-plan to offer at all. At least not one that was really spelled out. What follows runs a little long, but I am synthesizing several accumulated factors here.

Now it so happens that this election at first sight contains many seemingly contradictory threads ----- fairly conservative platforms referring to the definition of marriage, or attempts at setting English as a national language and getting some control of the border fiasco, passed in many places. Even in places where the Republican and `supposed' "conservative" candidates otherwise lost. So whatever the vote was `about' if anything, it shows a clear rejection of incumbents in most cases, while at the same time showing little to no migration or shift to the so-called `liberal/progressive' social agendas.

In my opinion, part of the answer is hidden in that last sentence, and finds a clue in the recent announcement by Wal-Mart that due to a substantial customer demand, they were renewing use of saying `Merry Christmas' in most cases this holiday season. This was quickly followed by Sears and other retail chains. While on its face, this may seem trivial, its more important for the clue it provides about the real common trend here. No, the restoration has nothing to do with a theocratic `agenda' or even Christmas. It is however, an example of a mainstream rejection of what is perceived as a hyper-political correctness agenda (the abolition of Judeo-Christian references in the public sphere.) Oddly enough, it finds an echo, a common thread in the imbroglio and local governments increasingly acting on the the border issue. Here again, it was in defiance of social elites determined to push their paradigm of unrestricted borders in the name of some social concept of inclusion even at the expense of dissolving the rules of citizenship. Since the national government had abdicated its responsiblity, the public has tried to use the local government levers available.

What is this common thread? Its actually a potentially very encouraging one, and is the real silver lining of this election outcome for any concerned American not holding to the excessively global or postmodern philosophical outlook popular in much of academia and the major media. The thread is a simple one: the `silent majority' is becoming less silent, and is increasingly tired of being ignored in the name of political-correctness or partisan opportunism, or second-guessing global approval. The American people, both Democrat and Republican, made pretty loudly clear for the past two years they wanted some kind of border reform. But the elites in the media and Washington D.C. patently ignored this. Going even so far as to make a debate out of the self-evident fact that illegal immigrants are first illegal, and cannot and should not be confused with the rights of immigrants properly settled and employed here. All that differed among the public was which measures might be best, but there was rough consensus that something needed to be done. This consensus was ignored with breathtaking arrogance from the President of the U.S. right on through the editorial boards of the major newspapers. From the Dubai ports scandal to newspaper talking heads calling the simple logic of wanting to enforce borders `racist' the elites in power snubbed the voters perspective.

A similar consensus existed regarding Iraq and the war on Jihadism; most want some kind of clear plan, an articulated victory, and above all, an accountability for obvious failure. (This also comes into play regarding the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, which was a rare case of a perceivable change being made in response). Once again, the media with its strong post-modernist and relativist leanings does not reflect the public's concern. For example, despite all the hand-wringing on the issue, the "wiretap" and `detainees' debate pushed by the Democrats and the ACLU style factions received very little support from the public. For better or worse, they didn't fear wiretap of the enemy, so much as just wanted more transparency from the White House. Alas, it wouldn't readily give this, not even to simply obtaining retroactive oversight or after-the-fact green light, and this conveys a picture of abuse of power to those concerned with valid Constitutional precedents, as does excessive sword-rattling in public statements.

On the other hand, the Democrats found that the public is not as concerned with how a brutal and contemptible enemy is treated, as they are with the poor direction and handling of the War against Islamic terrorism. The view on GITMO is that the status of the detainess should have been defined, and then them left to stew there till the end of the war as long as that takes, just like other PoWs. Not given access to our civil courts, a privilege of citizeship Jihadists have not earned, and which wasn't granted to Axis soldiers. When partisanship is set aside and the common citizen talks, they are generally incensed about both the vaguely sympathetic and tolerant treatment activists and media give toward the enemy's terrorist actions, from airing their propaganda to calling them `freedom fighters' when they clearly relish blowing up the innocent and unarmed as much as any soldiers. But they equally resent the overly-abrasive and stubborn behavior of the administration in refusing not only to concede errors, even misrepresentations, but more important, to correct them and re-cast plans more decisively. Even among the hard-line base of the Republicans, for example, there was a dead-tie in feelings that SecDef Donald Rumsfeld needed to be replaced in favor of a fresh start. Among the rest of the nation and the Republican center, that opinion was close to overwhelming.

When recent events are looked at this way, I submit a common thread is increasingly discernible: where possible, where the working public still has a way to "out-shout" and be heard over the cacophony of Republican and Democrat party spin machines, and postmodernist, even nearly anti-Western media and editors, and dare one say it, hostile to Judeo-Christian ethics even as a philosophy, then the public voter is starting to USE that way, and use it to be heard. Hence the surprise and shock of the various talking heads and `experts' at the `apparent contradiction'. This `contradictory' thread actually has a strong Libertarian content, of wanting more accountability and less catering to special fringe interests of any kind, and especially that of the foreign enemy. Its important to notice here too, that that also goes for an over-zealous assertion of right-wing views, particularly fundamentalism and perceived attempts to impose beliefs or dictate how science is taught. In general, the public is wanting to avoid the extremes the pundits are actually promoting, whether it be the left wing one of wishing to impose radical income redistribution or the legislating morality epithet usually aimed at the right wing.

As we head into the Thanksgiving and Christmas Holiday season, its meet to close on a remark about that issue. Its apparent very triviality is actually a signpost of significance. The majority is tired of specialized fringe pressure groups imposing their demands on it, and seeking to violate the mainstream rights every bit as much as the minority ones they are claiming. The simple fact is that it is not a large segment of the public that wants to empty Christmas of its content, even those of other faiths, and big business, unlike politicians, generally is a bit more responsive to quantity of feedback rather than noise volume. Likewise, it is not a large segment of the citizenry that wants to grant blank checks and amnesty to illegals. In general, then, the fall of 2006 is not showing either a "Liberal" or "Neocon" trend, but rather an increasingly apparent desire to reject extremes and to get America's sense of identity and unity back.

This rejection of the sensationalized and hyped extremes then, is the real apparent trend, but its road is difficult and uncertain. Its really the media, judges/lawyers and the political pundits that are short-circuiting this process. Starting on November 7th, this paradigm of extremes has met a long overdue backlash and the beginning of a demand for sanity. Whether the best answer to accomplish this is a reformation of one of the major parties, or a third party becoming truly viable, remains to be seen.

- Anthony