by Klaus Rohrich
December 2, 2004
Whoa! Talk about sour grapes; the Democrats are distilling a bitter wine and attempting to infuse it into the american mainstream. It’s the ultimate enema. The reasons for their continuing electoral losses are getting more bizarre by the day.
The most recent journey into the outer reaches of never land comes from one David Hale, chairman of the Chicago based Hale advisers, a firm providing economic consultation to businesses engaged in global trade. Hale claims that the Democrats’ loss is solely the fault of one woman, namely Margaret Marshall, the , Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
It appears, according to Hale, that Margaret, a naturalized american originally from South africa, really teed off the Reactionary Right and their fundamentalist Christian consorts by ruling in favour of gay marriage. as a result they all came out from under their rocks to vote for the moron, knowing that he would stop the onslaught of enlightened change by the slavering hordes of liberals.
His analysis isn’t too far off that of Maureen Dowd, the New York Times’ school-marm op-ed columnist, who claims that Bush’s "win" came about as a result of campaigning along "…fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule." Nor is it much different in tone as that of the rest of the so-called "mainstream media" who just cannot wrap their heads around the concept that the electorate is a) capable of reasoning without their help and B) not interested in marching in lock-step with liberal whackos bent on changing things that don’t require changing.
While the issue of gay marriage was never mentioned, much less openly debated, during the run-up to voting day, Hale seems to think that the entire subtext of the election revolved around homo matrimony. as evidence he states that the referenda held in 11 states, which ultimately defeated legalizing gay marriage by a wide margin, was indicative of the true complexion of the election. Thus "millions of fundamentalist Christians decided to vote in the 2004 elections in order to protest what happened in Massachusetts".
Mr. Hale suggests that in their soul searching, the Democrats will look at everything they did and said during the election and will find it all a waste of time. In truth, he believes, the one issue that elected Bush is that of gay marriage in Massachusetts and the one person who made this happen was Margaret Marshall. He goes so far as to suggest that maybe Carl Rove should send her flowers. I’m surprised that he didn’t suggest the Democratic National Committee have her stoned to death.
Equally bizarre and no less interesting are the musings of Thomas Frank, author of What’s the Matter With Kansas- How conservatives won the heart of america. Frank, a self-proclaimed liberal, claims that conservatives have managed to steal a page from the book of Marxism by creating a class struggle in america. However, instead of the traditional Marxist class struggle between the owners of the factories and the workers, conservatives have managed to divide america into two classes, namely normal, everyday people, and the Liberal Elite.
Thus, there is an ongoing struggle between these two entities and the Liberal Elite seems to be getting the sticky end of the lollypop. He talks nostalgically about WWII, where americans all pitched in and made sacrifices, ensuring security and economic prosperity for everyone vs. today’s social climate where greedy, heartless conservatives are only ensuring economic security for themselves.
I, for one, beg to differ with Mr. Frank. Today’s america has a social safety net by far more extensive than any we have ever known in history. Yes, he is correct. Fewer people are willing to make sacrifices, or so it appears. But then, there is a never-ending onslaught by big government and the nanny state to separate individuals from the money they earn. The message liberals send out to the population at large is that government is far better qualified to spend people’s money than those who actually earn it; that people are basically stupid and can’t be trusted to look after themselves and need big government and the nanny state to ensure their survival; that we are victims and the reason we fail has nothing to do with our lack of trying and everything to do with being at the mercy of circumstances.
as perpetual victims we also surrender our right to defend ourselves against our enemies because we are somehow to blame for their hatred of us. Only by placing our trust in "multilateral" endeavours are we legitimately entitled to survive. Taking "unilateral" action is somehow precipitous and ill advised, smacking of illegitimacy, if not illegality. Some of the left have gone so far as to seek psychiatric help in assisting them come to grips with their grievious electoral loss. a few psychiatrists are suggesting that voter disappointment presents a post-traumatic stress syndrome every bit as serious as that encountered by soldiers in combat. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
I believe that there really is a liberal elite. How else can one explain the likes of Barbra Streisand and Ben affleck’s prominence among Democrats, or their multilatralist fetish? I also know with certainty that most of the country is comprised largely of ordinary people who could care less what Jacques Chirac or the rest of Eurabia thinks of america. How do I know? It’s something called "democracy", and someone should remind the liberals in america that their loss on November 2 was democracy at work.