Post Election thoughts

Surprise….surprise. Bush has been reelected, for all intents and purposes, even though Ohio provisional ballots are still outstanding. Who actually believed that the clandestine planers of the new world order, the spread of democracy and capitalism to the Middle East, could accomplish their objective in 4 years, especially when things in Iraq did not go as planed? Some way, some how, I was convinced that the republican conduit to this new order would find its way back into the white house. The reason being is that there is unfinished business, which could not be finished with a Democrat in office.

Nearly everything that we do as humans has an emotional motive to it. Thus, if you want to control how a people respond or behave you do so by appealing to their emotions. The Republicans picked one of the greatest motivating emotions of all, which is fear. They simply embedded, via repetition and symbolism, that Americans are not safe and that the GOP are the best people to protect you, because we shot first and ask question later. This theme especially resonated with the white American public, because they are the most accustomed to living in a bubble of relative safety and they are the ones who feel they have the most to lose by such threats.

The irony of the whole thing is that voting for Bush, a person who is despised and hated around the world, only increases the threats against the United States. That reality is masked due to the false sense of hyper superiority that Americans have about our strength and ability. True, this nation is without a doubt a symmetrical war super power. However, in regards to asymmetric warfare we are nothing special, as evidenced in the war against Iraqi insurgents. Thus, in essence, white Americans who rushed to vote for Bush to protect their safety and interest are actually bringing their safety and interest into more danger.

Looking at this strategically, the base of the Republican Party is the white population. Going forward, the demographic browning of America severely threatens the republican’s ability to win elections, given that 90% of blacks and some 60% of Hispanics usually vote democratic. The GOP can not win going forward unless they receive a greater percentage of the white vote, or become more liberal to attract the black and Hispanic vote. The latter is not likely to happen. Thus, an infinite war and threat is needed so that people will be attracted to the GOP because of their image as the party that you want to fight an enemy with, because the democrats are too compassionate to destroy an enemy. So do not expect the threat against America to be reduced any time soon, lest, the Republicans base will become more narrow.

In regards to the Democrats, this is very problematic. People were promised that their vote can make a difference and hence inspired record levels or registration and turn out, only to once again have a bounty less harvest. Going forward, such disappointed can work to fuel voter apathy and indifference in the process, which will benefit the Republicans. They psychology of the democratic electorate will surely manifest a negative reaction to the political process. Many may simply see themselves as the powerless minority in a tyranny of the majority. This is especially true of Black voters.


Every action produces reactions and reactions diverge and separate into positive and negative spheres. Thus, my question to those who vote republican is to articulate to me the negative reactions of conservative platforms. There is a give for every get, so what is given up for the conservatives get.

I have often heard people lament on how the “great society” social programs were so harmful to poor people due to the dependency it created. However, what do you do with a situation where you have women, children and men, hungry, sick and dying prematurely due to their poverty? However, you have the ability to help them financially and materially, but in doing so the tradeoff will likely create dependency in some, stagnation in some while helping others to reach independence and self sufficiency? What is the moral thing to do? To offer nothing will mean that you allow women and children to suffer. To help means that you eliminate the suffering to bearable degree, but create some dependencies in the process.
Some will argue, no doubt, that the choice is not binary and that you can teach people to fish they will feed themselves. However, this is likely the most expensive choice of all, because it requires a non cookie cutter approach that deals with helping people based upon what they need and what works best for them, which requires lots of oversight and staff, as well as funding. Thus, the cheaper solutions are either to do nothing or to take the cookie cutter approach.

Often conservatives argue that government throwing money at a problem does not solve anything and often makes matter worse. However, government social spending is like administering doses of antibiotics. If you administer too little antibiotics, the virus or disease mutates and becomes worse in the long run. Thus, the application of antibiotics inefficiently can also lead to failure. Thus, it must be administered and taken fully to be effective. The same is true of government spending, you have to spend the proper amounts to ensure that the problems are not allowed to mutate. Hence, it is not an issue of spending or not, but rather, making sure that enough is spent to fully fight the problem.


People in other countries have always qualified their dislike of America by saying that it was not the people that they disliked, but the president and his policies. Now that the president has won the popular vote and reelection among Americans, does that now mean that people will start hating Americans too, given that we obviously support what it is that makes them hate America? One cannot be too intelligent, and hate the leader of a democratic nation, without also hating the people who keep him in office.