Home of Today's Common Sense

Published : Brownsville Herald 11/14/2004
In my column entitled Self Rule Comes When People Vote that was published just before the election, I made the assertion that “we were in a civil revolution that will determine the course of government for generations” and it that was critical that people vote. Now after the election many are looking for reasons why the Republican Agenda won so convincingly or why the “Liberal” philosophy is still the “Mainstream and morally superior” in spite of the people’s choice. Some are coming to different conclusions.
David Brooks of the New York Times challenges the latter with his article ‘Values Voter’ is just a myth. He pointed out that there were no more Evangelicals voting, there was no increase in the number of pro-life voters, nor was there an increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily. The bottom line is that 53 percent of the voters approved of his performance as president. Bush even did better in New York and Massachusetts than in 2000. A stable Republican coalition has been gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. To me it is obvious that the issues are broad and varied and misunderstood by the “experts” in both parties.
It would appear that the “elite rulers” in both parties are out of touch with the reality of “the folks”. If you look at the 32 red and 20 blue states and past those to the counties that make up the blue states you see that the there is a sharp division between those that live in large city concentrations and believe that they are the mainstream and possess all the enlightenment and reason. The other segment not only makes up the majorities in 32 states also make up the majority in many counties within those states. Many of them periodically vote for Democrats and Republicans in local elections and much of the time in those same areas the Democrats may be very conservative and the Republicans may be very liberal. In my view there is in fact a revolution going on! “The folks vrs. The Elites.”
This idea was also hinted at in Thomas L. Friedman’s recent column America has become two nations under God, where he wrote “what troubled me Wednesday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don’t just favor different poliies they favor a whole different kind of America from me.”
I don’t believe the sides clearly defined as those who promote divisions and intolerance vrs. progressive purposes in domestic and international policies. I believe it is more a point that Americans feel that federal government has continually grown to the point where it is the objective; not the preservation of the ability of the people to make choices, good and bad, about how to live their life, raise their children, use their property as they see fit, and on and on. The federal government is now trying to be all things to all people “for their own good”.
Many feel that the federal government has involved itself in things that it should not be, such as the regulation marriage and morals. Recent determinations by the Federal Court system relative to the separation of church and state really creates federal law affecting religion. The constitution says that Congress shall make no law, I would like it to include the Federal courts also.
Each state and community can decide nicely what that involves and mistakes can be rectified by the electorate much more efficiently.
As another illustration of this, as portrayed in the recent election, I think the people really said that the federal judges should not regulate marriage, an authority specific to the states. It only matters for the most part in regard to government benefits and legal entitlements. Because the meaning of the concept of marriage has such significance to religions, perhaps Churches should have the province over marriages (a man and a woman) and the state civil authority over contractual partnerships. Both would be viewed in the context of legal benefits from government authorities as contractual partnerships. I don’t see the issue as a moral one, but merely one where the federal government in its quest to be everything for everybody is out of bounds and imposes solutions from a position out of touch with “real folks.”
Another area where federal government intrudes on “the folks” is the compliance requirements on the schools, local governments etc. with no way to pay for them. There are so many others that are mostly of interest outside the major population centers where more socialism is viewed as the solution.
On one side, the division as I see it is, that federal government and its cult of elite rulers have experienced power and want more and more including both major political parties.
On the other are those who claim to be the progressives and do the most for the working man. Many say that they have left their constituency and support the ruler culture. Those that claim to espouse small government and lower taxes to spur the economy have left their constituency as well.
Nearly everyone I have spoken to, told me that they were unhappy with both candidates but chose the lesser of evils, and this has been going on for several elections – since Eisenhower.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is now a cease fire in the civil war and most people think that President Bush will do a better job than Mr. Kerry would have, with respect to peace and order and staying out of our lives more – at least in regard to taxes. Is that not what the federal government should really be about.