Republican Army of the Gullible

Image via Wikipedia

Here’s the good news: the number of birthers (people who believe that Barak Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.A.) has declined from 20% to only 10% of the population following the release of Obama’s long form birth certificate.

Here’s the bad news: the number of people who believe that Osama bin Laden is still alive is sitting at 20% of the population.

So what’s going on here. Why do so many people believe things that facts show are false? Many theories abound. Maybe it’s part of the wave of the internet–where anyone can broadcast whatever bogus information they want. Maybe it’s because people are so suspicious of authority. Maybe it reflects a decline in public education.

I think there are many reasons, but I believe that one of the primary reasons has to do with politics, plain and simple. After losing the last presidential election so significantly, the Republican Party adopted a strategy as outlined by Rush Limbaugh, who famously said that he hoped that Obama would fail. After winning a majority in the House during the mid-term elections, the Republican Speaker of the House echoed Limbaugh by naming his top priority as defeating Obama. It was no longer about what was best for America, or even what was good for America, it had been reduced to a purely political calculus: the Republicans just want to be in power.

Obama identified this tactic last September when he commented “If I say the sky is blue, [Republicans] say ‘no.’ If I said fish live in the sea, [Republicans would] say ‘no.'”

Because Rush Limbaugh has been inoculating millions of listeners against truth and fact for a generation, the Republicans have a gullible core of people who are primed to disbelieve and dislike Obama regardless of who he is or what he does. This sets Republicans up to make their strategy effective. They can oppose even dire needs of our country (like fixing the financial system or not defaulting on our governments obligations) because it works to the benefit of their political party. If the economy tanks, that’s great news because they can blame it on their bogey man, Obama. If Americans die because they can’t go to the doctor, that’s great news because they can blame it on Obamacare.

And every time Obama outshines his Republican predecessor (as in actually finding Osama bin Laden), then they’re ready with their whisper campaign of doubts to sway their army of the gullible.

Christmas Comes Early for Limbaugh, et. al.

Image via Wikipedia

Now that Congress has agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Sarah Palin will all be receiving a little extra spending money courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers. If Newsweek is correct about their incomes, and assuming they make the same amount next year, then by my calculations, Rush will be getting an extra $2,103,385.20, Glenn Beck will be getting $1,178,185.20, Sean Hannity will be getting $782,185.20, Bill O’Reilly will be getting $710,185.20, and Sarah Palin will be getting $494,185.20.

Let me be clear.  These figures represent the extra amount of money that these individuals will be able to keep thanks to the insistence of the Republicans that the Bush Tax Cuts be extended beyond the income threshold of  $250,000. The Democrat‘s proposal was already set to let each of them keep $4,681.50 more than what the current law allowed.  But why should they be satisfied with America borrowing only $5000 on their behalf when they can make future generations be on the hook for millions?

These millions of dollars are not really a gift from Uncle Sam.  No, each of these individuals worked very hard to make sure that like-minded citizens were elected to office last November.  It is thanks to their success that this windfall is coming their way. This is America, after all, so their hard work should be rewarded.

What’s the Mandate?

Republicans are trumpeting this mid-term election result as being a historic repudiation of everything Obama and everything Democratic. They exaggerate its significance by focusing on a single statistic (number of seats switching in the House of Representatives) to try to claim that it is the strongest mandate in 50 years. But in fact, this year only one half of congress changed from one party to the other. A mere four years earlier we had an election where BOTH the House and the Senate switched parties. Both houses also switched parties in 1994.

The truth is that much of the swing to the Republican party reflects more general anger against politics than a preference for the Republicans as opposed to the Democrats. Polls reveal that both parties are pretty unpopular. The Republicans benefited during this election because so many Tea Party candidates ran under the Republican banner and because the Republicans represent the party that’s out of power. To be sure, a portion of the democratic wins in the previous two elections were similarly inflated by people who were simply voting for the party not in control.

The Republican leadership is astutely trying to leverage these results to achieve its agenda of reversing the progress made during the past two years. They are full of bluster talking about how Obama should bend to the will of the people and reverse course.

When the shoe was on the other foot, however, the Republicans sang a very different tune. Between 2006 and 2008, the Senate, House, and Presidency shifted away from the Republicans, and yet, the Republicans made no attempt to listen to the will of the people; they dug in their heals and became the party of “no.” They steadfastly tried to block every piece of legislation that Obama and the Democrats tried to pass on behalf of the American people. The Republicans sided with the bankers, insurance companies, and the super wealthy. They are still on the side of the most powerful and wealthy in our nation, they are just trying to dress their policies up as being on the side of the little guy.

Reflections on the Midterm Elections

Beginning this summer, I volunteered on a virtually full-time basis for a political campaign.  This is the first time I had ever been involved with one.  It was quite an experience.

I actually did not decide to do this because of the specific candidate.  My motivation was to get involved for the experience.  Naturally, I wouldn’t be able to work on a campaign for a candidate who I didn’t believe in, but I had never heard of this candidate before I volunteered.  I mention this to explain that I am not some avid fan who could never cast a critical eye toward the person I was helping to get elected.

Throughout the campaign I became convinced that mine was clearly the better qualified candidate.  His positions on the issues reflected a more reasoned and researched approach than his opponent.  He was better known throughout the state.  He had nearly three times as many people contributing money to his campaign.  He outperformed his opponent in debates.  He outspent his opponent on TV ads.  There were no major missteps or scandals.

Last night his opponent garnered 100,000 more votes than he did in a state where that is a pretty big number.  I concluded that there was very little that any of us could have done to help our candidate get elected.  It was a down ticket race (not one of the big important positions on the ballot), and I am convinced that basically people voted for the “R” or the “D.”  My candidate was a Democrat, and I really don’t think anything else mattered last night.

I fear for our country if candidates cannot lose–regardless of their qualifications or beliefs–if they are aligned with the correct party during the correct campaign season.  I believe this was exacerbated last night by the fact that anger was the driver for most of the votes.  I do not believe that anger is a good driver for groups of people.

There are reasons that the image of an angry mob was a potent and scary element in many films during the 40’s and 50’s.  The world had seen what sort of leadership is raised up by an angry electorate in Germany.