Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Election Fallout


With only one exception in 1792 (1), quadrennially, we elect a President of the United States.  In the fifty-six elections that have taken place, fourty-four men have held the office.  The process is regular as clockwork and even major disruptions like the Civil War, assassinations, the World Wars, droughts and the Great Depression did not cause so much as a hiccup in the four year cycle of this fundamental democratic process. (2)


While our country has seen many trials and tribulations, it has endured despite constant and consistent predictions of its impending failure by varying groups of people throughout our history.  It seems that one side or the other is always promoting the idea that our country is on the verge of moral, economic and/or democratic collapse.  It is one of the most interesting phenomena of the democratic electoral process, something I like to refer to as Election Fallout.


This fallout is one of the most predictable occurrences in the aftermath of any election; the failure of a small portion of those who oppose a particular candidacy to accept, adapt and cope with their opponent's victory. 


With the 2008 election of Barack Obama we have seen a typical level of fallout with dire predictions, blame-gaming, scenarios of police states, diminished property rights, communism, a "New World Order" and gun-grabbing (to name a few) beginning almost as soon as the polls closed.


The historical context in which that election took place (i.e. the economic crisis, the war on terror, the first African-American president, etc) has made this round of fallout particularly bitter.  The reason may be that for a small minority within the minority this election was the realization of a multifaceted worst case scenario.  Within days of the election an array of neo/theoconservative websites and blogs sprung to life with claims of government abuses and plots -- not that any of this was new.   But with the election of Obama the sense on many of these sites and in many of these groups has been that the end is nigh.


These folks often bill themselves true patriots, the bearers of a torch handed down by the founding fathers.  They see America as a country that strayed from its original intent, perhaps even before the Constitution was ratified, one with an abusive government ripe with sinister plots of domination and power.  They sense conspiracies everywhere. They seem pessimistic by nature (though they usually disagree with that assessment). They live in fear of the government, feeling anger for the "ignorant" masses and abhorring everything and everyone that contradicts them.


They are extremely suspicious of mainstream media, and tend to share their information from a network of websites, blogs, and forums that often feature stories of government abuses. These articles spread like wildfire via social networking sites and email, and are simply accepted to be true despite the fact that they are often unsourced, uncorroborated and unverifiable.  In this way, the culture of this community has taken on a self-fulfilling nature.


The irony is that these "patriots" do not carry the torch of the founding majority, they carry the flame of a minority whose ideas for government did not come to fruition, but whose contributions to America were great...the Patrick Henrys, the George Masons.   That anti-federalist spirit and energy is an important and essential aspect of America, surely.  But there is a fine line between anti-federalist spirit and anti-federalism.  The latter would, by definition, be considered treasonous.


The "conservative extremist" label tossed around in Department of Homeland Security recently has only fueled the self-fulfilling prophecy that is now overtaking these groups.  But, the error (other than DHS existing at all) was really only in labeling the threat as "conservative".  It is certainly not illogical to consider the possibility of domestic extremism, especially from groups who advocate revolution, secession, and other extreme actions.  After all, from the Wall Street Bombing of 1920 to the Unabomber, Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and the Fort Hood shootings (and so on) history has shown us that domestic terror is our greatest mainland threat.


Regardless of all this banter, in the next 7 1/2 years we will elect two more presidents and all 535 seats in the Senate and House of Representatives.  We do hold the power, regardless of whether one agrees with the way we are choosing to wield it.  If these groups could concentrate their energies on the ballot box and on real reform, perhaps they would realize that in the long run it does not matter which side is in power.   What matters is that this two-sided approach to liberty is to blame in corrupting the American concept, nearly from its inception.  The idea of liberty is not something that a government should be able to alter, but perhaps more importantly it is not something that a majority of the people should be able to alter.   Liberty is liberty, for all or for none. So, while the "right" side goes on arguing in the name of liberty while rallying against same sex marriage, drug decriminalization, and immigration, the "left" will go on arguing  that government is the answer to most of our problems... and the rest of us will do our best to promote the alternative;  the novel idea that all men are created equal, and that neither government nor a majority of people have the right to change that.


The best tribute we can pay to our founders is to enjoy the freedom we do have, even if it is not perfect.  They neither expected nor demanded perfection, just a "more perfect" union.  And while we may have problems with many policies and laws from time to time and administration to administration, and may long for a "more perfect" system, we should all feel fortunate to live in a country where even our allegedly diminishing freedoms are broader and more perfect than anywhere else on Earth.

--
1. Wikipedia - Election of 1792.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1792
2. History of Presidential Elections.  http://www.historycentral.com/elections/index.html

0 comments:

Post a Comment