"Rigidity" of Liberals

The New York Times recently reported on an interesting study showing that conservatives enjoy all forms of humor and for even the humor that liberals enjoy, conservatives enjoy more. This was considered surprising because conservatives have consistently been painted as closed-minded and rigid and liberals as open-minded. However it is liberals who more often take offense at political incorrectness and are suspected by the Times as having a less cheerful disposition. Also the study and analysis was performed by sociologists, a group with Democrat to Republican ratio of 7 to 1, leaving the Times wondering if the findings should be surprising in the first place or were the initial assumptions subject to bias.

McCain's campaign has been portrayed as based on anger and fear but I can tell you that the Democratic machine has fed on anger for at least the last 12 years. And the last 2 elections have campaigned on fear of another Bush-like term and fear for our economic future. I was placed on the Democratic Congressional Campaign listserve which doles a constant meal of anger and fear. This anger has been rationalized as the sole work Nancy Pelosi, but it is an anger that existed before her rise to Congressional power.

After the elections which selected George W. Bush as U.S. president, liberals gave up on the United Sates and there was common talk and writing of moving to Canada or Europe instead of coming behind the president and supporting him. There was outright hatred of a man they did not know personally and depicted as stupid, backward and ignorant [though he had one of the most diverse cabinets (black, white, Latino, Japanese, Chinese)]. There was a refusal to acknowledge the Bush presidency in part because of voter discrepancy, even though President Clinton also lost the popular vote during his election to presidency. With the election of Senator Obama there has been general consensus on both sides to support him as President. Is this a sign of Obama's reach or the willingness of conservatives to remain, not give up, and help this country?

A Symbol Exalted

I've been thinking about the election of Obama and pose a hypothesis based on conversations, the news and the history of recent elections. For the majority of people who voted for Obama, the votes were cast not so much for a set of policies but for a symbol, a virtual blank slate by which they could ascribe their hopes and dreams. It comes at a time when America seemed to be in a slow decline in influence (politically, economically, culturally, etc.) and the world had stopped believing the American dream or that this young nation could live up to her ideals. Studies from this election and past elections have shown that most people vote with their gut--how do they feel about the candidates despite the candidate's policies? (A survey was done asking if people agreed with Obama's economic and health plans, but the plans described were those of McCain's and the consistent finding was they agreed with these "Obama" plans.)

The effectiveness of the Obama campaign was the creation of an image and a message of "hope & change" and McCain was a man essentially going against an amorphous symbol. Who can go against "hope"? McCain was not against hope nor change but he did not have any counter to it. What is interesting is these two ideas were never clearly defined (Hope in who/what? Change into what?) and the Obama campaign seemed satisfied with leaving it that way--up to our imaginations. But it strikes such an emotional chord. Just look at the "Yes We Can" music video by will.i.am. Other powerful images are his ethnicity (95% of blacks voted for him), oratory skill (mellifluous is the word thrown around), and youth (the younger the voter, the greater the proportion of votes went to Obama); but most powerful idea is the simple promise of hope and change which resonates around the world in a time when leadership is needed.

Proud American

History is in the making in the United States and these are exciting times. There is a high expectation of renewal given the talk of "rebuilding" the nation. We are witnesses to a symbolic milestone. Yet I was initially put off by people's comments that almost negate or deny America's past accomplishments, comments such as: "I now think that America's so cool," "I can now be proud of America," or even "I can now travel outside the U.S." I suspect such people lack a sense of history or are ashamed of being identified with America, until now. But for others it may not be necessarily a matter of shame.

I never bought into the division of the "real" America versus unreal America but I think the Republican campaign was getting at patriotism versus shame. It leads me to wonder is it possible in this day and age to do right yet be unpopular even in the world arena? Are we not able to recognize the billions of dollars given out to aid countries whose constituents may even hate America? Are we not able to see the work we do to promote health, fight AIDS, fight genocide, rally to help in disasters, promote human rights and equality, provide excellent university education, allow for freedom of speech, fuel dreams? But for those who once lacked inspiration, Obama is an inspirational figure. I think there is something deeper at play in the form of people who never felt like they belonged to American now feel they are accepted and President-elect Obama is the embodiment of that vindication--one that allows them to be proud Americans because they are not lesser but equal and they belong. So for many it was not that they refused to be identified as American but they felt they couldn't until now. We can all be proud of the American system.

By radio I listened to the discourse between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Secretary Condoleezza Rice and honestly Boxer was hostile, attacking, and unhelpful towards addressing the Iraq war.

In reference to the plan to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq, Boxer jabbed,

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

Rice responded,

"I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom ..."

Cutting Rice off Boxer said,

"Madam Secretary, please. I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."

So politically motivated and lacking in professionalism or respect.

Later Boxer defended herself for "speaking truth to power" and trying "to draw us together, and not apart." It was anything but drawing together. Boxer's purpose was to provoke.

And Condi later said, "I thought it was okay to be single. I thought it was okay to not have children, and I thought you could still make good decisions on behalf of the country if you were single and didn't have children."

Come on Boxer, is the 1st 100 hrs of Democrats in Congressional power so precious as to foment bad blood? Don't make everyone's job harder.