More than a week has gone by since the election.  In an effort to explain their loss the Democrats have variously blamed the personality of their candidate and the fundamentalism of Republican voters.  While they are right that their candidate had no personality (not to mention having committed treason in the 1970’s) that is not the reason for their critical loss.  Nor was the religious predilection of Republican voters. 

David Brooks (New York Times, November 9, 2004) outlined the facts.  What follows is taken from his editorial commentary. BROOKS1109

“As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate that they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are prolife. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.” 

Brooks went on to state that “Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." That can mean anything -- or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.”

As Brooks noted, the Republican victory was not about moral values or gay rights or abortion issues.  “The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. And he did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.  He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and John Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq.  The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism.”

Most importantly, Brooks stated that “the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. Why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?  Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.”

The fact is that President Bush won re-election based on policy.  And he won despite the fact that he was opposed not only by Senator Kerry but also by the elite American broadcast and print media, by move-on.com and many other 527’s, by most European media outlets, by Hollywood elitists (most of whom at best only play patriots in the movies), by the anti-American propaganda of Michael Moore, and by publicly financed professors within our universities and colleges.  Against those odds President Bush still won by at least 3.5 million votes and brought along Congressional Republicans as well.  Given the odds, this was a remarkable victory.  As long as the far left refuses to admit that fact and as long as the Democrat Party continues to belittle those who voted for President Bush, they will fail again and again.  I guess that is just fine with me.

In a previous entry I included our universities in the same category as the media and the Hollywood elite in discussing the leftist strategy to undermine America and to change our nation from one based in representative democracy, capitalist economy and Judeo-Christian values to one based in communism, socialist economy, and secular values.  This commentary focuses on the immense impact that our educational system (including both higher education and secondary education) is having in that attempt at destruction of America.  This commentary originally appeared on my previous web log and is copied here with some minor changes. 

The anti-war protesters of the 1970’s saw American’s and Vietnamese being killed by the thousands in a war that made no sense to them.  The geopolitical defense of the war was weak at best.  Protesters saw it as a manifestation of the ego of two American presidents.  They were in part correct.  However, their actions served only to embolden the enemy, prolonging the war longer than would otherwise have been the case.  Because their actions lengthened the war, people like David Horowitz, Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda and their cohorts are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of American and Vietnamese who might otherwise have lived.

America failed to meet its immediate objective in Vietnam.  However, the war was not a complete failure, since it helped set the foundation for the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union.  The process was completed during the Reagan years when the Soviets found it necessary to sink billions into defense against a tough American President.  It is ironic that it was the financial reality of building bombs and not the release of those bombs that led to the end of the Cold War.  While it was clearly not the objective of the anti-war protesters to break the Soviet Union, their actions added so many years to the war that the inevitable occurred earlier than would otherwise be expected.  Strangely, the communists, socialists, and Soviet sympathizers among us who helped promote the anti-war movement created the undoing of their “model” society.

So where did the antiwar protesters of the 1970’s go?  Some, like David Horowitz, came to see the error of their ways, acknowledging that their acts were traitorous.  Many continued to agitate against American foreign and domestic policy.  Many in the latter group returned to the safety of the educational institutions that spawned them, where they once again took up study with their mentors.  Those mentors were far-left-wing educators still promoting communism and/or socialism as the morally correct path.  As part of their message, those educators taught that “capitalism is oppressive while socialism or communism frees”, “America is always to be blamed first”, and “aggression by America is always wrong, even when that aggression is for the purpose of defense”.  Apparently, the latter edict only applied to America.  Any aggressive action by the United States, whether to defend itself or an ally, was condemned. No such condemnation of aggression by other nations was heard, presumably because they were really victims and thus could not be held accountable for their actions.

Many of the educators from the 1970’s who fueled the anti-war movement of that era have either retired or died.  But a large number of their students have remained in education.  Some continue the work of their mentors in the colleges and universities, promoting leftist viewpoints among a new generation of university students.  Others work in elementary and secondary education, having blended into the American landscape.  For some, the lessons learned during the 1970’s are quite conscious while for others they have become part of the fabric of a reality that is the unquestioned and unexamined norm. In either case the lessons learned during the 1970’s and passed on from one generation to the next have been indelibly etched.  These messages are now being passed down to our children in the guise of “progressive” and “enlightened” elementary and secondary education. 

What is the impact of these messages on our youth and on our nation?  Catastrophic!  Our country is growing weaker by the year.  Secondary and even elementary school students are learning that our nation is to blame for many or even most of the ills of the world.  They are not informed of the nations and lives saved by American military and/or diplomatic action.  Students are being taught that our economy promotes inequity and a growing population of have-nots.  They are not informed that our economic system has led to creative and personal successes that cannot even be tallied.  They are also not informed that our economic system is the envy of the world and is aspired to by communist nations such as China.

Most detrimental to our nation on a day-to-day basis is the message being given our students that American aggression in all forms is wrong.  This has bred a view that our nation must not take action to defend itself or its allies and should not take preemptive action that might saves lives later.  As a result our enemies are given aid and comfort, realizing that they will not be held accountable for their actions.  This message is the most detrimental of all because it has been translated so as to apply not only to the nation but also to the most personal actions of individuals.

Since the 1970’s, our students have been taught by left-leaning educators that if they are attacked or bullied they are to take no action.  They are told to tell the teacher or a school administrator.  Unfortunately, when they do so, no action is taken.  The schools do not enforce laws addressing assault and terrorist threat, and the bullies remain free to perpetrate further, often heightening their attacks.  Like their global counterparts, school bullies are not held accountable for their actions.  If a student does take defensive action, punishment by the school is meted out to both parties.  The futility of pro-action and self-defense is learned by the victim, who comes to define him or herself as just that…a victim. 

Throughout life, many of these self-perceived victims continue to look to the authorities for help, feeling deflated when that help is not available, just as they did in school.  Anger grows toward the authorities and eventually the government.  Because they have been taught not to be proactive they do not succeed, blaming the government for not taking care of them.  The message that America breeds inequity is strengthened.  Out of their dejection, these individuals generalize their feelings and assume the “blame America first” approach to all the world’s problems.  Without challenge or debate, the message that pro-action and/or self-defense is either futile or wrong (both at a personal and national level) becomes cemented into the American culture.   The true wrongdoers at all levels are not held accountable.

So, once again, what is the impact of this process on our youth and on our nation?  The answer can be summarized in the statement made by one Minnesota high school freshman on February 14, 2003:  “America sucks”.

So while the actions of the anti-war protesters of the 1970’s led indirectly to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the message of the protesters has contributed directly to the slow collapse of America from within.  While some of today’s educators may have forgotten the source and may be unwitting carriers of the message, they and their more conscious comrades have helped the protesters move closer to their goal.  Those educators will continue to clone generation after generation of themselves unless we confront their message for what it is.  Only through loud and forceful action by those of us who have not been indoctrinated can the tide be turned.  The silent majority can no longer remain silent.  To remain silent will mean the end of our nation and the liberty it defends.

I tried to email this letter to Michael Moore but his mailbox was full.  Interesting.  I wonder what his mail is telling him since November 2?  Anyway, here is the brief note I wanted him to see:

Dear Mike:

Here I thought that your film, Fahrenheit 911 was a propaganda piece against our nation and our President.  I was very wrong.  Clearly, your film was an effort to help our President gain re-election.  The film created a backlash among moderate, thinking democrats who were so appalled that they could not vote for any candidate connected with you. 

I can only confess my error and thank you for helping thoughtful Americans re-elect President Bush and to help improve our chances against our external enemies (islamic fascists) and internal enemies (the far left). 

I will keep trying to get this tongue-in-cheek messsage into Mike's mailbox.  I hope others will do the same.  And I hope that Mike will learn from his mistakes, learn to hold dear the country that gave him his success, and show a little respect for the rest of us who still cherish this nation and its people.

I was born and raised in New Hampshire.  I love the state and its people.  And yet, amazingly, the “LIVE FREE OR DIE” state will cast its electoral votes for a candidate representing a party dedicated to the destruction of American sovereignty and to promotion of individual dependence on government.  Nations that give up their sovereignty and individuals who are dependent upon government are not free.  I will continue to fly my “LIVE FREE OR DIE’ flag but I will not be flying it in New Hampshire.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

For the past several months, many of us have been voicing our concerns about the ability of Senator Kerry to serve effectively as Commander in Chief during the most critical war since World War II.  Now, just a few days before the 2004 election, our primary enemy in that war, Osama bin Laden, has offered his endorsement of Mr. Kerry.  In effect, bin Laden stated that if America re-elects President Bush, he will have us all killed.  But if we elect Kerry and don't fight back against islamic fascists anymore he will leave us alone.  That sounds to me like President Bush has done what he should have done...he has brought fear to the heart of bin Laden and he has made it necessary for bin Laden to tape an endorsement speech for his challenger. 

I cannot find any reason, whatsoever, for any American, regardless of background, race, economic status, religion, or political ideology to vote for a man endorsed by the worst international villain since Adolph Hitler. 

It is time to put politics aside and to vote for the man who has demonstrated the ability to fight terrorism with focus and purpose.  This is no time for weak, indecisive leadership.  This is no time to bring the politics of Neville Chamberlain back into play.  We cannot allow the gathering storm to grow more pervasive.  Osama bin Laden is telling us that he is not threatened by Kerry.  We know that he IS threatened by President Bush...as well he should be.  We need leadership...we need President Bush to lead us for the next four years.