Friday, November 09, 2012

We're Such a Bunch of Geniuses

I confess I tried to ignore a lot of stuff about the election, beforehand. I knew without a doubt who I was going to vote for, as I could never support a candidate nor a platform that affirmed homosexuality, nor could I do anything but stand firmly against, vocally so, abortion. But I figured my news-watching and reading could more or less return to normal after the votes had been cast, and the winner declared. I was wrong.

The curiosity continues.

I've seen more analyses of the election, why it went as it did, what could have been done differently, etc, this time around, than I can ever recall. And the funny thing is, they're not dealing with anything that wasn't known before the election! 

Just recall anybody you ever saw interviewed, before an election, about who they'd vote for. Don't they always profess some sort of patriotic allegiance to the candidate who's going to address the very issues that concern them personally? Students want the one who will help with tuition or student loans or jobs after graduation, the un- or under-employed want the guy with the plan to grow jobs (which government never does anyway...), or the one who will extend welfare, the businessman wants the candidate elected who will extend capital gains treatment by the IRS, and will get government off business's back, big oil wants the guy who'll get the pipeline done, coal folks want fracking ok'd, and on and on and on.

Things like National Security come up only in times of heightened National Peril .. which leads to heightened National Fear .. or so it seems to me.

So .. why is anybody surprised at the outcome of the election? Most everyone I know of was outraged at what happened in Benghazi. Well, everyone except Mitt Romney, that is. Why was that? Was he afraid somebody (read: Democrats) would accuse him of something? If I'd been the candidate, I'd have been pounding the podium in the debates, telling Mr. President that he didn't have the RIGHT not to know about that and not to disclose exactly what was going on, to the American public.

Or worse yet, to mislead us.

Voting preferences by ethnic group? Gee .. what part of that was a surprise?

One of two conditions exists: one is that the growing diversity of the USA population has not been noticed by the politicians, and they simply missed the mark on their message, despite how obvious our diversity had become.

The other is, given the diversity of the USA, and the trends over the past 50 years or so at self-gratification, worldliness, and the disappearance of the sort of selflessness that marked the "Greatest Generation", what we saw Tuesday was the inevitable result. And it would take a cataclysm on the order of WW2 to wake us up. This time, I doubt the USA, as we know it, will survive.

SO go ahead with your post mortems and your analyses, pundits. But I'm afraid it's a "Rocking Chair" exercise. It's something to do, but it's not going to take us anywhere.

4 Comments:

At 2:20 PM, November 09, 2012, Blogger John Stickley said...

The biggest question that we all have to start thinking about how to answer (though granted, we should have been considering all along)?

How should we be living out our faith in light of the fact that our culture is changing? How do we connect with people in a culture that is increasingly at odds with everything we as Christians believe and stand for?

 
At 10:05 PM, November 09, 2012, Blogger Bob Cleveland said...

If the Bible didn't say that such a thing was going to happen, John, I'd be discouraged. As it is, I'm encouraged.

I may yet live to see the rapture. In the meantime, we keep living an abundant life .. the one described in Scripture .. and telling the truth. The result never was up to us, anyway.

 
At 8:50 PM, November 14, 2012, Anonymous Lee said...

The Bible says, "Put not your trust in Princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation." Abortion is at the top of the list when it comes to moral issues that have pushed conservative, Evangelical Christians into the Republican party. And yet, we're going on a generation and a half having passed with abortion still as legal as it ever was, and a Supreme Court that is still looking in the face of a 5-4 pro-abortion majority because each Republican president since 1980 has failed to appoint the one justice committed to the pro-life position enough to be the vote that overturns Roe and allows the states to outlaw abortion on demand. Now here we are, in 2012, being put in the very awkward position of having to support a candidate whose religious beliefs deny not only the truth of scripture, but the very nature of Jesus Christ himself. Too much was made of the President's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, for the argument about electing a commander in chief, not a theologian in chief, or the argument about Kennedy's Catholic faith, to be considered. It should have made a difference, and I am extremely concerned about the fact that it didn't seem to do so.
What I want to know is how does it happen that a political party not only ignores, but in many ways, and on several levels, humiliates its largest and most faithful constituency by putting in a candidate who is a Mormon, and doesn't share their faith. That's more than awkward, that's humiliating.

 
At 10:27 AM, November 15, 2012, Blogger Bob Cleveland said...

The party didn't put Mitt Romney in as a candidate. The voting public did. And the presidency isn't about sharing our faith, it's about running the country in the best interests, and with at least a nod to the wishes of, the people.

I't a bit ironic that we do raise a lot of sand when Obamacare passes over the objections of the majority of the people, and use that as an argument against it, but we ignore the people's wishes on the issues of abortion and (apparently) homosexuality. Which we should do, but it is highly ironic when juxtaposed with our contentions on Obamacare.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home