The advantage of Obama's victories

So I have a friend at work who was trying to convince me that if the republicans in Congress would simply "work with the democrats" and not just oppose everything, then "something might get done."

I said the following:  "A Congress that does nothing is better than a Congress that does something stupid."

He said, "So what are you saying?" Actually, he didn't say that.  A liberal never asks you what you think, so you just have to blurt it out (and stay calm, because if you get mad you lose).

I said, "I'm a conservative because I believe the best way to solve a problem is to get the government out of the way.  This has been proven over and over by history.  It was proven in 1920, 1960, 1980 and 2000.  By doing something, both FDR and Obama prolonged recessions and depressions."

Of course he got mad and left the room, instead of discussing his view with me.  That's one of the advantages of losing the last two elections, I no longer feel I have to keep mum about my opinion.  I no longer feel like I'm gloating.  Since my liberal friends keep winning lately, I don't feel so bad stating my opinions, and stating facts.

Actually, after the election I was mad at God.  I said, "God, why did you let those bastards win?  Why do you want our country to go to hell?  I want you to show me what the advantage to me is of Obama winning?"

Well, now that I've been able to freely talk about politics without caring what my liberal friends think about it, I'm considering that my sign.  I think by allowing democrats to win the last two elections, and on healthcare reform, I'm no longer taciturn about my political beliefs.  And I can't tell you how good it is to get stuff off my chest.

Discussing politics with my son

I once wrote that I don't like to discuss politics with my kids. I didn't want my kids to know my political stance because I believed it was important to grow up and learn and think for yourself and make an educated decision based on the information presented before you.

However, in light of the fact the progressives are making a war charge to inculcate their values in my kid's heads, I've decided I have no choice. Also, in light of the fact my kid is a heck of a lot smarter at 10 than I was at 30, opportunities have opened up for discussion. I've decided it's better to just be honest than to be humble.

It actually started the last election cycle when I gave in and decided to put up a McCain sign in my yard. Sure, I didn't want my son to know my political views, but he's smart. He said, "So, dad, I think I'm going to vote for McCain too."

"So, you like McCain, hey!"

"Well, not really," he said. "I was going to vote for him though. Most of the rest of the class is voting for Obama. There's something about Obama I don't like."

That impressed me. However, for some reason, I had a feeling he was voting for McCain because of me. Perhaps he heard his mom and I talking. However, if he did, he would have learned that I didn't like McCain. The only reason I was voting for him was because I absolutely hated Obama. I'd rather have a progressive republican than an all out socialist democrat.

When I was 10 I remember sitting at my desk in class looking at a pamphlet with all the democrat and republican candidates. I decided I wanted to vote for Reagan. My reason: he was the oldest and wisest.

I stuck by Reagan and fell in love with the guy. I debated my friends that Reagan was the best candidate. Then, in class, Reagan won. In my 5th grade class, Reagan was the president even before he won in a real landslide in 1980.

So, while I had no clue where my dad stood politically, my mom was a democrat. She wanted to vote for Carter. I don't know why mom was a democrat. I don't think she did either, other than her parents and siblings were democrats. I have no clue who dad voted for, although I bet he voted for Reagan.

Dad dropped hints from time to time. When an opportunity presented itself, he would pounce with a one liner. One day I was watching the CBS evening news with dad, and Clinton was president. Dan Rather reported that Bill Clinton has signed into law a tax increase, then he followed this with a report about how the economy was doing well.

Dad said, "A lot of people say they don't like Clinton, but he hasn't done anything to get in the way of businesses, which has allowed the economy to become as good as it is. I think I'm going to sell my business while the economy is good, because I think that tax hike might be a sign of bad things to come."

He never expounded, yet since he was pithy I remembered that statement almost word per word. I rolled it around in my head. I smelled it. I drank it. I bought books and read them so I could more fully understand what dad was talking about. That's how I was. I believe that's how he was.

Whatever the big issue of the time, even back in elementary school I wanted to understand it. Although back then it wasn't easy to get accurate information. You could ask an adult, but you'd get the bias. You could turn on TV, but you'd get the one sided news. You could open a newspaper, yet you'd get only the liberal view.

That's a problem that plagued me when I was in college debating politics with my friends. I remember saying, "I know I'm right, yet I have no way to prove it."

My friends would say, "We know we are right because it's right there in the newspaper."

Debate over. I had no resources to prove I was right. And then along came Rush Limbaugh. Then along came Fox News. Then along came the Internet. Now we all have plenty of resources. There's no reason to be ignorant about any issue.

Eventually, as I continued reading as much as I could, I realized that I'm more than just a republican, I'm a Constitution loving, god fearing, conservative. One day, when I was about 24 or so, I spent some time with my mom discussing what I learned, and she's been a good conservative ever since.

Yet some of us continue to be ignorant. When I say ignorant I'm not referring to the well educated democrats and liberals and socialists. If you studied and made an educated decision to support those views, that's fine by me. Unlike many progressives, I don't hate and want to get rid of people who have other views. What irritates me is when people have no clue why they support the views they do, or why they vote the way they do.

Yet many of us are that way. I said to my neighbor the other day, "So, what do you think of the health care reform?" He said, "I don't really have an opinion. I don't really like to keep up on things that don't really have an impact on me."

Of course then you watch the Jay Leno show and listen as he interviews people on the streets to prove how stupid people are. "Hey, who's the president," Leno will ask. "I don't know," the stupid person will answer.

I pray my kids don't become that stupid. I want my kids to care. I want my kids to think. I also don't want my kids just to repeat what their teacher said. I want them to drink it, eat it, smell it, and to swallow it only if it is a reasonable statement.

What I'm referring to here is progressivism. I don't want my kids to believe in global warming just because a teacher tries to inculcate the fact global warming is real. Is it? What are the facts? What are the statistics? What do other people say about this? Oh, it's the same as what you say. Still, does that make global warming real?

"Well, McCain and Al Gore and the Principal and the newspaper and CBS News and the New York Times all believe in global warming, so it's therefore fact," the teacher will say. "It's our responsibility to slow global warming. It's a crisis!"

I want my kids to think the way my dad wanted me to think. I don't want my kids to believe people when they say that world peace is possible, or that poverty will some day be ended, or that the constitution is antiquated and needs to be changed, so it's okay to make laws that heed no attention to it. It's okay for the government to force people to make sacrifices for the good of the state. It's okay to change the "rule of men" to the "rule of man." It's okay that I call myself a progressive because I didn't teach you the true meaning of the word "progressive."

I want them to think, drink and smell those words first. Knowing my kids are thinkers, I'll feel much better when they hear this stuff. It'll be okay because my kids will know. And, then, while knowing, if they still want to believe what the teacher says, then that's fine by me. At least he made a well informed decision.

And that's why I decided I have to take the same approach as my dad and not keep my politics to myself. I have decided it's okay to put up signs. It's okay to read "Liberal Fascism" in front of my kids. It's okay to yell at the TV when Matt Lauer says, "This is the worst recession since the Great Depression." I can yell, "That's a lie. It's not the worst recession since the 1930s, it's the worst since the 1980s."

I can do that because I don't have an agenda like Matt does. I can also do it because I have read a lot of history books, enough anyway to know what the real history is, and not just what the progressives want us to know.

I won't expound as my son looks at me. I won't defend myself as my wife says, "You're an idiot!" I won't. Although the seeds have been planted. After he drinks, eats, and smells those words, perhaps he'll make the right decision. If not, I can live with that too, so long as he made a well educated decision.

It's easier to take the simple answer, than think

This really wasn't meant to be a political blog, but it seems that's what it has turned in to. And the majority of the people (all three) who read my blog on a regular basis seem to expect me to write about politics.

But I still insist this is not a political blog. This, as my banner states, is a place for me to write about anything not medical.

It's just that this election is so important to me and to so many like me that it's taken up 40% of my creative energy. The other 60% has gone to my med-blog the RT Cave and my asthma blog over at Health Central.

Still, once this election is over, it is my hope that I will be able to think of some other things to write about -- philosophical perhaps. Yet, if politics stays as hot as it is right now, then that is where my creative juices will flow. Who knows. And who really cares anyway?

People should understand that this blog is mearly entertainment for myself more than anything else. However, one of the main focuses of this blog is that it is far easier just to go with the flow of the majority than it is to think for yourself.

Not me. Even before the new media and the Internet and blogs came about, I still never really believed everything I heard in the media. My college buddies would often say during one of our debates, "If you don't believe me, look it up in the newspaper."

I'd say, "The newspaper is wrong."

They'd say, "Then prove it."

They had a good point. How was I going to prove they were wrong. Back then (this was in 1988 when I started college at Ferris State University), there was no way to prove the media wrong unless I knew exactly where to look up the information, and that took time.

So, it is far easier to join the ranks of the majority than to think for oneself.

Now, even though we have the Internet and all the information we could ever want at our fingertips, I think that saying still holds true.

My friend Glenna provided me with a good example of this as a comment to my last post, "Ignore polls, Obama & McCain still neck & neck." I wrote that McCain needs to show that liberalism is the cause of the financial crisis and he will win. Glenna wrote:

"I agree but part of the problem of the economic crisis is that most people don't seem to realize or want to realize how this all came about. At work the other night I listened to a room full of people excoriate Bush for "this mess". When I explained how Pres Clinton signed the legislation from Democrats for the loose loans, and how that all collapsed on itself I had a room full of stares and then questions. People always want the easy answers instead of looking at the history for what it is."

I wrote in response that that room full of stares were from people stunned at how brilliant she was. I get that a lot where I work: "Wow, I never would have thought of that," independents say.

Back in 1988 the truth that Glenna revealed to the people in that room may never have gotten out. By 1988 media standards, George W. Bush would be 100% at fault for this economic crisis, true or not true. By 2008 media standards, the other side has gotten it's story out. And I suppose you can add here: "Be it true or not true."

Still, both sides get the story out. I have been so impressed on many occasions during this financial crisis that I have not had to explain the true cause of this mess, because the people I've been discussing politics with TOLD ME INSTEAD.

MAN, does that impress me.

That's why we folks who are the purveyors of the truth get so many blank stares. Half those people are thinking, "Duh, Bush is the cause because he is president." The other half is thinking, "Doh, how did the truth get out. Damn the Internet. Damn the free press. Damn the blogosphere for telling the truth."

In the past, as I mentioned in my last post that I link to above, a president stayed in office until the economy went bad, and the sitting president was always blamed. Today, with the 2008 media, the truth is out there -- ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS MAKE AN EFFORT TO FIND IT.

A lifelong democrat is going to believe what the democrats and their surrogates in the media say every time. And a lifelong republican is going to believe the republicans and the new media when it tells the truth every time.

But those in the middle, those people who are really truly undecided independents (and not democrats in disguise) for some reason fail to make that effort. They don't have the time, or don't make the time to really truly understand the economy and politics. It's boring. It's too complicated.

And that is the exact reason why all the news needs to be told, whether it is from the liberal or conservative camp (note I did not say republican or democrat). The more news that gets out there whether you like it or not, the better America will be in the future. The better chance the right leader will be elected.

And that's why people like me end up blogging about politics, even though that's not our true intention. I'm more of a thinker than a political blogger. Yet politics is something really cool to think about, hence this post.

Even if you hear the truth and you give out those blank stares, the goal here is that even though it is obvious that you are taking "the simple answer" as opposed to taking history for what it is, when you go into the voting booth you will vote for the right man in the end -- anyway.

Likewise, what I just wrote is exactly the reason I don't think this election is over. All those people who have no clue who they want to vote for need people like me and you.

(and I still don't understand how people could have no clue, but I talk to them every day. It's irritating in a way when people like us take so much time researching and making sure we vote for the RIGHT PERSON).

So it's easier to take the simple route, it's easier to be an independent, than it is to think.

Regardless, as Pat Buchanan wrote, all those people who want to blame Bush and replace him with the most liberal candidate for president in the history of United States politics may be up for a little backlash. They may be punished for their own vote.

But if you make the effort and read the news (I applaud you if you just read the news) on a daily basis and really think about what you are reading rather than take it all in as fact, then you will not be punished for voting for the wrong person because you will not vote for Obama.

Still, it's easier to go with the flow of the majority that it is to think. And any person who goes to this blog is a thinker because otherwise you wouldn't be here.

It irritates me to no end all these undecided independent voters who never pick up the paper, never watch the news, never read a blog, never form an opinion on politics. And then when it comes time to elect the president of the United States in a very important time in history, they have no clue who they want to vote for.

Ahhhhh. It's so frustrating. It's so easy to want to lecture these people. And it's not that they are stupid, it's just that they don't take interest in politics. They don't care about anything outside their own lives.

Then again, maybe they are the smart ones. Maybe life would be so much better if we just didn't care about anything. Maybe if I had no clue who the president was, then I wouldn't become irritated when he raised my taxes. No care, no stress. No mind, no matter.

So this is not a political blog. It's a thinking blog. And that's why I write about politics so much lately. Hopefully, though, I'll stop thinking about politics and something else will pop into my mind soon enough, like being a dad, like Socrates, like anything.

Speaking of dad, I'm going to be a father again soon. Perhaps thoughts about fatherhood will flow through my mind and I'll get frickin politics out of my head.

Government causes depressions not lack thereof

Other than this blog, I try to not discuss politics. However, sometimes people say things that are so insane they warrant a response.

Like while I was talking with a friend of mine named Bob this past weekend at hunting camp. He was trying to convince me that the Great Depression happened due to lack of government intervention and that FDR was needed to end it.

I had to correct him. The Great Depression did not happen because of not enough government intervention, it happened because of TOO MUCH government intervention. If the government had left the markets fend for themselves, it probably would have been a short depression.

"Oh, come on," Bob mocked me. "You're full of it."

"Listen," I said. "There were several depressions in the 1800s and all of them were less than three years in length. And while some experts wanted the President to intervene, they all refused. Because of that, these depressions were short lived."

"Oh, come on, he mocked me. "You're full of it."

"Nope. Hoover decided to help the poor by raising taxes. What this did was take more money out of the pockets of people who already didn't have any. So a recession turned into a depression. Then FDR came into office, and he took even more money out of people's pockets.

"So, while so many people thought FDR was helping, he was actually making things worse. He was a good talker. He was a good talker the way Obama is a good talker."

My friend laughed at me.

"The Great Depression did not end because of FDR, it did not end because of WWII. In fact, the depression didn't end until after WWII was over."

"You're full of it."

"No. If the depression was over during the war, why were people forced to ration. Rationing isn't something you tell people to do when a depression is over."

He looked at me with his lips puckered. By this time the rest of the guys at camp are circling around us eager to chime in.

"So this current financial crisis was not caused by president Bush," I added. "We are not going to let teachers and the media tell this lie. The reason this financial crisis occurred was because of too much government intervention.

My other friend Rich chimed in, "It started out as a noble idea during the Carter and Clinton administrations. They wanted to make sure every person could get into a home. So, when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to buy out loans to people they knew couldn't afford it, this skyrocketed the number of houses sold. This, in turn, caused the value of homes to artificially skyrocket.

I said, "Bush Warned about this. McCain warned about this. Liberal democrats like Chris Dodd (who benefited the most from this financially and politically) refused to admit there was a problem. And now it's men like Dodd -- who caused this problem in the first place -- who we are letting solve this crisis.

Rich said, "The only reason Bush wants to do this liberal $700 trillion bailout program is because he knows the media will once again convince America that he is the blame for this crisis, and he has to be seen as doing something."

"But," Bob said, "We had to bail out Wall Street. We couldn't allow all these businesses to go under."

Rich said, "During the Clinton recession of 2000," I said, "Nobody said anything about helping all those 300 plus banks then that went out of business. How does anybody learn if we keep bailing out failing businesses. If you fail at running a business, why should we reward you?"

Bob said, "We can't let the economy crash."

Rich said, "The economy has survived far worse than this. It is a resilient economy, the most resilient ever. While liberals see the economy as sucky, conservatives tend to have a more optimistic outlook on it. Hence McCain saying, 'the fundamentals of the economy are sound.'

I said, "The fundamentals of the economy are sound and will continue to be sound SO LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T DO SOMETHING STUPID TO SCREW IT UP."

Political discussions at camp are all in good fun for me at least. One of my friends, Rich, thinks it is a battle of good versus evil. I understand his POV, but I'd never go there.

Unlike my other conservative friends, I'm not a partisan and am willing to compromise, so long as compromise doesn't mean giving up on my principles.

While this discussion was all in good fun, a part of me is irritated that one of my friends is brainwashed. Some day, somehow, something I say he's going to mull over and over in his mind, and some day the light will go on.

That's why it's important to never give up. Yet, to have fun in the process. Because if you get mad, you lose.

Wisdoms of the son

When I was a kid I hated when my dad was modest. As a parent, I find that I'm just like my dad, especially when it comes to politics. Kids don't need to know about politics, and what they do know they can figure out on their own.

"Who are you going to vote for for president?" my son asked. He's nine.

"You know I can't tell you that," I said.

"I know," he said, "You're gonna vote for McCain."

"What makes you think that?"

"Dad, I also think you are a republican."

"What makes you think that?"

"Because I read your blog."

"When do you read my blog? It's just a bunch of boring politics." You just told me the other day you hated politics.

"I read it all the time." When do you have the time. "I see that all your stories are either about republicans or McCain. So, I figure that you are a republican and you like McCain."

"I've written 12 posts about Obama."

"Are any of them good things about Obama?"

He got me there. However, I have agreed with Obama from time to time.

"I've written some not so nice things about McCain," I said.

"But, dad, you haven't written anything good about Obama. That makes me think that you like McCain."

"You're too smart for me, boy."

"So, who ya gonna vote for?"

"I'm not going to tell you."

-------------------------

The discussion continued later that day:

"So dad," the son said, "Who are you going to vote for for president?"

"You know I cannot tell you that," I said.

"Well, I think I'm going to vote for McCain," he said.

"Why is that?"

"Well, it's not because of the Reverend Wright thing or anything like that. It's because I'm not quite sure Obama knows where he stands on the issues." He rattled off a bunch of facts, and impressed me with his knowledge.

When he completed his reasonings, I said, "How do you know about Reverend Wright?"

"Oh, from talk radio that you make me listen to."

"I never make you listen to talk radio."

"No, but you always listen to it on the way to school, and when you pick me up. You know, the talk radio you listen to."

"I didn't think you even listened. I figured you were too busy playing your game boy, or picking on your sister, or picking your nose."

He gave me his, "you-are-a-doofas look. ""Well, yeah, I do all that, but I listen to the radio at the same time. I can get the jist of it, dad. I know what's going on."

"So, you're admitting you pick your nose."

"Yeah, I do sometimes. But you're avoiding my question: Who ya gonna vote for?"
---------------------------
During the 1980 election cycle I was 10. My mom told me she was going to vote for Carter or Anderson. I had no clue who dad was going to vote for. I never even knew his political affiliation until I was an adult.

I liked Ronald Reagan because -- get this reason -- he was old.

I never talked to my parents about politics at all. Then again, my dad didn't have talk radio to listen to, the Internet, and he didn't read political books all the time like I do.

He did, however, have Walter Cronkite (of whom I remember watching), and he did get the newspaper every day. But those things were boring for me.

I sat down to watch TV, and, to be cool, I turned on my son's favorite cartoon. He sat next to me, and grabbed the remote from me.

Click. Lou Dobbs was now on the screen.

"What are you doing, Jordan?"

"I'm watching the news with you."

"Why?"

"Because it's fun."

"I had your favorite cartoon on."

"I'd rather watch the news with you."

"Yeah right."

-----------------------

I imagine I'll be having political discussions with my son long before he ever had political talks with me. I hope so too, because I love politics.

I suppose there are two approaches to politics when raising your kids: 1) brainwash them 2) encourage them to think for themselves.

Oh, wait, there is also a third, which I'll call the Jay Leno approach. Once in a while, Leno sets up a crew, and asks people simple questions. Many have no clue about common knowledge information like: who's the president? Who's the VP?

My son reads Time for Kids, and makes me read them when he's done because he knows I like that kind of "boring" stuff.

Sometimes I wonder why I blog, or why I read about politics. Then I see my son reading, and my son showing an interest in history and politics, and the answer comes to me.

The Jay Leno method is out. And, however much I'd love to do the brainwashing technique, I really do think it's better for kids to learn to think for themselves.