Election Autopsy and the Virtues of Being Closed-Minded

As an adult, I’ve never been one to advocate for avoiding content as a matter of ideology. As a lover of entertainment, I only skip certain things out of taste, not because the performance/subject/piece espoused thinking that was contrary to mine. As such, I’ve never been into boycotting something just because I didn’t agree with it. Sure, I might not buy the product or frequent the establishment anymore, but I wouldn’t go around and convince other people to do the same. Yes, it’s every American’s right to boycott something, but it also smacks of totalitarianism.

“Man, these chicken sandwiches taste great! What’s that? You think marriage should be between a man and woman? Oh, in that case, I’m going to make sure no one eats here ever again!”

After today, I think it’s time to give boycotts a second look. Beyoncé (wife of rapper Jay-Z) tweeted this image after Obama was reelected:

The New Civility

Her husband had done the same in a performance the night before.

Liberals are insufferable. They can’t even win graciously. At the end of the day, even if we can’t come to terms with our political opponents, we must always remember that they are still Americans and deserve the modicum of respect that comes with being countrymen. To essentially call them “bitches” because they disagree with you is a new level of low. It’s time to stop giving these people our money. They don’t respect us and they despise what we stand for and believe in.

This is yet another reason why this election was so important. Ever since 2000, the Left has slowly become more and more emboldened into revealing the assholes that they are. Yes, it was mainly the comedians who went after W. By and large, that was expected. But now we have A-listers like Morgan Freeman outright calling TEA Partiers racists. We have Samuel L. Jackson railing against God that the GOP was spared by hurricane Isaac. Now Beyoncé calls half the country “bitches”. These entertainers are not D-listers. They are still relevant. They don’t have to sink to the depths of Roseanne Barr or Cher and blast hateful screeds to get attention. The fact that Freeman, Jackson and Beyoncé feel completely safe in their careers to behave this way is very telling about the mood of the country.

That brings me to my final point. As much as it pained me to sift through the political sites today, I decided to read a couple of the Conservative blogs for words of wisdom that might make sense of this insanity. One pundit suggested that the Right needs to reach out to minorities more, like Latinos. I don’t know what the hell that means — at least in practical terms. If the Latino community said all we care about is amnesty, then is the Right prepared to give that to get their vote? If women say all they care about is abortion, then is the Right prepared to give that to get their vote? If so, why bother having an opposition political party? If the only way to win is to give away more stuff than the other guy, how does that make us any different than the other guy? How does that not make us worse than the other guy?

As Rush Limbaugh said today: In a nation of children, Santa Claus wins. I don’t know how you can beat Santa Claus by being the Workshop Elf who tells the child that if they study well and work hard that they too might be able to build these wonderful toys, when the child can simply go to Santa and demand the toy the Elf made.

3 Comments on "Election Autopsy and the Virtues of Being Closed-Minded"

  1. Reaching out doesn’t mean pandering. Minorities and women can’t all be so ridiculously short sighted as to vote only one issue everytime without regard to any other issue or concern. They can see only what they are shown. Liberals have been good at painting a desirable picture based on small things. We must show something greater than pettiness.

    We can reach out by finding ways to illustrate that we want everyone to succeed, we stand for fairness and equity for everyone, we seek to build a stronger America by celebrating success and rewarding the virtues of engaged and generous citizenship and a positive work ethic. The Right emphasizes the individual as being the basis of a strong society. We value each and every person, and wish only to provide the most fertile situation to cultivate that unique potential inside each one. We just need to show that a nation based on individuals free to determine their own course does not mean we are selfish. Quite the opposite! We stress civic minded compassion and honor selfless service. We believe that the truest path to equality is the rule of law. We know that justice exists only as justice for all. We beleive that America is exceptional, because we have inherited more than crumbling documents, yellow with age. We have inherited a culture that thirsts for freedom, weeps for the downtrodden, and burns with contempt for any hint of tyrany. The wings of liberty spread wide across this nation. They inspire every man, woman and child regarless of race or situation. They are seen from every corner of the world, and draw envy, hate and indeed longing. And compassion tears our hearts.

    The idea that we should change our view is crazy. If you change your ideals to gain votes, then they aren’t ideals. They are merely opinions. I wouldn’t die for an opinion.

    • Everything equal I could get behind what you’re saying, but the Left has already monopolized the messaging. We can talk about empowering the individual all we want, but it will always be distilled through the Left’s message outlets before it gets to these individual groups. So while we might speak to the Latinos, for example, in good faith, the Left will quickly point out that we are pandering. And if that doesn’t work, they’ll simply drop the Amnesty card and all our talk about empowerment will be nullified.

      I know it’s a cynical worldview, but I think this is the new reality.

      On an anecdotal note, a self-proclaimed “sane” Liberal friend of mine said she would never vote for a party that told her what she could do with her body. How do we reach her without ceding a core tenet?

  2. Abortion is treated as though it has to be some sort of game changing question. Pro-life or Pro-choice? The reality is we never get to the true fight on that issue, because our side is always trying to find some kind of compromise that can fit with their values. That’s the problem: Compromise.

    What whould the press do if they asked a right-wing politician about abortion and the answer went something like this: “That issue was resolved in 1973. Asking about my opinion on a matter that only the Court itself can change seems to be attempting to change the subject from the larger issues that my office (or the office I am seeking) can legitimatly address.”

    They can call it a side-step or a dodge, but no one can say it isn’t the truth. Why get caught up in the little details? Roe v. Wade is the law. It can only be overturned by the SCOTUS. If it gets overturned it goes back to being a State determined matter, and every woman will have more control over the laws that govern abortion because citizens have more control at state and local levels than at the federal level.

    Instead, our guy talks about “legitimate rape” making himself and all of us by association look like moronic asses. The message is sound but the messenger is you and me. I’ve convinced others about the truth. I don’t shy away from the conversation. Some people can’t be saved, but that’s not for me to choose. I will just speak truth.

    Remember the parable of the sower. The concept is the same.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.